这意味着什么？Which means what?根据我给自己定下的准则According to a law that I give myself，我们必须有能力，如果我们有自主的能力we must be capable, if we're capable of freedom as autonomy,我们必须有不遵循外加的或强加we must be capable of acting according not to a law给我们的准则的能力that's given or imposed on us而是遵循，我们给自己定下的准则but according to a law we give ourselves.但是，在这样的法则从哪里来？But where could such a law come from?这种我们给自己设定的法则A law that we give ourselves.是理性Reason.如果理性决定了我的意志If reason determines my will那么我的意志将成为不依赖于自然规定then the will becomes a power to choose independent of the dictates of nature或偏好和外部情况的力量or inclination or circumstance.因此，连接康德严格的道德观和自由观的So, connected with Kant's demanding notions of morality and freedom就是这种定义严格的理性is a specially demanding notion of reason.那么，理性如何决定意志？Well, how can reason determine the will?有两种方法，而这也引出了第三组对比There are two ways and this leads to the third contrast.康德说，理性有两种不同的律令Kant says there are two different commands of reason其中一种律令，康德称之为“命令”and a command of reason Kant calls an imperative“命令”就是应该an imperative is simply an ought.有一种命令，也许是最熟悉的一种One kind of imperative, perhaps the most familiar kind,就是“假言命令”is a hypothetical imperative.假言命令是工具性的理性Hypothetical imperatives use instrumental reason.如果你想要X，就做出行为YIf you want x then do y.它是目的-手段的推理It's means-ends reasoning.如果你想有一个良好的商业信誉，那就不要少找你的客户零钱If you want a good business reputation then don't shortchange your customers,因为事情（的真相）会传出去word may get out.这是一个假言命令That's a hypothetical imperative.“如果该行为是实现目的的手段"If the action would be good solely as a means to something else,"康德写道，“这个就是假言命令。Kant writes, "the imperative is hypothetical.如果行为本身是好的If the action is represented as good in itself因此这个意志本身就符合理性and therefore is necessary for a will which of itself accords with reason,那么，它就是“定言命令” （或译作绝对命令）then the imperative is categorical."这就是“定言命令”和That's the difference between a categorical imperative“假言命令”的区别and a hypothetical one.定言命令是绝对性的A categorical imperative commands categorically,这就意味着，它不参考或依赖任何其他目的which just means without reference to or dependence on any further purpose所以，你看到and so you see the connection这三组平行的对立物之间的联系among these three parallel contrasts.为了获得自由，在自主的范畴内To be free, in the sense of autonomous,需要我的行为，不是出于“假言命令”requires that I act not out of a hypothetical imperative而是出于“定言命令”but out of a categorical imperative.所以，通过看康德的这3组对立体And so you see by these three contrasts Kant reasons his way,引导我们推导出“定言命令”brings us up to his derivation of the categorical imperative.那么，这给我们留下一个大问题：Well, this leaves us one big question:什么是“定言命令”？what is the categorical imperative?什么是道德的最高原则？What is the supreme principle of morality?它命令什么？What does it command of us?康德列举了“定言命令”的三个版本Kant gives three versions, three formulations,三种陈述of the categorical imperative.我想提其中的两种，然后看看你对它们怎么看I want to mention two and then see what you think of them.第一个版本，第一种表述The first version, the first formula,他称之为，普遍法则he calls the formula of the universal law;“如果在同一时间所有人都会遵循某个法则"Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will那么，它应该是普遍法则。”that it should become a universal law."“某个法则”，是指什么？And by maxim, what does Kant mean?他是指，能解释你做事情的原因He means a rule that explains the reason for what you're doing,的一个原则a principle.例如，守信用For example, promise keeping.假设我需要钱，我极度地需要100元Suppose I need money, I need $100 desperately我知道我不可能还钱and I know I can't pay it back anytime soon.我来找你，给你承诺I come to you and make you a promise,一个虚假的承诺，一个我知道我不能遵守的承诺a false promise, one I know I can't keep,“请借我钱，给我100元"Please give me $100 today, lend me the money,下周我会还给你“I will repay you next week."它与定言命令一致吗？Is that consistent with the categorical imperative,那个虚假的承诺？that false promise?康德说，不Kant says no.我们检验，我们决定And the test, the way we can determine那个承诺承诺是否与定言命令不一致that the false promise is at odds with the categorical imperative就是把它普遍化is try to universalize it,把它推广到你将要做的事universalize the maxim upon which you're about to act.如果每个人在需要钱的时候，都作出虚假承诺If everybody made false promises when they needed money那么，将会没人相信这些承诺then nobody would believe those promises,以后就不存在承诺这个东西there would be no such thing as a promise,所以，这里有矛盾and so there would be a contradiction.把这个准则普遍化时，却有悖它本身The maxim universalized would undermine itself.这是检验的方法That's the test.用这个方法，我们就可以知道虚假承诺是错误的That's how we can know that the false promise is wrong.那么，怎么看普遍法则呢？Well what about the formula of the universal law?你觉得它有说服力吗？You find it persuasive?你怎么看？请What do you think? Go ahead.我有个问题，关于“绝对的”和“假设的”I have a question about the difference between categoricalism之间的区别，如果你要准备做一件事....and a hypothesis that if you're going to act . . .“绝对的”和“假设的”Between categorical and hypothetical.对，假设的Hypothetical, yeah.命令Imperatives.好。如果你按照“绝对命令”（即定言命令）Right. If you're going to act with a categorical imperative这样，这个准则并不有悖它本身so that the maxim doesn't undermine itself,这听起来像我将要做X，因为我想?it sounds like I am going to do x because I want y,但我迫切需要时，我不会撒谎，是因为我希望I'm going to not lie in dire need because I want the world to function这个世界还有承诺这个东西，并按承诺来运行in such a way that promises are kept.我不想看到 承诺的消失I don't want to liquidate the practice of promises.对，这听起来像，目的把手段合理化Right, it sounds like justifying a means by an ends.这似乎像是结果主义推理的方式（第1集提到 结果主义）It seems like an instance of consequentialist reasoning,你是说。 - 好的。you're saying. -- Right.- 而你叫什么名字？ - Tim。-- And what's your name? -- Tim.Tim，约翰·密尔同意你的看法 （第3集提到的哲学家）Well Tim, John Stewart Mill agreed with you.他批评康德He made this criticism of Kant.他说：“如果我将这一准则普遍化，然后发现He said, "If I universalize the maxim and find that the whole practice如果大家都这样，承诺就会消失of promise keeping would be destroyed if universalized,如果这就是不作出虚假的承诺的理由I must be appealing somehow to consequences我肯定是多少在意它的结果”if that's the reason not to tell a false promise."因此，约翰·密尔同意这样批评康德So, John Stewart Mill agreed with that criticism against Kant但约翰·密尔错了but John Stewart Mill was wrong.不过，你有（密尔）这个好的队友，Tim。You're in good company though. You're in good company, Tim.康德经常想，就像Tim把康德理解为Kant has often read, as Tim just read him,他在意（行为的）后果 （之前提到只看重动机，不看重结果）as appealing to consequences.如果每个人都说谎，世界将会更糟糕The world would be worse off if everybody lied因为那时，没人会相信其他人说的话because then no one could rely on anybody else's word因此，你不应该说谎therefore you shouldn't lie.这不是康德真正的意思That's not what Kant is saying exactly.虽然，很容易把康德的话说理解Although, it's easy to interpret him as saying that.我认为，他想说的是，这是检验的方法I think what he's saying is that this is the test,这是检验这一准则是否和this is the test of whether the maxim corresponds定言命令一致的方法with the categorical imperative.这是不真正的原因，这不是It isn't exactly the reason, it's not the reason,你把你的准则普遍化，以此来检验the reason you should universalize to test your maxim你的特定需要和欲望是否，高于其他人的需要is to see whether you are privileging your particular needs and desires（这不是你这样做的原因）over everybody else's.这只是It's a way of pointing to this feature,定言命令的这一要求this demand of the categorical imperative你的行为的目的，不应建立在that the reasons for your action shouldn't depend把你的利益和需要合理化for their justification on your interests, your needs,把你的情况看成比别人的重要合理化your special circumstances being more important than somebody else's.我认为，这是这个检验方法背后的道德理念That, I think, is the moral intuition lying behind the universalization test.好的，让我接着把So, let me spell out the second,康德关于Kant's second version of the categorical imperative,比（之前的）普遍法则，更直观易懂的方式perhaps in a way that's more intuitively accessible来表述讲清楚than the formula of universal law.这是把人视作目的，的一种表述It's the formula of humanity as an end.康德用下面的陈述，来介绍Kant introduces the second version of the categorical imperative定言命令的第二个版本：with the following line of argument:“我们不能把定言命令"We can't base the categorical imperative