پیوند حق و اخلاق در فلسفه‌ی کانت: آموزه‌ی وابستگی

ﯾﮑﯽ از دلﻣﺸﻐﻮﻟﯽﻫﺎی ﮐﺎﻧﺖ، ﺣﺘﯽ ﭘﯿﺶ از ﻃﺮح ﻓﻠﺴﻔﮥ اﻧﺘﻘﺎدی ﺧﻮد، ﻓﻠﺴﻔﮥ ﺣﻖ ﺑﻮده اﺳﺖ. ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﺑﺮای ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ ﻣﻔﺼﻞﺗﺮ آراء او در اﯾﻦ زﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺘﺎﻓﯿﺰﯾﮏ اﺧﻼق ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﻪ ﮐﺮد. ﺷﺎﯾﺪ اﻏﺮاق ﻧﺒﺎﺷﺪ، اﮔﺮ ادﻋﺎ ﮐﻨﯿﻢ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﯾﻦ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ در ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮ اﯾﻦ اﺛﺮ ﭘﯿﻮﻧﺪ ﻣﯿﺎن اﺧﻼق و ﺣﻖ اﺳﺖ. ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎر اﯾﻦ اﺛﺮ، ﻋﺒﺎرات ﻣﻮﺟﻮد در آن و ﻣﻮﺿﻊﮔﯿﺮﻫﺎی دﯾﮕﺮ ﮐﺎﻧﺖ در آﺛﺎر ﭘﯿﺸﯿﻨﺶ، ازﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺑﻨﯿﺎدﮔﺬاری ﻣﺘﺎﻓﯿﺰﯾﮏ اﺧﻼق و ﻧﻘﺪ ﻋﻘﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﯽ، درﯾﺎﻓﺖ روﯾﮑﺮد ﮐﺎﻧﺖ درﺑﺎرة اﯾﻦ ﭘﯿﻮﻧﺪ را ﺑﺎ دﺷﻮاریﻫﺎﯾﯽ روﺑﻪرو ﮐﺮده اﺳﺖ. در اﯾﻦ ﻣﯿﺎن، ﺑﺮﺣﺴﺐ آﻧﮑﻪ ((اﻟﺰام اﺧﻼﻗﯽ)) ﺟﺰﺋﯽ از ﻣﻔﻬﻮم ﺣﻖ اﺳﺖ ﯾﺎ ﺧﯿﺮ، ﻣﯽﺗﻮان ﻣﻔﺴﺮان ﮐﺎﻧﺖ را ﺑﻪ دو دﺳﺘﮥ ﺑﺎورﻣﻨﺪان ﺑﻪ واﺑﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﺣﻖ ﺑﻪ اﺧﻼق (آﻣﻮزة واﺑﺴﺘﮕﯽ)ﯾﺎ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﺎنِ اﯾﻦ واﺑﺴﺘﮕﯽ (آﻣﻮزة ﻧﺎواﺑﺴﺘﮕﯽ) ﺗﻘﺴﯿﻢ ﮐﺮد. از ﻣﯿﺎن اﯾﻦ دو ﮔﺮوه، ﻣﮑﺘﺐ واﺑﺴﺘﮕﯽ روﯾﮑﺮد راﯾﺞﺗﺮ و ﻫﻤﺨﻮانﺗﺮ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎر ﻣﺘﺎﻓﯿﺰﯾﮏ اﺧﻼق اﺳﺖ. ﻫﻮاداران ﻣﮑﺘﺐ واﺑﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﮐﻮﺷﯿﺪهاﻧﺪ از ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻦ ﺑﻨﯿﺎدی ﻣﺸﺘﺮک ﺑﺮای ﻫﺮ دو ﺣﻮزة اِﺗﯿﮏ و ﺣﻘﻮق، از ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﺧﻮد دﻓﺎع ﮐﻨﻨﺪ. ﺑﺪﯾﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﯿﺐ، ﻫﻮﻓﻪ، اﻣﺮِ ﻣﻄﻠﻖِ ﻋﺎم، ﮐﺮﺳﺘﯿﻨﮓ و ﮔﺎﯾﺮ، آزادی و ﭘﺎﺋﺮ اﺷﺘﻮدا، ﻓﺮﻣﻮل ﻗﻠﻤﺮوی ﻏﺎﯾﺎت را ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان اﺻﻞ ﺑﺮﯾﻦ ﻋﻘﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﯽ ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎد دادهاﻧﺪ. ﺳﻮرﯾﻦ ﺑﺎﺋﯿﺎزو ﻧﯿﺰ ﺑﺎ ﺟﺪا ﮐﺮدن اﻋﺘﺒﺎر ﻋﯿﻨﯽ و ذﻫﻨﯽ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﯽ، ﺗﻼش ﮐﺮده ﺑﻪ اﻧﺘﻘﺎدﻫﺎی وﯾﻼﺷﮏ ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﯾﻦ ﻣﺪاﻓﻊ ﻧﻈﺮﯾﮥ ﻧﺎواﺑﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ دﻫﺪ. در اﯾﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﯽﮐﻮﺷﯿﻢ ﺑﺎ ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ اﻧﺘﻘﺎدی آراء ﻧﺎﻣﺪارﺗﺮﯾﻦ ﭼﻬﺮهﻫﺎی اﯾﻦ ﺟﺮﯾﺎن، ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺑﯿﺎن ﺗﻌﺎرضﻫﺎی ﻣﺘﻨﯽ ﻣﺘﺎﻓﯿﺰﯾﮏ اﺧﻼق، ﻧﺸﺎن دﻫﯿﻢ ﮐﻪ ﻫﯿﭻﮐﺪام از ﻣﻔﺴﺮان ﻧﻤﯽﺗﻮاﻧﻨﺪ ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮی ﯾﮑﺪﺳﺖ و ﺑﯽﺗﻌﺎرض از ﻓﻠﺴﻔﮥ ﺣﻖ ﮐﺎﻧﺖ اراﺋﻪ دﻫﻨﺪ.

The Relation between Right and Morality in Kant’s Philosophy: Doctrine of Dependence

Undoubtedly, Kant was interested in philosophy of law, even before proposing his critical philosophy. But, he delivered his fully-fledged philosophy of right in “Metaphysics of Morals”. Regarding the review and analysis of the book, probably the most complicated issue discussed by Kant specialists is the relation between right and morality. The structure of the book, some of its ambiguous passages and Kant’s prior positions about philosophy of morals in “Critique of Practical Reason” and “Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals” have mystified the real idea of Kant as for this relation. According to the belief that the “strict right” implicates the (moral) ought or not, one can categorize Kant specialists into two main groups: defendants of dependence or believers on independence doctrine. The first school of thought is the more popular and more conforming to the structure of “Metaphysics of Morals”. In order to justify the doctrine, Höffe has proposed the general categorical imperative, Guyer and Kersting freedom and Pauer-Studer the kingdom of ends formula as the general foundation of Kant’s moral philosophy which should include both domains of ethics and Law. Moreover, Sorin Baiasu has sought to refute Willaschek’s critiques, as the most powerful one on the doctrine of dependence, by distinguishing between subjective and objective validity of legal norms. Despite all these efforts, it does not seem that the doctrine is fully successful. The essay is designed to make the Persian speaking community familiar with these efforts.