康德的「責任的作者」概念

Kant's Concept of “Author of Obligation”

John Hare 認為，雖然康德否認道德義務的內涵出於上帝的誡命，但是他卻相信上帝的誡命是道德義務的權威的來源。Hare 因此主張，康德其實是一位上帝誡命論者。本文引述康德對自然責任與制定責任的區分，指出道德法則的強制能力是自然責任，沒有任何作者；所謂「上帝是依據道德法則的責任的作者」，其實是指祂是以道德義務作為內涵的上帝的誡命的制定責任的作者，又或者說，是道德法則的自然責任的轉化者或強化者。由於上帝並不是道德法則本身具有的自然責任的作者，上帝的誡命並不是道德義務的權威的來源。因此，Hare 的論點並不成立。

John Hare has argued that Kant does not reject the divine command theory in general because he himself accepts a form of the theory. While Kant denies that divine commands are the source of the content of duties, he believes that duties depend on divine commands for their authority, so says Hare. This articles attempts to clarify Kant's conception of moral legislator as author of obligation. By referring to Kant's distinction between natural and positive obligations, I argue that the moral law is a natural law and its obligation has no author. While Kant calls God author of the obligation in accordance with the moral law, he means that God is the author of the positive obligation of divine commands, or alternatively speaking, God is the enhancer of the obligation of the moral law by transforming it from a natural obligation into a positive one. As God is not the author of the obligation of the moral law as such, moral duties do not depend on divine commands for their authority. I, therefore, conclude that Hare's thesis is not plausible.