two concepts of the highest good in kant

8/8/2019 Two Concepts of the Highest Good in Kant

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/two-concepts-of-the-highest-good-in-kant 1/28

Two Conceptions of the Highest Good in Kant

Reath, Andrews.

Journal of the History of Philosophy, Volume 26, Number 4, October

1988, pp. 593-619 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by University of Puerto Rico at 10/06/10 11:46PM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hph/summary/v026/26.4reath.html





T w o C o n c e p t i o n s o f t h e H i g h e s t

G ood in K ant

A N D R E W S R E A T H

l ~

K AN T'S N OTIO N o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d h a s a l w a y s b e e n a s u b j ec t o f s o m e c o n t r o -

v e r sy . , B u t i n m y o p i n i o n , i t h a s a t t ra c t e d c o n t r o v e r s y o f th e w r o n g s o r t .

S c h o l a r s d i sa g r e e w h e t h e r t h e H i g h e s t G o o d b e l o n g s in K a n t ' s m o r a l t h e o r y ,

o r h a s a n y i m p o r t a n c e t h e r e . B u t t h e se q u e s t i o n s c a n n o t b e re s o l v e d u n t i l o n e

h a s se t t l e d a n i s su e t h a t is c l e ar l y m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l , t h o u g h le ss o f t e n a s k e d :

W h a t i s t h e H i g h e s t G o o d a n d h o w i s i t t o b e u n d e r s t o o d ? W h a t i s e s s en t ia l t o

t h e d o c t r i n e a n d w h a t is n o t ? C o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e t e n d e d t o u n d e r e s t i m a t e

t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f th e i n t e r p r e t i v e i ss u es w h i c h t h e t e x ts p r e s e n t , w i th t h e

r e s u l t t h a t t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l s i g n i f ic a n c e o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d h a s b e e n o b -

s c u r e d . I s u s p e c t t h a t d i s a g r e e m e n t s a b o u t its p r o p e r r o l e i n K a n t ' s m o r a l

Citat ions to K ant 's works w il l give the pag e in a t ranslat ion fol lowed by the p age in the

Pruss ian Acad emy edi t ion of Kant 's Gesam melte Schriften. Th ey are included in parentheses in thebod y o f the p ap er w here possible. Th e abbreviat ions an d translat ions used are as fol lows:

Gl Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, t rans. H.J . Pa ton (New York: Ha rpe r & Row, 1964) .

Idea ldea for a Universal History ro m a Cosmopolitan Point of V iew, trans. H. B. Nisbet, in Kant'sPolitical Writings, ed. H ans Reiss (Cambridge: Cam bridg e University Press, 1977). [This col-

lection includes several essays.]KpVC ritique of Practical Reason, trans. Lew is W hite Beck (Indianapolis: Bobb s-Merrill, 1956).

Kr V Cri tique of Pure Reason, t rans. N orm an K em p Smith (New York: St . Mart in's Press, 1965).KU Cri tique ofJudgment, t ran s . J .C . Meredith (Ox ford: Clarend on Press , 1952) .LE Lectures on Ethics, trans. Louis Infield (Indianapolis: H ack ett Publishing, 1 979).

Md SThe Doctr ine of Vir tue: P art 11 of the Metaphysic of Morals , t rans. Mary J. G reg or (Philadelphia:University o f Pennsylvania Press, 1964).

PP Perpetual Peace. See Idea.Re l Religion Within theLimits o f Reason Alone, t rans . T . M. Greene and H. H. H udso n (New York:

Har pe r & Row, 1960).

TP On the Common Saying: This May B e True in Theory, Bu t I t Does Not Apply in Pract ice. See Idea.WO W hat is Orientation in Thinking?, in The Critique of Practical Reason and Other Writing in M oralPhilosophy, trans. Lew is W hite Beck (Chicago: University o f Chicago Pres, 1949).

[593]



594 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 26:4 O C T O B E R 1988

theory can often be traced to differe nces in interpreta tion that have not been

clearly articulated. My suggestion is that one should be able to prod uce ag ree-

ment about the soundness of the notion simply by finding the right interpreta-

tion. The first step here is to show that what Kant intended by the Highest

Good remains an ope n question.

Kant conceived of the Highest Good as the final end of the Moral Law,

which moral conduct ought to promote in the long run. Both critics and

defen ders of the notion have taken it for granted that it should be unde rstoo d

as a world in which happiness would exist in proportion to virtue. There is

also some consensus that Kant conceived of this state of affairs as occur ring in

another world, rather than in the world of sense. Both features have beenfound deeply problematic. The idea of a proportionality of virtue and happi-

ness seems to lead to h ete ronomy , and it is difficult to see how to integrat e an

otherworldly end of this sort into the rest of Kant's moral theory. This concep-

tion of the Hig hest Good is indeed fou nd in the texts. The critics have thought

that by pointing to its flaws, one could dismiss the entire doctrine. However,

since the texts contain another version of the Highest Good which is not

affected by these difficulties, one can conclude that they have done so prema-

turely. On the othe r hand, sympathetic commenta tors have tended to def end

the notion at the expense of overlooking some troubling textual problems.Defenders of the Highest Good must also acknowledge that there are ele-

ments in Kant's treatment of it that one would not expect to find there, and

which seem inconsistent with oth er feature s of his view.

This paper has several aims. I want to argue that the Highest Good need

not be viewed as a theological notion, and that the proportionality of virtue

and happiness is not essential to the doctrine. I will show how we may defe nd a

conception of the Highest Good which treats it as an end to be achieved

through human agency, and that combines virtue and happiness, though not

by a relation of proportionalit y. I will do so by showing that t here a re di ffe rent

conceptions of the Highest Good in the texts, both a "theological" conception

and a "secular" (or political) conception, and will suggest a rationale fo r taking

the latter as the best express ion of Kant's view. Fur th ermore I wish to develop

a defense of the Highest Good that explains why the notion has so often been

dismissed. One wonders why so many commentators have found it obviously

flawed, and a departure from Kant's considered views, while others are in-

clined to accept it without question. The approach of distinguishing two dis-

tinct strands to Kant's thoug ht o ffe rs a partial explanation, as well as suggest-

ing a way to defend the doctrine as a whole. The theological conception does

seem open to a number of objections. But since they do not affect the secular

conception, the best way to defend the Highest Good is to show that the

secular version states what is essential to the view, and is the one to which Kant



596 JOURN AL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSO PHY 26:4 OCTOBER 1988

it in the larger context of that work. An unders tandin g of the proc edure by

which it is def ined is essential to an underst andin g of its place in Kant's moral

theory, and gives us guidelines for its prop er interpretation.

We should focus initially on Kant's concept of the good as an "object of

pure practical reason," developed in chapter 2 of the "Analytic" of the second

Critique. He opens this discussion by defining an "object of practical reason" as

an "effect possible through freedom"--meaning, presumably, any end at

which an agent could direct an action (KpV 59/57). It would follow that an

object of pure practical reason would be one that could result from the moraluse of f reedom--i. e., an end of morally good conduct. This interpretation is

confirmed when Kant goes on to say that one decides whether something is anobject of pure practical reason by jud ging whethe r one can will the action that

would bring it about. The sense of the passage and the ensuing discussion is

clearly that the good refers to any object or end that a person could will in

accordance with the Categorical Imperative. An end or state of affairs is a

moral good i f it can be the end of an action that is morally good, or the object

of a person's mora l intention.4

There are two fur the r points to note about this discussion. In judgi ng

whether an object is morally good, we need not consider whether we have the

physical ability to bring it about, but only whether the re are moral grounds forwilling the actions that would bring it about. As Kant says, the "moral possibil-

ity of the action takes precedence..." (KpV 6o/58). In short, a conception of

the good can be an ideal that surpasses our abilities, as one would expect.

4 One influential interpretation reads Kant as saying that the on ly objects of pur e practical

reason, and so the only moral goods, are actions, or t heir form. In this vein, Beck writes that "the

object of pure practical rea son is not an effe ct of action but the action itself; the good will has itself

as object." See his A Comm entary on Kant ' s C ritique o f Practical Reason (Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 196o), 134. Jo hn Silber argues f or this view in "The Copernica n Revolution in

Ethics", in Ka nt: A Collection o f Crit ica l Essays, ed. Robert Paul Wolff (Notre Dame: University ofNotr e Dame Press, 1967), esp. 287 -9o . Yirmiah u Yovel follows Silber's interpr etat ion in K a n t a n dthe Philosophy o f History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 198o), 44-46. R. Z. Friedman also

relies on this view in "The Importance and Function of Kant's Highest Good," i n J o u r n a l o f t h eHistory o f P hilosophy 22 (x984): 395 -42. See 326, 327 ff., 336. However it is clearly not Kant's view

that the good will is the "sole moral g ood," as Silber writes, or tha t it can only have itself as object.

For one thing, this seriously undere stima tes the i mporta nce of Kant's duties of virtue, especially

the duty to promote the happiness of others. (Cf. M d S 43-47/384-8 8, 51-54/391-94. ) In the

passages under discussion, Kant does say that an action done in accordance with the Moral Law is

good in i tsel f and that the will "whose maxims accord with this law is absolu tely and in every respectgood" (KpV 64/62; Kant' s emphasis.). But this certainly allows fo r the en d of an action to be a moral

good, when t he action is in accordance with the Categorical Imperative. Kant only means to assert

that the moral g oodness of an object or end must be jud ged relative to an action or maxim bywhich it can be prod uced. For a criticism of Beck's inter pretat ion which develops this alternative,

see Allen W. Wood, K a n t 's M o r a l R e l i g w n (Ithaca: Corn ell University Press, 197o), 62- 68.



T H E HIG H E ST G O O D IN K A N T 597

H o w e v e r , s o m e r e l a t io n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e g o o d a n d h u m a n a g e n c y is i m p l ie d

w h e n t h e g o o d i s d e f i n e d a s t h e p o s s i b le o b j e c t o f a p e r s o n ' s m o r a l i n t e n t i o n ,

e v e n w h e n t h e l a t te r i s n o t l i m i t e d b y w h a t l ie s w i t h i n o u r a c t u a l p o w e r s . I n

d e f i n i n g a n o b j e c t o f p r a c t i ca l r e a s o n a s a n " e f f e c t p o s s ib l e t h r o u g h f r e e d o m , "

K a n t c o m m i t s h i m s e l f t o th e v i e w t h a t o n l y s ta te s o f a f f a ir s t h a t w e c a n i m a g -

i n e a s t h e p o s s i b le r e s u l t s o f h u m a n a c t io n a r e i n c l u d e d i n w h a t is m o r a l l y

g o o d . O n e d e c i d e s w h e t h e r a n o b j e c t is m o r a l l y g o o d b y a s k i n g w h e t h e r o n e

c o u l d w i l l a n a c t i o n d i r e c t e d t o w a r d s i t. B u t i t w o u l d m a k e n o s e n s e t o ta lk

a b o u t w i l l i n g a n a c t i o n d i r e c t e d a t a n o b j e c t , e v e n h y p o t h e t i c a l l y , u n l e s s i t

w e r e s o m e t h i n g t h a t w e c o u l d i m a g i n e a s a r e s u l t o f h u m a n a g e n c y . T h e

s e c o n d p o i n t , t h e n , is t h a t K a n t ' s d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e g o o d s h o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t i t

s h o u l d a p p l y t o p o s s i b le h u m a n e n ds .5

I t is t hi s c o n c e p t o f t h e g o o d t h a t a l lo w s f o r t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f th e H i g h e s t

G o o d i n t h e " D i a le c t i c " o f t h e s e c o n d Critique; t h e l a t t e r , i n f a c t , is j u s t a n

e x t e n s i o n o f t h e f o r m e r . W h e n t h e H i g h e s t G o o d is f ir st m e n t i o n e d i t is

r e f e r r e d t o a s " t h e u n c o n d i t i o n e d t o t a l it y o f th e o b j e c t o f p u r e r e a s o n , " o r a s I

s h a l l a b b r e v i a t e i t , t h e unconditioned object o f th e M o r a l L a w (KpV 1 1 2 / 1 0 8 ) .

T h i s t e r m c a n b e e x p l a i n e d q u i t e s im p l y . W h e r e t h e g o o d , a s o b j e c t o f p u r e

p r a c t i c a l r e a s o n , r e f e r s t o a n e n d t h a t c o u l d r e s u l t f r o m t h e m o r a l u s e o f

f r e e d o m , t h e u n c o n d i t i o n e d o b je c t , o r H i g h e s t G o o d , w o u l d b e j u s t t h a t - - t h ehighest g o o d t h a t c o u l d r e su l t f r o m t h e m o r a l u s e o f f r e e d o m . T h e u n c o n d i -

t i o n e d o b j e c t s h o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s t h e t o ta l it y o r t h e c o m p l e t e s e t o f e n d s

t h a t c o u l d r e s u l t f r o m m o r a l c o n d u c t . I n th is w a y t h e H i g h e s t G o o d c a n b e

s e e n a s a c o n s t r u c t o f r e a s o n i n its c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a c t i v it y o f i n t r o d u c i n g s y s t e m -

a ti c u n i ty i n t o a b o d y o f g i v e n m a t e r i a l - - t h e m a t e r ia l h e r e b e i n g t h e e n d s t h a t

c a n b e c o n t a i n e d i n o r c o u l d r e s u l t f r o m m o r a l c o n d u c t ( K p V 1 1 9 / 1 0 8 ) . I t is

d e r i v e d b y a f u r t h e r u s e o f r e a s o n o n t h e e n d s o f m o r a l c o n d u c t , o n c e t h e

M o r a l L a w h a s b e e n f o r m u l a t e d a n d w e k n o w w h a t t h o s e e n d s a re . 6 H e r e w e

c a n s e e t h a t a n o t i o n o f th e H i g h e s t G o o d is i m p l ic i t i n h i s m o r a l t h e o r y f r o m

5 I should mak e i t c lear tha t by "poss ible hum an ends," I mean to include end s tha t could bethe results o f hu m an con du ct und er ideal conditions. This is the result o f taking th e two condi-

t ions ment ioned in this para grap h together .6 Many comm enta tors w ho dou bt wh ether the Highest Goo d has any prac tica l s ignif icance as

an end for human conduct a re t roubled by the fac t tha t i t i s never ment ioned in any of the

form ulat ion s of the Categorical Im perat ive . (See, e .g., R. Z. Friedman, "Good," 3 30.) H ere w e seea simple explanation. Since the H ighes t Goo d is an ob ject defined by the M oral Law, i t cannotbeint roduc ed unt il a f te r the law has been form ula ted. Thu s we should no t expect i t to app ear in any

of the form ula t ions of the Categorica l Impera t ive . On this see KpV 65 ff./63/ff., especially 67/64:

"Bu t only muc h later, wh en the mo ral law has been established by itself and just ified as the directde termin ing g rou nd of the w i ll , can thi s objec t [ the highest good ] be presented to the wi l l . . . This

we shall und ertak e in the Dialect ic o f Pu re Practical Reason."



598 JOURN AL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 26:4 OCTOBER 1 9 8 8

t h e s t a r t , a n d t h a t s o m e n o t i o n o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d f o l lo w s s i m p l y f r o m t h e

f a c t t h a t m o r a l c o n d u c t i s d i r e c t e d a t e n d s. 7

I n i n t r o d u c i n g t h e H i g h e s t G o o d a s t h e u n c o n d i t i o n e d o b j e c t o f t h e M o r a l

L a w , K a n t s i m p l y e x t e n d s h is e a r l i e r n o t i o n o f t h e g o o d i n a n o b v i o u s w a y . B u t

w h a t k e e p s t h e H i g h e s t G o o d u n c o n t r o v e r s i a l a t th i s i n i t i a l s t a g e a l s o l im i t s i ts

u s e . A t t h i s p o i n t t h e n o t i o n i s t o o a b s t r a c t t o p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t ro l e i n t h e

m o r a l t h e o r y , a n d i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o s t a t e in m o r e d e t a i l t h e e n d s t h a t i t w i ll

c o n t a i n a n d t h e w a y in w h i c h t h e y a r e t o b e o r d e r e d . T h i s c a n b e d o n e b y

o r d e r i n g t h e i n t e r e s t s b y w h i c h h u m a n b e i n g s a r e m o v e d , a n d t h e d i f f e r e n t

s o r ts o f e n d s t h a t t h e y c a n p u r s u e i n a c t i n g f r o m t h e M o r a l L a w . T h u s , K a n t ' s

n e x t s t e p i s t o " d e f i n e t h is i d e a p r a c t i c a l l y - - i . e . , s u f f i c i en t l y fo r t h e m a x i m s o f

o u r r a t i o n a l c o n d u c t " ( K p V 1 12/ lO8) . T h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s " p r a c t i c a l d e f i n i -

t i o n " i s t o w o r k o u t t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d , s o t h a t i t c a n b e c o m e a n

o b j e c t o f o u r e n d e a v o r s . T h i s i s w h a t K a n t g o e s o n t o d o i n t h e s u c c e e d i n g

p a g e s , s i n c e it i s o n l y a f t e r t h i s p o i n t i n t h e t e x t t h a t h e b e g i n s d e s c r i b i n g t h e

H i g h e s t G o o d i n t e r m s o f a c o m b i n a t i o n o f v i r tu e a n d h a p p i n e s s , s W h a t h e

s a y s, a n d c o n t i n u e s t o s a y i n t h e r e s t o f t h e " D i a l e c t ic , " is t h a t i t w i ll i n v o l v e a

p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y o f v i r t u e a n d h a p p i n e s s , o r a " n e c e s s a r y c o n n e c t i o n " b e t w e e n

v i r t u e a n d h a p p i n e s s . W e c a n i n f e r t h a t t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n i s t h e r e s u l t r e a c h e d

b y K a n t ' s " p r a c t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n " i n t h is w o r k . I n o t h e r w o r d s , i t i s a c o n c e p t i o no f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d t h a t is s u p p o s e d t o f o ll o w w h e n o n e w o r k s o u t t h e

c o n t e n t o f t h e i n i t i a l i d e a , t h a t o f t h e u n c o n d i t i o n e d o b j e c t o f th e M o r a l L a w .

I t is i m p o r t a n t t o se e t h a t t h e r e a r e t w o l e v e l s o f d e s c r i p t i o n o p e r a t i n g i n

t h is p a s s a g e . K a n t b e g i n s w i t h a g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e n o t i o n ( " th e u n c o n -

d i t i o n e d o b j e c t " ) . T h i s i n i t i a l d e s c r i p t i o n i n d i c a t e s h o w i t is r e l a t e d t o t h e

M o r a l L a w , w h i l e a t t h e s a m e t i m e s u g g e s t i n g a p r o c e d u r e f o r f i l l in g o u t t h e

d e t a i l s ( h e r e s y s t e m a t i z i n g t h e e n d s t h a t c a n b e c o n t a i n e d i n m o r a l c o n d u c t ) .

7 On th is see the fo l lowing rem ark : "For , in fact , the m ora l law idea l ly t ransfers us in to an a tu r e i n wh ich r ea so n wo u ld b r in g f o r th t h e h ig h es t g o o d wer e i t a cco m p an ied b y su f f i c i en t

capaci t ies; and i t de te rm ines ou r wi l l to impa r t to the sensuous w or ld the fo rm o f a system of

ra t ional be ings" (KpV 4 5 /4 4 ). T h e m o v em en t t o war d s t h e Hig h es t Go o d in t h e seco n d Critique as a

whole can be desc r ibed as fo llows. The "Analy t ic" opens wi th an account o f the M oral Law. Th e

co n cep t o f an objecto f p u r e p r ac t ic a l r e a so n can th en b e d e f in ed in t e r m s o f t h is principle. T h i s

p u t s K an t i n a p o s i t i o n to t ak e u p th e d e f in i t io n o f t h e unconditioned objectof the M oral Law in the

"Dialec t ic ." (H ere no te tha t i t is in the p rocess o f def in in g the H ighest Goo d tha t p ure p rac t ica l

reason en cou nters i t s "d ia lec t ic ." )

8 Specif ica lly I w ould say tha t the "prac t ica l def in i t ion" occurs in the p assage in which K ant

says tha t the h ighest o r "per fec t" good would , in add i t ion to v i r tue , requ ire happiness " in theju d g m en t o f an im p a r t i a l r e a so n , wh ich im p a r t i a l ly r eg a r d s p e r so n s in t h e w o r ld as en d s - in -

themselves" (KpV 1 O/114), K ant a r r ives a t a descr ip t ion of the con ten t o f the High est Good byask in g wh a t w o u ld acco r d wi th t h e ju d g m en t o f an im p a r t i a l re a so n . I t ak e th e " co m p le t e v o l it i ono f an o m n ip o ten t r a t i o n a l b e in g " to co r r e sp o n d to t h e u n co n d i t i o n ed o b jec t o f t h e M o r a l L aw.

Bo th a r e way s o f r ep r e sen t in g th e r ea l i z a t io n o f t h e en d s o f m o r a l co n d u c t i n t h e i r t o t al it y .



T H E H I G H E S T G O O D I N K A N T 5 9 9

S u c h a d e s c r i p t i o n a r t i c u l a t e s t h e c o n c e p t o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d , a n d s h o u l d h e

t a k e n a s s t a t i n g t h e e s s e n t ia l i de a . H e t h e n u s e s th e s u g g e s t e d p r o c e d u r e t o

d e r i v e a m o r e c o n c r e t e d e s c r i p t i o n w h i c h s p e c if i es it s c o n t e n t , a n d i t is i n th i s

w a y t h a t K a n t c o m e s t o r e f e r t o th e H i g h e s t G o o d i n t e r m s o f a c o m b i n a t i o n o f

v i r t u e a n d h a p p i n e s s . W h i l e d e s c r i p t i o n s o f th e l a t te r s o r t a r e t h e m o s t f r e -

q u e n t l y e m p l o y e d i n t h e r e s t o f t h e t e x t , it is c l e a r t h a t t h e y a r e d e r i v a t i v e ; i t

s h o u l d b e p o s s ib l e t o t r a c e t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m t h e c o n c e p t o f t h e H i g h e s t

G o o d . T h e r e a r e r e a s o n s t o ta k e th is tw o s ta g e p r o c e d u r e a s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f

K a n t ' s c o n s i d e r e d v ie w s, a n d a s h a v i n g s o m e a u t h o r i t y o n h o w t h e H i g h e s t

G o o d is t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d . N o t o n l y is t h e s e c o n d C r i t i q u e t h e t e x t i n w h i c h

K a n t o f f e r s t h e m o s t ex p l ic i t a c c o u n t o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d . T h i s s a m e g e n e r a l

p a t t e r n is a l so f o u n d i n th e r e l e v a n t d i s c u ss i o n s i n th e f ir st a n d t h i r d C r i t i q u e s .

I n t h e C r i ti q ue o f P u r e R e a s o n , t h e H i g h e s t G o o d is r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e m o r a l

w o r l d t h e i d e a l o f a w o r l d i n w h i c h a ll i n d i v i d u a l s a c t f r o m t h e M o r a l L a w . H e

t h e n g o e s o n t o s u g g e s t t h a t i n s u c h a w o r l d , t h e h a p p i n e s s o f al l w o u l d r e s u l t

f r o m t h e v i r t u e o f al l , a c ti n g f r o m a s h a r e d s y s t em o f m o r a l p r i n c i p le s , a n d in

t hi s w a y c o m e s t o d e s c r i b e i ts c o n t e n t i n t e r m s o f a c o m b i n a t i o n o f v i rt u e a n d

h a p p i n e s s . 9 A s i n t h e s e c o n d C r i t i q u e , t h e n o t i o n is f i rs t i n t r o d u c e d i n a n

a b s t r a c t f o r m , f r o m w h i c h a d e s c r i p t io n o f its c o n t e n t c a n t h e n b e d e r i v e d .

W h a t I h a v e t r i e d t o e s t a b li s h s o f a r is t h a t a t t e n t i o n t o h o w t h e H i g h e s tG o o d i s i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e s e c o n d C r i t i q u e ( a n d e l s e w h e r e ) s h o w s t h a t i t is a n

e n d t o b e c o n s t r u c t e d o u t o f t h e M o r a l L a w . T h i s i m p l i e s , fi rs t, t h a t it s h o u l d

i n it ia ll y b e c o n c e i v e d a s a s t a te o f a f f a i r s t h a t c o u l d r e s u l t f r o m h u m a n a g e n c y .

H e r e w e s h o u l d c o n s i d e r m y e a r l i e r p o in t a b o u t K a n t ' s c o n c e p t o f t h e g o o d . I f

t h e g o o d r e f e r s t o po s s ib l e h u m a n e n d s , t h e s a m e c o n d i t i o n s h o u l d a p p l y t o

t h e H i g h e s t G o o d a s w e ll . S e c o n d , t h e p r o c e d u r e b y w h i c h K a n t d e fi n e s t h e

H i g h e s t G o o d i n d ic a t e s t h a t a d e s c r i p t i o n o f i ts c o n t e n t s h o u l d b e d e r i v e d

f r o m t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e M o r a l L a w , a n d s h o u l d i n v ol v e s o m e o r d e r i n g o f t h e

e n d s t h a t f i g u r e in K a n t ' s c o n c e p t i o n o f m o r a l c o n d u c t . T h u s , a c o n c e p t i o n o f

t h e H i g h e s t G o o d w h o s e c o n t e n t c a n n o t b e t ra c e d t o t h e M o r a l L a w is n o t a

p r o p e r d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d . T h e s e a r e p o in t s to b e a r in m i n d a s

w e c o n t i n u e .

T h e p o s i t i o n d e v e l o p e d s o f a r c a n b e c l ar i fi e d b y c o n t r a s t i n g i t w i t h a

d i f f e r e n t , a n d I b e l ie v e m i s t a k e n , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e H i g h e s t

9 AS Kant says, "I entitle th e w orld a moral world, in so far as it may be in accordance w ith allmoral laws; and this is what by means of the fre edom of the rational being it can be, and whataccording to the necessary laws of m orality it ought to be . . . [This] is a practical idea, w hich really

can ha v e .. , an influence upon the sensible world, to bring that world, so far as may be possible,into conformity with the idea" (KrV B 836 ). I will discuss this idea f urt he r in section 6. Note alsothat in the Crit ique of Judgm ent, it is introduced as the final end of the M oral Law , befo re anyaccount o f its content is supplied. See KU w1677-88, esp. 118/450.



6 0 0 J O U R N A L O F TH E H I S T O R Y O F P H I LO S O P H Y 2 6 : 4 O C T O B E R 1 9 8 8

G o o d . T h e r e is s o m e t e n d e n c y t o t h in k t h a t t h e H i g h e s t G o o d i s i n t r o d u c e d

f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f p r o v i d i n g a " s y n t he s i s" b e t w e e n t w o h e t e r o g e n e o u s k i n d s

o f g o o d s , so as to a v o i d a n u n d e s i r a b l e d u a l is m . O n t hi s v ie w , m o r a l e n d s a n d

n a t u r a l e n d s a r e t h o u g h t t o r e p r e s e n t d i v e r g e n t k i n d s o f g o o d s , w h o s e c o m b i -

n a t i o n i n t o a s i n g l e c o n c e p t i o n p o s e s a p r o b l e m w h i c h i s s o l v e d b y t h e c o n c e p t

o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d . ~~ H o w e v e r , t h is v ie w m i s u n d e r s t a n d s t h e r o l e o f t h e

H i g h e s t G o o d , s p e c if i ca l ly b y o v e r l o o k i n g t h e f a c t t h a t it is i n t e n d e d a s a n e n d

t o b e d e r iv e d f r o m t h e M o r a l L aw . A c o n c e p t io n o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d is

c o n s t r u c t e d b y s y s t e m a t i z i n g d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f e n d s, b u t a s t h e y a r e s t ru c -

t u r e d b y th e M o r a l L a w . T h e M o r a l L a w c o m b i n e s t h e s e tw o k i n d s o f e n d s

i n t o a s i n g le s c h e m e b y s u b o r d i n a t i n g t h e n a t u r a l t o t h e m o r a l . B u t i t is o n l y

b e c a u s e t h is o r d e r i n g is a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e M o r a l L a w t h a t t h e s e e n d s

c a n b e c o m b i n e d i n th is w a y. T h e r o le o f th e H i g h e s t G o o d , t h e n , is n o t t o

e f f e c t a s y n t h e si s o f h e t e r o g e n e o u s g o o d s , b u t t o s u p p l y a c o n c e p t i o n o f o u r

m o r a l e n d s i n t h e i r t ot a l it y . A n y " s y n th e s i s" t h a t m a y o c c u r w o u l d c o m e f r o m

t h e a c t i v it y o f p u r e p r a c ti c a l r e a s o n , a s it c o m b i n e s d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f e n d s i n to

a s in g l e s c h e m e .

.

K a n t ' s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d v a r y w i t hi n g i v en w o r k s a n d f r o mo n e w o r k t o a n o t h e r , a n d i t is s o m e t i m e s d i f f ic u l t t o se e th e t h r e a d t h a t r u n s

c o n s i s t e n tl y t h r o u g h o u t . T h e p r o c e d u r e o u t l i n e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s se c t i o n b e s t

e x p l a i n s h i s i n t e n t i o n s , a n d s u g g e s t s a w a y o f r e l a t in g t h e d i f f e r e n t d e s c r i p -

t i o ns t h a t h e e m p l o y s . H o w e v e r , a t a c e r t a i n p o i n t , w e fi n d e l e m e n t s t h a t d o

n o t f i t r e a d i l y i n t o t h i s p a t t e r n . I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e o n l y w a y t o e x p l a i n t h i s i s t o

c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e a r e i n f ac t c o m p e t i n g c o n c e p t i o n s o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d i n

t h e t e x t s, w h i c h h e i s u n a b l e t o c o m b i n e w i t h s uc c es s. T h i s s e c t i o n is d e v o t e d t o

d e v e l o p i n g t h is th e s is , t h r o u g h a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e r e l e v a n t t e xt s . I w ill

b e g i n b y d i s t i n g u i s h i n g t w o v e r s i o n s w h i c h o c c u r in th e t e x t , b o t h a " s e c u l a r "

c o n c e p t i o n a n d a " t h e o l o g i c a l " c o n c e p t i o n . T h e s e c u l a r v e r s i o n is a f in a l e n d

w h i c h K a n t d e r i v e s f r o m t h e M o r a l L a w a l o n g t h e li ne s j u s t s k e t c h e d . T h i s

n o t i o n is e a s il y a c c o u n t e d f o r , a n d s e e m s c o n s i s te n t w i t h t h e ba s ic f e a t u r e s o f

h is m o r a l t h e o r y . T h e b a s is f o r t h e t h e o l o g i c a l v e r s i o n in K a n t ' s m o r a l t h e o r y

'~ Such a view is suggested by Jo hn Silber. See "The Im portan ce of the H ighest Good inKant's Ethics," Ethics 73 0 963 ): 184 if-, 193--194" Yovel also appears to consider such a view; seeKant and the Philosophy of Hi~tory, 37- Sitber and Yo vel also argu e that the Highest Go od isintroduced to give con tent to the Categorical Imp erative, as a principle that is purely form al. (See

$ilber, "Highest Good," t83 ff. and Yovel, 43-4 6. Suc h a view seems equally untenable. As I amtrying to argue, if the Categorical Im perativ e generated no content o f its ow n, it could not definea final end. Kant should not be entitled to any conception o f the H ighest Good according to aninterpretation that treats the Mo ral Law as a purely form al principle.



T H E H I G H E S T G O OD IN K A NT 6 0 1

is l es s c l e a r , h o w e v e r . I t a p p e a r s t o b e a n a d a p t a t i o n o f a t r a d i t i o n a l C h r i s t i a n

n o t i o n , a s is s e e n , f o r e x a m p l e , i n L e i b n i z ' s n o t i o n o f t h e C i t y o f G o d . ,1 O n c e

t h e s e c o n c e p t i o n s h a v e b e e n d i s t i n g u i s h e d , I will d is c us s h o w t h e y a r e r e l a t e d

a n d w ill e x p l o r e s o m e o f t h e t e n s i o n s b e t w e e n t h e m . W e w i ll s e e t h a t b o t h

v e r s i o n s a r e v i s i b l e i n a l m o s t a l l t h e r e l e v a n t t e x t s . H o w e v e r , t h e t h e o l o g i c a l

v e r s i o n is m o r e p r o m i n e n t i n t h e e a r l i e r w o r k s , su c h a s t h e f ir s t a n d s e c o n d

C r i t i q u e s , w h i l e t h e s e c u l a r v e r s i o n is p r e d o m i n a n t i n t h e t h i r d C r i t i q u e a n d

l a t e r w o r k s . T h i s a l l o w s u s t o c o n c l u d e t h a t h i s t o r ic a l ly , K a n t ' s t h o u g h t a b o u t

t h e H i g h e s t G o o d d e v e l o p s i n t h e d i r e c ti o n o f t h e s e cu l a r c o n c e p t i o n , e v e n

t h o u g h t h e t h e o l o g ic a l v e rs i o n is n e v e r c o m p l e t e l y d r o p p e d .

B y a "t h e o lo g i c a l" in t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d w e m a y u n d e r s t a n d

t h e f o l l o w i n g . A n y r e a s o n a b l y c o m p l e t e d e s c r i p t i o n o f th i s st a te o f a f fa i r s

m u s t b r i n g i n s o m e t h e o l o g i c a l n o t i o n s - - f o r i n s ta n c e , t h e e x i s t e n c e o r a c ti v it y

o f G o d , o r s u c h c o n c e p t s a s th a t o f a n a f t er l if e o r a n o t h e r w o r ld . O n e m u s t

a p p e a l t o s o m e s u c h n o t i o n s a s s o o n a s o n e a sk s f o r a n y d e ta i ls a b o u t t h e

n a t u r e o f t h is s ta t e o f a f f a i r s - - f o r e x a m p l e , a b o u t t h e e n d s t h a t i n d i v id u a l s

w o u l d e n j o y , o r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r w h i c h t h e y a r e f u lf il le d . F o r o u r

p u r p o s e s , t h e i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e o f a t h eo l o gi c al c o n c e p t io n o f th e H i g h e s t

G o o d is t h a t i t w o u l d b e a s t a te o f a ff a i rs t h a t c o m e s a b o u t in a n o t h e r w o r l d

t h r o u g h t h e a c ti v it y o f G o d . B y c o n t r a s t , a s e c u l a r c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e H i g h e s tG o o d c a n b e d e s c r i b e d e n t i r e l y i n n a t u r a l i s t ic t e r m s , a s a st a t e o f a f f a i rs t o b e

a c h i e v e d i n t h i s w o r ld , t h r o u g h h u m a n a c t i v i t y . K a n t t h o u g h t t h a t , u l t i m a t e l y ,

w e c a n n o t f u l ly u n d e r s t a n d h o w e v e n t h e s e c u la r v e rs i on o f th e H i g h e s t G o o d

w o u l d b e p o s s i b le w i t h o u t t h e p o s t u l a t e o f a m o r a l a u t h o r o f t h e w o r l d , w h o

o r d e r s t h e l aw s o f h i s t o r y in a c e r t a in w a y . E v e n s o a r e a s o n a b l y c o m p l e t e

d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h i s s t a t e o f a f f a i r s c a n b e g i v e n i n n a t u r a l is t i c t e r m s . W e c a n s a y

h o w i t w o u l d c o m e a b o u t a n d w h a t i t w o u l d i n v o lv e b y r e f e r r i n g e x c l u s iv e l y t o

h u m a n c o n d u c t a n d e n d s . I t is a s e c u l a r c o n c e p t i o n in th a t a c o m p l e t e d e s c r ip -

t io n d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a n y a g e n c y o r m e c h a n i s m s b e y o n d t h e o r d e r o f n a t u r e

a s w e k n o w it .

S o m e c l ar i fi c a ti o n m a y b e n e e d e d h e r e . A s e c u l a r v e r s i o n o f t h e H i g h e s t

G o o d n e e d o n l y vi ew it a s a n e n d t h a t c o u l d r e su l t f r o m h u m a n c o n d u c t u n d e r

f a v o r a b l e c o n d i t io n s - - - e .g . , i f a ll h u m a n b e i n g s w e r e t o ac t f r o m t h e M o r a l

L a w , a n d t h e i r c o n d u c t w e r e c o o r d i n a t e d i n a p p r o p r i a t e w a ys . T h i s is t h e

p o i n t t h a t i s e x p r e s s e d b y sa y i n g t h a t a c o m p l e t e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h i s s t a t e o f

a f f a ir s c a n b e g i v e n i n t e r m s o f h u m a n a g e n c y , a n d t hi s is s u f f ic i e n t t o d is t in -

~ For Leibniz' notion of the City of God see Discourse on M etaphysics , w Monadology, w16790; Princip les o f N a ture and Grace , w1675-18; and Leibniz' letter of October 9, 1687 in the Correspon-dence with Arnau ld , in Leibniz: Philosophical Writings, ed. G. H. R. Parkinson (London: J. M. Dent &

Sons, 1973) , 74.



6 0 2 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY ~ 6 : 4 O C T O B E R 1 9 8 8

g u i s h i t f r o m t h e t h e o l o g i c a l v e r s io n . E v e n w h e r e K a n t h a s a s e c u l a r v e r s io n i n

m i n d , h e t h o u g h t t h a t w e c o u l d n o t m e a n i n g f u l l y c o n c e iv e o f i t a s a r e al

p o ss ib il it y w i t h o u t a d o p t i n g a b e l i e f i n a m o r a l a u t h o r o f th e w o r l d , w h o

o r d e r e d t h e la w s o f h i s t o r y s o a s t o s u p p o r t p r o g r e s s t o w a r d s t h i s e n d i n t im e .

B u t t h e r e r e m a i n i r r e d u c i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s w i th t h e th e o l o g i c a l v e r s i o n . T h e

l a tt e r c o u l d n o t r e su l t f r o m h u m a n c o n d u c t u n d e r a n y c i r cu m s t a n ce s . W e c a n

s e e t h is b y n o t i n g t h a t w e c a n n o t e v e n s a y w h a t t h e t h e o l o g ic a l v e r s i o n w o u l d

i n v o lv e , o r b e l i ke , w i t h o u t b r i n g i n g i n s o m e t h e o l o g ic a l n o t i o n s ( s u c h a s t h e

a c ti vi ty o f G o d ) . B u t w e c a n s ay w h a t t h e H i g h e s t G o o d w o u l d b e l ik e i n it s

s e c u l a r f o r m - - w h a t e n d s i t w o u l d i n v o l v e , a n d h o w , w i t h in t h a t s ta t e o f af -

f ai rs , th e y w o u l d b e a c h i e v e d - - b y r e f e r r i n g o n l y t o h u m a n a c ti on s .

W h e n K a n t g r a v it a t e s t o w a r d s a t h e o l o g ic a l c o n c e p t i o n , th e t w o c o m p o -

n e n t s o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d a r e t h e v i r t u e o f all i n d iv i d u a ls , a n d h a p p i n e s s

d i s t r i b u t e d i n p r o p o r t i o n t o v i r t u e . T h i s c o n c e p t i o n is i n t r o d u c e d i n r o u g h l y

t h e f o l l o w i n g w a y . K a n t t h o u g h t t h a t t h e M o r a l L a w g e n e r a t e s a d u t y t o

p r o m o t e t h e H i g h e s t G o o d . B u t a s f a r a s w e c a n s e e , e v e n t s i n t h i s w o r l d d o

n o t s u p p o r t t h e p o s s ib i li ty o f its s e c o n d c o m p o n e n t , a n d w e h a v e n o r e a s o n t o

e x p e c t t h a t h a p p i n e s s w ill e v e r e x is t in p r o p o r t i o n t o v i r t u e ( C f. K p V 1 2 9 f /

1 24 ). S o t h a t i t w il l r e m a i n r a t i o n a l f o r u s t o a c t o n t h is d u t y , w e p o s t u l a t e t h e

e x i s t e n c e o f G o d , w h o e s t a b li s he s a n e c e s s a ry c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n v i r t u e a n dt h e p r o p o r t i o n a t e a m o u n t o f h a p p in e s s , t h u s g u a r a n t e e i n g t h e p os si bi li ty o f

t h e s e c o n d c o m p o n e n t i n a n o t h e r w o r l d . '~ I n s h o r t , o u r i n a b il it y to i m a g i n e

t h e H i g h e s t G o o d o c c u r r i n g i n t h i s w o r l d l e a d s u s t o p o s i t i t s p o s s i b i l i t y i n

a n o t h e r . T h e t h e o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t i o n s u p p o r t s t h i s po s si bi li ty b y a s s u m i n g t h e

e x i s t e n c e o f a n o t h e r w o r l d i n w h i c h a s y s te m f o r d i s t r i b u t in g h a p p i n e s s i n

p r o p o r t i o n t o v i r t u e is a l r e a d y i n p la c e. A l l i n d i v id u a l s w h o d e v e l o p a g o o d

w i l l ( i n t h i s l i f e ) w i l l e v e n t u a l l y e n j o y h a p p i n e s s a s w e l l , a s a r e s u l t o f t h e l a w s

o f t h a t w o r l d . I t w i ll b e i n t h is w o r l d t h a t t h e H i g h e s t G o o d i s r e a l i z e d , a n d

p r i m a r i l y t h r o u g h t h e a c ti v it y o f G o d .

I t is n o t t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y o f v i rt u e a n d h a p p i n e s s per se w h i c h l e a d s t o a

t h e ol o g ic a l in t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d . O n e c o u l d c o n s t ru c t t h e i de a

o f a h i s to r i c a l s t a te o f a f f a i r s i n w h i c h s o c i al i n s t i tu t i o n s w e r e a r r a n g e d t o

p r o m o t e h a p p i n e s s i n p r o p o r t i o n t o v i r t u e . I t s p r a c t i c a li t y a s i de , i f t h is s ta t e o f

a f f a ir s w e r e e v e r r e a l i z e d , t h e i n d i v i d u a l s o f a p a r t ic u l a r e r a w o u l d e n j o y

h a p p i n e s s i n p r o p o r t i o n t o v i r t u e d u e t o t h e a r r a n g e m e n t o f e x is t i n g so cia l

i n s t i tu t i o n s . T h i s s y s t e m o f i n s ti t u t i o n s m i g h t s e r v e a s a s o ci a l i d e a l w h i c h

i n d i v id u a l s in t h e p r e s e n t s o u g h t t o p r o m o t e a s t h e f in a l e n d o f m o r a l c o n -

,2 This in b rief is the "'moral argumen t," or absurdum practicum argument for faith in theexistence of God. T he best published account of this argument of which I am aware is by Allen W.Wood, in Kant's Mo ral Religion (Ithaca: Cornell Un iversity Press, 197o), 25-34, 1oo - 153.



T H E H IG H E ST G O O D IN K A N T 603

d u c t . T h i s w o u l d b e a s e c u la r c o n c e p t i o n , b e c a u s e o n e c a n d e s c r i b e h o w a s t a te

a p p r o a c h i n g a p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y o f v i r t u e a n d h a p p i n e s s w o u l d e xi st , b y re f e r -

r i n g t o t h e a r r a n g e m e n t o f s oc ia l i n s ti t u ti o n s a n d t h e c o n d u c t o f i n d iv i d u al s .

I n t h e p r e v i o u s e x a m p l e , t h e H i g h e s t G o o d b e c o m e s a th e o lo g ic a l n o t i o n

w h e n w e p o s t u l a t e i ts e x i s t e n c e in a n o t h e r w o r l d .

A f e a t u r e w h i c h w o u l d a l w a y s l e a d t o a t h e o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t i o n i s t o v i e w t h e

H i g h e s t G o o d a s a s ta t e o f a f fa i r s i n w h i c h a ll i n d i v i d u a l s e v e n t u a l l y ta k e p a r t .

T h e o n l y w a y to a c c o m m o d a t e s u c h a c o n c e p t i o n is t o se e it a s o c c u r r i n g i n

a n o t h e r w o r l d , a n d i t m a y b e t h a t t h e d e s i r e t o i n c l u d e a ll i n d i v id u a l s is p a r t o f

t h e m o t i v a t i o n b e h i n d t h e t h e o l o g ic a l c o n c e p t i o n . O n t h e s e c u l a r c o n c e p t i o n ,

t h e i n d i v i d u a ls o f a p a r t i c u l a r h i s to r ic a l e r a w o u l d e x p e r i e n c e t h e H i g h e s t

G o o d , e v e n t h o u g h i t m i g h t o n l y re s u l t f r o m t h e e ff o r ts o f m a n y e a r l i e r

g e n e r a t i o n s . F r o m o n e p o i n t o f v i ew t hi s m i g h t s e e m u n f a i r . B u t i t is w o r t h

n o t i n g t h a t t h e r e a r e p l a c e s w h e r e K a n t i s w i l li n g t o a c c e p t t h is c o n c l u s i o n , a s

d i s c o n c e r t i n g a s h e m i g h t h a v e f o u n d i t. 's

T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s h o w s t h a t t h e t h e o l o g ic a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e H i g h e s t

G o o d a n d its d e s c r i p t i o n i n t e r m s o f a p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y o f h a p p i n e s s a n d v i r t u e

a r e c o n c e p t u a l l y i n d e p e n d e n t . P r o p o r t i o n a l i t y c o u l d b e t h e b a si s o f a s e c u l a r

i d e a l , a n d K a n t m a y o c c a s i o n a l l y a d o p t s u c h a v ie w . T o s i m p l i fy , I w i ll i g n o r e

t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y a n d w i l l t r e a t p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y a s t h e d e s c r i p t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t ht h e th e o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . O n t h is v e r s io n , th e H i g h e s t G o o d w o u l d b e

r e a l iz e d in a n o t h e r w o r l d i n w h i c h a p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y o f v i r t u e a n d h a p p i n e s s is

e s t a b l i s h e d ( f o r al l i n d i v i d u a l s ) t h r o u g h t h e a c t iv i ty o f G o d .

T u r n i n g n o w t o t h e s e c u l a r c o n c e p t i o n , t h i s v e r s i o n t r e a t s t h e H i g h e s t

G o o d a s a so c ia l g o a l t o b e a c h i e v e d i n h is t o r y , t h r o u g h h u m a n a g e n c y a n d t h e

o r d e r i n g o f s oc ia l i n s ti t u ti o n s . T h i s c o n c e p t i o n e m e r g e s m o s t n o t i c a b ly in t h e

C r i tiq ue o f J u d g m e n t , w h e r e r e f e r e n c e s i n d i c a t e q u i t e cl e a rl y t h a t K a n t u n d e r -

s t a n d s i t a s a n e n d i n t h i s w o r l d , w h i c h w e s h o u l d s t r i v e t o b r i n g a b o u t . O n e

k e y p a s s a g e r e a d s a s f o ll o w s: " T h e M o r a l L a w . . . a ls o d e f i n e s f o r u s a fi n al

e n d , a n d d o e s s o a priori , a n d m a k e s i t o b l i g a t o r y t o s tr i v e t o w a r d s it s a t t a in -

m e n t . T h i s e n d is t h e s u mmu m b o n u m, a s t h e h i g h e s t g o o d in the world p o s s i b l e

t h r o u g h f r e e d o m " ( K U i 1 8 / 4 5 o ; K a n t ' s e m p h a s i s ) . T h i s t h e m e i s f o u n d e l se -

w h e r e i n t h e t h i r d Critique, a n d i n l a t e r w o r k s , f o r e x a m p l e , Rel ig ion With in the

Limi ts o f Reason Alone . 14

~3 See Idea 44/2o, 5o/27; and TP 89f/3o9f.14 There are several places where Kant stresses the advancement of the Highest Good by

hum an beings. In the passages following his citation leading up to the discussion of the Spinozist,

Kant says that without religious faith we would be led to abandon "the premeditation [Beabsichti-gung] of the final end to be effectuated by the pursuit o f the m oral law, that is the premeditationof a hap piness o f rational b eings harmoniously associated with such pursuit, as the highest goodin the wo rld." Elsewhere in the third Critique,Ka nt refers to the summum bonum as an object "which



604 JOURN AL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 26:4 OCTOBER 1988

Of equal significance is the fact that Kant appears to adopt a different

description of the content of the Highest Good in most of these works. For

example, he writes: "This s u m m u m b o n u m is formed by the union of the greatest

welfare of the rational beings of the world with the supreme condition of their

good, or in other words, by the union of universal happiness with the strictest

morality" (K U 1~/453).~5 We find the same idea expressed in the Re l ig ion .

Kantwrites that morality "is necessarily related to such an end, taken not as the

ground but as the [sum of] inevitable consequences of maxims adopted as

conformable to that end . . . . Hence the end is no more than an idea of anobject

which takes the formal condit ion of all such ends as we ough t to have (duty) and

combines it with whatever is conditioned, and in ha rmo ny with duty in all theends which we do have (happiness proporti oned to obedience to duty), that is to

say, the idea of a highest good in the world" (Re l 4/5). Here I take Kant to

be saying that the Highest Good would comprise both ends required by the

Moral Law and those of our personal ends that are in conformity with it. The

second element could be called "happiness cond itioned by morality"- -in other

words, the satisfaction of individuals' morally permissible ends. '6 I will

is meant to be realized in the world thr ough our actions in conformity to that law," and "which has

to be realized in the world through freedom" (K U 122/453, x4~/469) Cf. W O ~98/139. See also T P65/27% whe re Kant re fer s to the "high est good possible on ear th" in several places. Nor, as I

argue below, is the idea entirely absent from the second Cri t ique .It seems to me that passages in this vein, as well as the many instances in the second Cri t ique

where Kant refers to the duty to further the Highest Good, present serious problems for R. Z.

Friedman's interpretation. Friedman denies that the Highest Good is an ideal for the transforma-

tion of the existing world, or that it adds to a per son's moral responsibilities ("The Impo rtan ce

and Functi on of Kant's Hi ghes t Good," 326, 3~9- 33 o, 336). This, I believe, mistaken view comes

in part from holdin g that g oodness of character is the only aim of moral conduct on Kant's view.

(I discuss this in note 4 above.) The re can be no dou bt that Kant want ed to view the H ighest Good

as end that h uma n beings are to prom ote, an d that is a fact we should try to account for. One of

the strengths of the secular interpretation that I develop is that it shows how Kant can view the

Highest Good in this way without inconsistency. I also differ with Friedman on the followingpoint. One can view the Highest Good as a final end without thinking that it is supposed to

provide a material content that complements the otherwise purely formal character of the Moral

Law (See his discussion, 326 ff.). As I see the texts, the Highest Good is a systematization of the

content o f the Moral Law, which can be ge nera ted by individuals applying the Moral Law to their

conduct. If the Moral Law could not generate any content, there could be no place for Highest

Good in Kant's theory (On this see note lo above.).

,5 Cf. also T P 65/27% wher e th e Highest Good is described as "the universal happiness of the

whole world, combin ed with and in keeping with morality."

,6 Com pare this passage from t he Rel ig ion with the following passage from the third Cri t ique:"Consequently, the highest physical good possible in the world, and the one to be furt her ed as the

final end so far as in us lies, is h a p p i n e s s - - s u b j e c t to the objective condition of harmony

[E i n s t immung] of the individual with the law of moral i t y , regar ded as worthiness to be happy" (K U118/450 ) , In each o f these passages ther e are elements that suggest a proportional ity description

of the Highest Good--the parenthetical mention of "happiness proportioned [angemes sen] to

obedience to duty" in the first, and th e ment ion of worthiness to be happy in the second. However



T H E H I G H E S T G O O D IN K A N T 6 0 5

t r e a t th i s a s t h e r e n d e r i n g o f t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d i n its s e c u l ar

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

I t is i m p o r t a n t t o s e e t h a t t h is r e n d i t i o n o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d is q u i t e

d i f f e r e n t f r o m w h a t is s e e n i n t h e t h eo l o g i ca l v e r si o n . O n t h e m o s t n a t u r a l

r e a d i n g , a " u n i o n o f u n i v e r s a l h a p p i n e s s w i t h t h e s t ri ct es t m o r a l i ty , " o r " h a p p i -

n e ss c o n d i t i o n e d b y m o r a l i t y " is n o t a p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y o f v i r tu e a n d h a p p i n e s s .

I t im p l i e s n o n e c e s s a r y c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n v i r t u e a n d h a p p i n e s s , b u t i n s t e a d

d e s c ri b e s t h e H i g h e s t G o o d a s a u n i o n o f t w o d i s ti n c t e n d s , o n e o f w h i c h is

s u b o r d i n a t e t o t h e o t h e r . T h e f ir s t w o u l d b e t h e m o r a l p e r f e c t i o n o f a ll i n di -

v i d u a l s , a n d t h e s e c o n d t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e i r p e r m i s s i b l e e n d s .

T o c l a ri f y t h is p o i n t , e a c h v e r s i o n c o n t a i n s t h e t w o c o m p o n e n t s o f v i r tu e

a n d h a p p i n e s s , w i t h h a p p i n e s s a s u b o r d i n a t e e n d o f c o n d i t i o n a l v a lu e . T h e

i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e s m a y b e e l a b o r a t e d a s fo ll ow s . I n t h e t h e o l o g ic a l v er s io n ,

h a p p i n e s s is s u b o r d i n a t e d b y m a k i n g t h e l e g i t im a t e s a ti s fa c ti o n o f a p e r s o n ' s

e n d s p r o p o r t i o n a l t o h i s o r h e r d e g r e e o f v i r tu e . T h e p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y is t h u s a

r e l a t io n b e t w e e n t h e v i r t u e o f a n i n d i v i d u a I' s c h a r a c t e r a n d t h a t i n d i v id u a I 's

h a p p i n e s s . T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t i t is t h r o u g h a p e r s o n 's m o r a l c h a r a c t e r t h a t h i s

o r h e r e n d s t a k e o n v a l u e . T h e r e a s o n f o r v a l u i n g a p e r s o n 's h a p p i n e s s li es i n

t h e p e r s o n ' s d e g r e e o f v i r t u e , r a t h e r t h a n t h e g o o d n e s s o f t h e p e r s o n ' s e n d s .

B y c o n t r a s t , i n t h e s e c u l ar v e r s i on , h a p p i n e s s is s u b o r d i n a t e d b y m a k i n g t h ep e r m i s s i b i l i ty o f a n e n d t h e c o n d i t i o n o f it s s a t i s fa c t io n , o r v a l ue . T h i s is n o t a

r e l a ti o n b e t w e e n t h e m o r a l c h a r a c t e r a n d t h e h a p p i n e s s o f a n i n d i v i d u a l, b u t

i n v o lv e s , r a t h e r , a r e l a t i o n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s e n d s t o t h e M o r a l L a w , a s t h e

p r i n c ip l e t h a t d e t e r m i n e s w h e n a n e n d i s l e g it i m a t e ly p u r s u e d . V i r t u e a n d

h a p p i n e s s h a v e n o p a r t i c u l a r c o n n e c t i o n , e x c e p t t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e M o r a l

L a w o f f e r s g u i d a n c e o n t h e r e l at i v e w e i g h t o f o u r m o r a l a n d n a t u r a l i n t e re s t s.

F i n al ly , t h e v a l u e o f a n i n d i v i d u a l 's e n d s is n o t d e t e r m i n e d b y t h a t i n d i v i d u a l' s

d e g r e e o f v ir t u e , b u t b y th e g o o d n e s s o f th e e n d s t h e m s e lv e s . P e r s o n a l e n d s

a r e o f v al u e w h e n l i m i t e d b y m o r a l c o n c e r n s , s i m p l y as t h e e n d s a d o p t e d b y a

r a t i o n a l b e i n g .

T h e r a t i o n a l e b e h i n d t h e s e c u l a r c o n c e p t i o n i s e a s y t o s e e, a n d a t f i rs t

g l a n c e s ee m s t h e m o s t n a t u r a l w a y o f fi ll in g o u t t h e c o n c e p t o f t h e H i g h e s t

G o o d . O n K a n t ' s m o r a l v i ew , h u m a n b e i n g s a r e m o v e d b y tw o k i n d s o f i n t e r-

e st s, m o r a l a n d n a t u r a l , w h i c h c a n b e c o m b i n e d i n t o a s i ng l e s c h e m e b y gi v i n g

p r i o r it y t o th e m o r a l . T h e r e s u l t is a s c h e m e o f c o n d u c t i n w h i c h p e o p l e

p u r s u e t w o k i n d s o f e n d s . T h e f i rs t w ill b e e n d s r e q u i r e d o r p r e s c r i b e d b y t h e

these are ambiguous, and angemessen in the p assage from the Religion can also be rendered as"appropriate," "fitting," etc. M oreover, other features of these passages suggest the qu ite differ-ent way of including happiness which I go o n to describe--happiness conditioned by morality, orthe satisfactionof permissible ends.



6 0 6 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY ~ 6 : 4 O C T O B E R i 9 8 8

M o r a l L a w , i n c l u d i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s o w n m o r a l p e r f e c t i o n ; a n d t h e s e c o n d

w ill b e t h e i r o w n h a p p i n e s s , l i m i t e d b y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f d u t y . T h i s is a s c h e m e

o f mora l c o n d u c t i n t h a t it is s h a p e d b y a n o r d e r i n g t h a t co m e s f r o m t h e M o r a l

L a w a n d is r e g u l a t e d a t t h e h i g h e s t l e ve l b y m o r a l p r i n c i p le s . B u t n a t u r a l

i n t e re s t s a n d e n d s w ill h a v e a r o l e i n s u c h a s c h e m e w h e n p r o p e r l y s u b o r d i n a t e d

t o m o r a l c o n s i d e r a ti o n s . T h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d a s s o ci a te d w i th

its s e c u l a r v e r s i o n c o m e s d i r e c t l y o u t o f th i s c o n c e p t i o n o f m o r a l c o n d u c t , s in c e

its t w o c o m p o n e n t s a r e j u s t t h e t w o k i n d s o f e n d s t h a t f i g u r e i n K a n t ' s c o n c e p -

t io n o f m o r a l c o n d u c t . I t is t h u s t h e d e s c r i p t i o n t h a t o n e w o u l d e x p e c t t o f o ll o w

f r o m t h e i d e a o f th e u n c o n d i t i o n e d o b j ec t o f t h e M o r a l L a w , w h ic h I h a v e

i n t e r p r e t e d a s t h e t o t a li ty o r c o m p l e t e s e t o f e n d s t h a t c a n b e c o n t a i n e d i n m o r a l

c o n d u c t . I n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n I w ill a r g u e t h a t t h is is a r e a s o n t o p r e f e r t h e s e c u l a r

o v e r t h e t h e o l o g i c a l v e r s i o n a s t h e b e s t e x p r e s s i o n o f K a n t ' s v ie w s o n t h e H i g h -

e s t G o o d . W h i l e t h e s e c u l a r v e r s i o n s e e m s t o f o ll o w n a t u r a l l y f r o m K a n t ' s

c o n c e p t i o n o f m o r a l c o n d u c t , i t is n o t c l e a r w h a t b a si s t h e t h e o l o g i c a l v e r s i o n

h a s. T h i s is i n p a r t ( I w ill a r g u e ) b e c a u s e t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y o f v i r t u e a n d

h a p p i n e s s is a n o r d e r i n g t h a t w e d o n o t s e e e ls e w h e r e i n K a n t ' s v ie w . S u c h

c o n s i d e r a ti o n s s u p p o r t t h e c o n c l u s io n t h a t K a n t i m p o r t s t h e t h e o lo g i ca l c o n c e p -

t io n i n t o h is v ie w f r o m o u t s i d e , a n d t h a t i t is n o t g e n e r a t e d i n t e rn a l l y .

W h e r e a r e t h e s e t w o c o n c e p t i o n s f o u n d , a n d h o w d o t h e y f i g u r e i n t h ed e v e l o p m e n t o f K a n t' s t h o u g h t a b o u t t h e H i g h e s t G o o d ? T h e t h eo l o gi c al

v e r s i o n is m o s t e v i d e n t i n t h e f ir st a n d s e c o n d Cri t iques , w h i l e , a s w e h a v e j u s t

s e e n , a s e c u l a r v e r s i o n is b y a n d l a r g e a d o p t e d i n t h e t h i r d Cri t ique a n d a f t e r -

w a r d s . T h i s i n c l u d e s t h e Re l i g i o n , s u r p r i s i n g l y e n o u g h . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e

p a s sa g e s c i te d a b o v e , t h e d i sc u s s io n o f t h e " E t h i c al C o m m o n w e a l t h " i n B o o k 3

o f t h e Re l i g i on is o n e o f th e c l e a r e s t r e f e r e n c e s t o th e H i g h e s t G o o d i n w h i c h it

t ak e s a n i n s t i tu t i o n a l, o r p o l it ic a l f o r m . T h e E t h ic a l C o m m o n w e a h h is i n it ia ll y

d e f i n e d a s a s o ci e ty f o u n d e d o n m o r a l p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h a re p u b l i c ly re c o g -

n i z e d a n d f o l l o w e d , a n d i t is i m p l i e d t h a t i ts i n s t i t u t io n s a r e a i m e d a t r e a l i z i n g

v a r io u s m o r a l e n d s ( su c h as g o o d c h a r a c t e r a n d g o o d c o n d u c t o n t h e p a r t o f

i n d i v i d u a l s , a s w e l l a s c e r t a i n f o r m s o f so c ia l h a r m o n y ) . K a n t s t r e s s es t h a t i t is a

s o ci al g o al t o b e a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h t h e c o l l ec t iv e e f f o r t s o f all h u m a n b e i n g s

( R e l 8 6 f / 9 4 f 8 9 / 9 7 f) . H e i d e n t i f i e s i t w i t h th e " K i n g d o m o f G o d o n e a r t h , "

a n d a r g u e s t h a t i ts p r o p e r i n s t i t u ti o n a l f o r m is t h a t o f a " r a ti o n a l c h u r c h " ( R e l

9 o f f / 9 8 f f ) . E v e n s o , t h e E t h i c a l C o m m o n w e a l t h is a s e c u l a r c o n c e p t i o n i n th e

s e n se t h a t i t is a c o m m u n i t y o f h u m a n b e in g s o r g a n i z e d u n d e r a p a r t i c u l a r

i n st i t u ti o n al s t ru c t u re . '~ T h e E t h ic a l C o m m o n w e a l t h s e e m s to r e p r e s e n t a

,7 I discuss this notion fu rth er in section 6. T he passages cited earlier in this section are fromthe P reface to the Firs t Edition. To b e sure, the re are passages in the Religion which touch o n the



T H E H I G H E S T G O O D IN K A N T 6 0 7

s ig n i fi ca n t d e v e l o p m e n t i n K a n t ' s t h o u g h t , w h i c h , w h e n t a k e n w i t h o t h e r

t ex ts , s u g g e s t s t h a t h e is m o v i n g t o w a r d s t h e a d o p t i o n o f a s e c u l a r c o n c e p t i o n .

H o w e v e r , t h e p i c t u r e is n o t t h a t s im p l e . I n f a c t t h e r e a r e i n d i c a t i o n s o f b o t h

v e r s i o n s i n n e a r l y e v e r y t e x t in w h i c h t h is s u b j e c t is t a k e n u p . E v e n i n t h e l a t e r

w o r k s w h i c h e m p h a s i z e t h e s e c u l a r v e r s i o n , t h e th e o l o g i c a l v e r s i o n is m e n -

t i o n e d a t c e r t a i n p o i n t s , e v e n i f o b l i q u e l y . ~8 I n a d d i t i o n , t h e e a r l i e r d i s c u s s i o n s

c o n t a i n e l e m e n t s t h a t r e q u i r e a s e c u l a r i n t e r p r e t a t io n . K a n t d o e s n o t s e e m t o

h a v e g o t t e n c o m p l e t e l y c l e a r a b o u t , o r t o h a v e f u l l y r e s o l v e d , t h e a m b i g u i t i e s

in h is t h o u g h t . I f h e w a s a w a r e o f t h e s e t w o s t ra i n s, h e m u s t h a v e t h o u g h t t h a t

t h e y c o n v e r g e d . B u t t h is d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o b e so .

T h e e x t e n t o f th i s a m b i g u i t y , a n d t h e t e n s io n s w h i c h i t c a u s e s , c a n b e

i l l u s tr a te d , a g a i n , b y t h e s e c o n d C r i t i q u e , w h e r e w e se e t h a t b o t h v e r s i o n s

a p p e a r s i d e b y si d e, a n d t h a t a s h i ft o c c u r s f r o m o n e t o t h e o t h e r . K a n t r e f e r s

t o t h e H i g h e s t G o o d a s " t h e h i g h e s t g o o d w h i c h i s p r a c t i c a l f o r u s, i.e ., o n e

w h i c h is t o b e m a d e r e a l t h r o u g h o u r w i ll " a n d a s a " p r a c t ic a l g o o d , i .e ., o n e

t h a t is p o s s i b le t h r o u g h a c t i o n " ( K p V 1 1 3 / lO 9 , 1 17 / 11 3 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , K a n t

s ay s t h r o u g h o u t t h e " D i a le c t i c " t h a t w e h a v e a d u t y t o p u r s u e t h e H i g h e s t

G o o d . S u c h p a s s a g e s r e q u i r e a s e c u l a r v e r s io n , s i n c e i t m a k e s n o s e n s e to v ie w

t h e H i g h e s t G o o d a s a n e n d t h a t w e a r e t o p r o m o t e u n l e s s it is a st at e o f a f f a i r s

t h a t w e c a n e n v i s i o n a s t h e r e s u l t o f o u r c o n d u c t . ( T h i s i s e s p e c i a ll y s o i f t h e r eis t o b e a d u t y t o p r o m o t e t h e H i g h e s t G o o d , a s K a n t in s i st s .) H o w e v e r , h e

s h if t s to a th e o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w h e n i t is a q u e s t i o n o f i ts r e a l iz a t io n . I n

t h e d i s c u s s i o n f r o m w h i c h I w a s j u s t q u o t i n g , h e i s l ed t o sa y t h e f o l l o w i n g :

" W h e n w e s e e o u r s e l v e s o b l i g e d t o s ee k t h e p o s s i b il it y o f th e H i g h e s t G o o d a t

s u c h d i s t a n c e - - n a m e l y , i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a n in t el li g ib l e w o r l d . . , i t m u s t a p -

p e a r s t r a n g e t h a t p h i l o s o p h e r s o f b o t h a n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n t im e s h a v e b e e n

a b le t o f i n d h a p p i n e s s i n v e r y j u s t p r o p o r t i o n t o v i r t u e in th is l i f e " ( K p V 1 1 9 /

Chris tian doct r ine o f rewards a nd punishm ents in anoth er l i fe (Cf. 63n/69n, 66f/79f , 194 -96/

a34 -36 , 149f/a61f. ) . But , I would argu e, close at tent ion to the texts shows that these passages arenot pa r t o f Kant ' s t r e a t ment o f t he Hi ghes t Good i n t h i s work , bu t r a t he r a re i ndependentdiscussions o f the p ro pe r interp retat ion o f certain aspects of Christ ian doc trine and scripturalsymbolism.

~s Th us all I can say is that th e theological version is de-emp hasized, an d tha t the secularversion becom es more prom inent and is suggested by the leading ideas of di ffe rent texts. Along-side the passages in, e.g., the third Critique, th e Religion,an d Theoryand Practicewhich supp ort the

secular version, an d include happ iness in the for m o f the sat isfaction of permissible ends (happi-ness con dit ion ed by m orali ty), we st i l l find hints o f a propo rt ionali ty of virtue and happiness.

Representat ive passages ar cited in note 16 above. In add it ion we con tinue to find referen ces to

the immortal ity o f the soul , which also suggest the theological conception. In the third Critiquesee,e.g. , 149-43/469, 145n/471n, and 146n/479n. But also note that these references are confined tow a , and tha t Kant gives no form al a rgu me nt f or the postula te of the immorta li ty of the soul as hedoes in the second Critique.



608 J O U R N A L O F TH E H I S T O R Y O F P H I LO S O P H Y z6:4 O C T O B E R 1988

1 15 ). K a n t ' s p h r a s i n g h e r e m a k e s i t q u i t e c l e a r th a t a t th i s p o i n t h e c o n c e i v e s

o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d a s c o m i n g a b o u t o n l y in a n o t h e r w o r ld .

B o t h h e r e a n d i n a s i m i l a r p a s s a g e i n th e f i rs t Cri t ique K a n t b e g i n s b y

v i e w i n g t h e H i g h e s t G o o d a s a n e n d t o b e p r o m o t e d i n t h i s w o r l d . B u t w h e n

h e i m a g i n e s i ts r e a l iz a t i o n , h e c o n c e i v e s o f i t a s a s t a te o f a f f a i r s i n a n o t h e r

w o r l d t h a t w o u l d r e s u l t f r o m d i v i n e a g e n c y ? 9 W h e t h e r o r n o t h e is a w a r e o f

t h is s h if t , it c h a n g e s t h e n o t i o n s u b s t a n t ia l l y , s in c e w e a r e n o l o n g e r t h e p r i n c i -

p l e a g e n t s . W h i l e K a n t m u s t h a v e a s s u m e d t h a t t h e r e w a s c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n

t h e s e t w o n o t i o n s , t h e y h a v e v e r y d i f f e r e n t f u n c ti o n s . T h e s e c u l a r v e r s i o n is a n

i d e a l b y w h i c h t o g u i d e o u r c o n d u c t . I t t el ls u s t o a im a t b r i n g i n g a b o u t a w o r l d

i n w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l s c a n d e v e l o p a m o r a l l y g o o d c h a r a c t e r , a n d h a v e t h e

a b il it y a n d m e a n s t o a c h i e v e t h e i r p e r m i s s i b l e e n d s . F u r t h e r c o n c r e t e g u i d -

a n c e w o u l d f o l lo w f r o m d e t e r m i n i n g w h a t a r r a n g e m e n t o f s oc ia l i n s ti t u ti o n s is

n e e d e d f o r t h e r e a l iz a t io n o f t h e s e e n d s , a n d h o w b e s t t o b r i n g t h e s e a r r a n g e -

m e n t s i n t o e x i s te n c e . T h e t h e o lo g i c a l v e r s io n , o n th e o t h e r h a n d , s u p p o r t s a

c o m m i t m e n t t o m o r a l c o n d u c t o f in d i v i d ua l s b y o f f e r i n g a s s u r a n c e t h a t w h a t

t h e y c a n n o t a t t a i n o n o u r o w n w i ll b e s u p p l e m e n t e d b y G o d , a n d t h a t th e

i m p e r f e c t i o n s a n d i n ju s ti c es o f t hi s w o r l d w ill b e c o r r e c t e d i n a n o t h e r ( w h e r e

v i r t u e l e a d s t o h a p p i n e s s ) .

M o r e o v e r , a k i n d o f i n c o h e r e n c e a p p e a r s i n th e p i c t u re o f m o r a l c o n d u c tw h i c h r e s u l t s w h e n b o t h c o n c e p t i o n s a r e f o u n d t o g e t h e r , a s t h e y a r e in th e

s e c o n d Cri t ique . C o n s i d e r t h e f o l lo w i n g p a s s a g e w h e r e K a n t s a ys t h a t w e o u g h t

t o p r o m o t e t h e H i g h e s t G o o d i n th is w o r l d , e v e n t h o u g h i ts p o ss ib i li ty m u s t b e

d e f e r r e d t o a n o t h e r : " B u t th e p os s ib i li ty o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d . . . c a n n o t b e

g i v e n u n d e r t h e l aw s o f s e n se , e v e n t h o u g h t h e p r a c ti c al c o n s e q u e n c e s o f th is

i d e a , i. e. , t h e a c t i o n s w h i c h a r e d e v o t e d t o r e a li z i n g t h e H i g h e s t G o o d , d o

b e l o n g t o t h i s w o r l d " ( K p V 1 2 4 / 1 2 o ) . I n s u c h a v i e w i n d i v i d u a l s w o u l d s t r i v e

f o r a n e n d i n t h is w o r l d , w h i c h t h e y h a v e n o r e a s o n t o t h i n k is p o s s ib l e , w h i l e

h o p i n g f o r a s t a te o f a ff a i r s in a n o t h e r w h i c h w i ll c o m p e n s a t e f o r t h e s h o r tf a l l

o f t h e i r e f f o r t s . M o r a l i t y n o w s t r a d d l e s t w o w o r ld s . W h i l e o u r a c t i o n s o c c u r i n

t hi s w o r l d , t h e i r m o r a l l y s ig n i fi c an t c o n s e q u e n c e s a r e d e f e r r e d t o a n o t h e r , s o

t h a t t h e i m m e d i a t e r e s u lt s o f o u r e f f o r t s a r e n o t u l t i m a t e ly m a t t e r s o f g r e a t

c o n c e r n . ~ o

,9 Cf. K rV B 838- 39. Initially Kant outlines the idea of a "system of self-rewarding morality"in which "freedo m , partly inspired and partly restricted by moral laws, would itself be the cause ofgeneral happiness." But by the end of this passage he says that "we must assume that m oral worldto be a consequence o f our conduct in the world of se ns e. . , and therefore to be for us a fu ture

world."~~ In this section I have sim ply tried to show that two distinct versions of the Highest G ood

are found in the texts. I do not have a completely satisfactory explanation as to why Kantvacillated between these two views, thoug h 1 would o ffer the following speculation. Th e theologi-



T H E H IG H E ST G O O D IN K A N T 609

.

In this section I will develop a critique of the theological conception by argu-

ing that there are internal grounds for rejecting such a notion. It is inconsis-

tent with certain features of Kant's moral view, as is often thought, but also

with the intenti ons b ehi nd the con cept of the Highe st Good. I will conside r

two objections which apply to the theological version of the Highest Good.

One considers the implications of its conceiving of the Highest Good as the

result of divine, rath er than hu ma n agency, the other of the fact it describes its

content in terms of a proportionality o f happiness and virtue. In each case

there is no reason to think that the Highest Good should take this form, giventhe way in which it is introduced and the purposes which it is to serve. At the

end of this section I will also touch briefly on certain respects in which the

secular conception presents a more acceptable moral ideal.

The first objection is that the theological version is inappropriate as a

conc epti on of the Highe st Go od, because it is no lon ger a state of affairs that

we can adopt as an end for our conduct. It makes no sense to adopt a state of

affairs as an end unless we can see ourselves as the agents who would bring it

about. But the theological version leaves only a limited role to human agency.

Individuals do contribute to the Highest Good in this scenario by developing

their own moral perfection. But the happiness in the Highest Good would not

exist thro ugh our efforts; no r is the connection between virtue and happiness

an arrangement that we further, since it already exists.

Lewis White Beck has made this point as an objection to the d u t y to pro-

mote the Highest Good, and thinks that it undermines the entire doctrine.

Beck claims that, contrary to what Kant thought, there can be no such duty.

He argues that the concept of the Highest Good has no practical significance

because there is nothing that an individual can do to promote such an end

beyond acting from the Moral Law. The supposed duty to promote the High-

est Good a dds n oth ing to the duties that we already have, and thus is not a real

cal conception is a traditional Christian notion, and perhaps a holdover from Leibniz. Kant wouldlikely have wanted to find a place for it in his philosophical system, given its place in ordinarymoral consciousness and his desire to provide rational foundations for various Christian doctinesin morality. He may have thought that the concept of the Highest Good which does follow fromthe Moral Law provided this opportunity. I would like to think that Kant was led to emphasize thesecular version as he became more aware of the tensions caused by the presence of the theologicalin his moral view. Jerome Schneewind has argued that there was a growing tendency in the moralphilosophy of the 17th and 18th centuries to assign greater responsibility to human agency in the

establishment of the moral order. See his "The Divine Corporation and the History of Ethics," inPhilosophy in History, ed. R. Rorty et al, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). Thedevelopment in Kant's views might also be understood by reference the dynamic that Schneewinddescribes. (Cf. 187-91. )



61o J O U R N A L O F T H E H I S T O R Y O F P H I L O S O P H Y 26:4 O C T O B E R 1988

d u t y . ~' T h i s o b j e c t i o n d o e s a p p l y t o t h e t h e o l o g i c a l v e r s i o n , a n d h e l p s i ll us -

t r a t e w h y i t is w r o n g t o vi ew i t a s a n e n d . B e c k is p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t p r o m o t i n g

t h e H i g h e s t G o o d i n th is ca s e a m o u n t s t o n o m o r e t h a n a c ti n g f r o m t h e M o r a l

L a w a n d l e a d i n g a g o o d l i fe . T h e o n l y d u t y t h a t o n e c a n m e a n i n g f u l l y s p e a k

o f is t h e d u t y t o p r o m o t e o n e ' s m o r a l p e r f e c t i o n ( r a t h e r t h a n a n y d u t y t o

p r o m o t e t h e H i g h e s t G o o d ) . T h e p o i n t, t h e n , is t h a t t h e H i g h e s t G o o d is n o

l o n g e r a n e n d t h a t w e c a n p u r s u e i n a n y in t e r e s t i n g s e n s e, b e c a u s e it d e f i n e s

n o n e w e n d s b e y o n d o u r o r d i n a r y m o r a l d u t ie s , a n d i s su e s n o s p ec if ic i n j u n c -

t i o n s to t h e i n d i v i d u a l .

S i n c e t h e H i g h e s t G o o d i s i n t r o d u c e d a s t h e f in a l e n d o f t h e m o r a l c o n -

d u c t , i t o u g h t t o b e p o s s i b l e t o v i e w it a s a s t a te o f a f f a i r s t h a t c o u l d r e s u l t f r o m

h u m a n c o n d u c t . I n t h i s r e s p e c t , t h e t h e o lo g i c a l c o n c e p t i o n r e q u i r e s a d e p a r -

t u r e f r o m o n e o f its d e f i n i n g f e a t u r e s . T h u s it s e e m s i ll -s u it ed t o K a n t 's p u r -

p o s e s , a n d i t is d i f f i c u l t t o s e e h o w a n y s u c h i d e a l c a n b e c o n s t r u c t e d o u t o f t h e

M o r a l L a w . T h e s e a r e r e a s o n s t o t h i n k t h a t t h e H i g h e s t G o o d is i n e s s e n c e a

s e c u l a r n o t i o n , a n d s h o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s s u c h.

T h e s e c o n d c r i ti c i sm h a s t o d o w i th t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y o f h a p p i n e s s a n d

v i r t u e . O n e o f t h e m o s t c o m m o n o b j ec t io n s t o t h e H i g h e s t G o o d i s t h a t th is

i d e al is i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h K a n t 's p r i n c i p l e s o f a u t o n o m y . I n t h e e n d t h is m a y b e

c o r r e c t, t h o u g h n o t n e c e s sa r il y i n th e w a y t h a t m o s t c o m m e n t a t o r s h a v et h o u g h t . T o s e e th i s, w e n e e d t o l o o k a t s o m e o f th e w a y s i n w h i c h th i s

o b j e c t i o n h a s s u r f a c e d .

T h e u s u a l f o r m o f th is c o m p l a i n t i s t h a t th is c o n c e p t i o n o f th e H i g h e s t

G o o d w o u l d c o m p r o m i s e t h e a u t o n o m y o f m o r a l m o t i v at io n ; i t i n t ro d u c e s a n

i n c e n t i v e t h a t l ea d s t o h e t e r o n o m y o f c h o ic e . T h i s o b j e c t i o n is s o m e t i m e s

b a s e d o n a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , a s w h e n i t f o c u s e s o n t h e s i m p l e f a c t t h a t th e

H i g h e s t G o o d i n c l u d e s h a p p i n e s s a t a ll . I n t hi s c a se it m i s t a k e n l y s u p p o s e s t h a t

K a n t c a n n o t a l lo w h a p p i n e s s t o h a v e a n y r o l e i n m o r a l c o n d u c t . B u t h e d i d n o t

t h i n k t h is , a n d n o t h i n g t h a t h e s ay s c o m m i t s h i m t o t hi s p o si t io n . ~ T h e m o r e

l e g i t i m a t e c o n c e r n i s t h i s . I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o a v o i d s e e i n g a p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y o f

h a p p i n e s s a n d v i r t u e as a s y s te m o f r e w a r d s a n d p u n i s h m e n t s t h a t w o u l d

i n e v it a b ly m a k e a n i n d i v i d u a l ' s in t e r e s t i n m o r a l c o n d u c t h e t e r o n o m o u s . A s

t h is is a n a t u r a l i s su e t o r a i se , it is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t K a n t a d d r e s s e d i t i n

s e v e r a l p l a c e s .

H i s i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e w a s t h a t o n l y i n d i v i d u a l s w h o d o t h e i r d u t y f r o m t h e

m o t i v e o f d u t y d e v e l o p a t r u l y v i r t u o u s d i s p o s i ti o n . I n d i v i d u a l s w h o e n g a g e i n

g o o d c o n d u c t f o r t h e s a k e o f f u t u r e h a p p i n e s s w ill n o t h a v e m a d e t h e m s e lv e s

~ Beck, Commentary, 244-45.

92 For passages where Kant explicitly rejects this way of construing his views see KpV 96/93

and TP 65-66/28o.



T H E H I G H E S T G O O D I N K A N T 6 1 1

truly worthy of it.~ In later texts, Kant refines this response by shifting the

perception of the p roportionality of virtue and happiness away from the frame-

work of reward and punis hment. He regards it as a system in which everyone

receives his or h er d ue according to an objective moral standard , which anyone

would disinte restedly approve.~4 Furth ermore , Kant cites the fact that happi-

ness would exist only in proportion to virtue to suggest that the interest in this

system could only come from an impartial moral motive. He notes that "it does

not hold out any prospect of happiness in the absolute sense, but only of a

constant ratio between happiness and the worthiness of a subject" (TP 65n/

~8on). In a similar passage he suggests that a moral individual would will the

existence of this state of affairs even lacking knowledge of his char acte r--t hatis, whether or not he knew the degree of moral perfection which he would

possess. He would do so though he might "be in dang er o f paying in his own

person a heavy price in happiness--it being possible that he might not be

adequat e to the [moral] de mands o f the idea, dema nds which reason lays down

as conditioning happiness" (Rel 5/6). In this case the individual's motive could

not rationally be the hope of happiness. Since there are no ground s for any such

hope without a knowledge of one's character, the motive must be the moral

quality of this state of affairs. It is undo ubtedly such considerations that lead

Kant to say tha t an interest in the Highes t Good "is a wish based on law and oneto which no selfish mind could have aspired" (KpV 135/13o).

One may or may not, in this way, be able to defend the proportionality of

virtue and happiness against the objection that it would lead to hete ronomy.

However, I will not pursue this question, since I think that the real problem

lies elsewhere. The deeper issue is that the theological conception relies on an

ordering of virtue and happiness not seen elsewhere in Kant's moral theory.

Happiness can have a role in moral conduct, and indeed, there are grounds

for viewing it as a moral good, when properly limited by duty.'5 This suggests

that the satisfaction of permissible ends would be a compon ent o f the Highest

Good, as seen in the secular version. But in Kant's account of ordinary moral

conduct, no explicit arguments are given for taking a proportionality of virtue

and happiness, either as an end, or as a way of ordering different ends or

interests. The appropriate question to ask, then, is how this notion finds its

way into a conception of the Highest Good. How can this description of the

content of the Highest Good be derived from the Moral Law? This way of

linking moral and natural ends evidently follows from a principle of moral

9~ Cf. LE 53-57; 77-78, 81-82.

24 Cf. e.g., Kpv 134/129f.

~ For an intere sting discussion of this point see Christine M. Korsgaard, "Tw o Distinctions in

Goodness," The PhilosophicalReview 42, No. 2 (1983): t77-84.



612 J O U R N A L O F TH E H I S TO R Y O F P t I I LO S O P H Y z6:4 O C T O B E R 1988

d e s e r t. B u t n o r e a s o n s w e r e e v e r g i v e n f o r t h i n k i n g t h a t t h e M o r a l L a w g e n e r -

a t es s u c h a p r i n c i p l e , o r p r o v i d e s a n y b a s is f o r r e l a t i n g v i r t u e a n d h a p p i n e s s i n

t hi s w a y . U n l e s s s u c h a n a r g u m e n t c a n b e g iv e n , t h i s r e n d i t i o n o f th e H i g h e s t

G o o d h a s n o f o u n d a t i o n i n K a n t ' s m o r a l t h e o r y . I t m u s t i n s te a d b e a n o t i o n

t h a t h e i m p o r t s f r o m e l s e w h e r e , o r w h i c h h e m i s t a k e n l y b el ie v e s t o fo l l o w

f r o m h i s p r i n c i p l e s .

I t m a y a l so b e p o s s ib l e th a t t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y o f v i r t u e a n d h a p p i n e s s is

d e r i v e d f r o m a p r i n c i p l e o f m o r a l d e s e r t , b u t n o t o n t h e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t th i s

p r i n c i p l e is a p a r t o f t h e M o r a l L a w . H o w e v e r , t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e i s e v e n l e s s

a c c e p t a b le . T h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d w o u l d t h e n b e b a s e d on a

s p ec i al p r i n c i p l e f o r c o m b i n i n g v i r t u e a n d h a p p i n e s s t h a t is i n d e p e n d e n t o f

t h e M o r a l L a w . B u t K a n t c a n n o t r e c o g n i z e a n y s u c h p r i n c ip l e . T o a l l ow t h at

t h e r e a r e m o r a l p r i n c i p l es t h a t a r e i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e la w , o r p r i o r t o it ,

w o u l d v i o la t e t h e a u t o n o m y o f p u r e p r a c ti c al r e a s o n i n a d e e p e r s e ns e , b y

m a k i n g i t s u b j e c t t o p r i n c i p l e s t h a t i t d o e s n o t g e n e r a t e o u t o f i ts e lf . T h e

M o r a l L a w m u s t b e th e h i g h e s t a n d m o s t c o m p r e h e n s i v e s t a n d a r d t o w h i ch w e

c a n a p p e a l i n m a t t e r s o f m o r a l c o n d u c t a n d i de a ls .

T h e s u g g e s t i o n u n d e r l y i n g t h e s e r e m a r k s i s t h a t w e c a n n o t f i nd a s a ti sf ac -

t o r y e x p l ic i t j u s t i f i c a t io n i o r t h e i d e a l o f m o r a l d e s e r t t h a t i s r e q u i r e d t o

s u p p o r t t h e th e o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t i o n - - t h a t a n a r g u m e n t e s t a b l is h i n g i t a s as o u n d m o r a l i d e a l c a n n o t b e p r o d u c e d . I f s o, it s h o u l d n o t b e g i v e n a n i m p o r -

t a n t r o le in o u r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f K a n t ' s m o r a l t h e o r y . A d m i t t e d l y t h i s m i g h t

s e e m a m a j o r r e v i s i o n , s i n c e t h e n o t i o n o f m o r a l d e s e r t h a s r o o t s in t h e b a c k -

g r o u n d o f K a n t ' s v ie w s , a s is s e e n i n h i s t e n d e n c y t o e q u a t e a g o o d w ill w i t h

" w o r t h i n e s s t o b e h a p p y . ''~6 B u t t h e i s su e h e r e is h o w o n e w o u l d e s t a b li s h t h e

p r i n c i p l e t h a t h a p p i n e s s o u g h t t o b e d i s t r i b u t e d i n p r o p o r t i o n t o v i rt u e . I t

d o e s n o t s e e m t o b e a g o o d i d e a l b y w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l s s h o u l d r e g u l a t e t h e i r

r e l a ti o n s w i t h e a c h o t h e r , b e c a u s e o f its i m p l i ci t " m o r a l i s m . " S o m e c o m m e n t a -

t o rs h a v e p o i n t e d o u t t h a t K a n t ' s e p i s te m o l o g y m a k e s h a p p i n e s s i n p r o p o r t i o n

t o v i r t u e a n u n f e a s i b l e i d e a l f o r u s : g i v e n th e i n s c r u t a b i li t y o f h u m a n m o t i v e s ,

i t is i m p o s s i b l e t o k n o w w h e t h e r a n i n d i v i d u a l h a s a v i r t u o u s c h a r a c t e r , a n d

t h u s w h e t h e r o r n o t h e o r s h e d e s e r v e s t o b e h a p p y . ~7 B u t m o r e t h a n t h a t , it

,6 Cf. Gl 61/393: "a good will seems to constitute the indispensab le condition of our veryworthiness to be happ y."

27 Th is point is made by Jef frie Murphy, "T he Highest Good as Content for Kant's EthicalFormalism,"Kant-Studien 56 (1965): 1 07-108.) See aIso R. Z. Friedman , "G ood."

An other stre ngth o f the secular conception is that by according natural en ds an independent

value of their ow n, the secular conception o ffers a mo re transp arent account o f why happiness isincluded in the H ighest Good: it is because natural ends can be morally good, w hen properlylimited by duty. T he theological version has no straightforward way of saying why happinessshould be a part of the Highest Good, except by referring to a principle of moral desert.



T H E H I G H E S T G O OD IN K A NT 6 1 3

s h o u l d n o t b e t h e b u s in e s s o f o n e p e r s o n t o m a k e s u c h j u d g m e n t s a b o u t

a n o t h e r . E t hi ca l t h o u g h t s h o u l d f o c u s o n h o w o n e s h o u l d a ct a n d w h a t m a k e s

a c ti o ns r ig h t , r a t h e r t h a n o n p a s si n g j u d g m e n t o n a p e r s o n 's c h a r a c t e r . B y

i n c l u d i n g h a p p i n e s s i n t h e f o r m o f t h e s a ti s fa c t io n o f m o r a l l y p e r m i s s i b l e

e n d s , t h e s e c u l a r c o n c e p t i o n a v o i d s t h e s e u n w e l c o m e i m p l ic a t io n s . M y c o n c l u -

s io n is t h a t t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y o f v i r tu e a n d h a p p i n e s s r e p r e s e n t s a d e p a r t u r e

f r o m K a n t ' s b a si c p r in c i p l e s . I t d o e s n o t f o l lo w f r o m a n y p r i n c i p l e s t h a t a r e

p a r t o f t h e M o r a l L a w , a n d f o r t h a t r e a s o n is n o t a n a c c e p t a b le r e n d i t i o n o f

t h e H i g h e s t G o o d .

.

I h a v e t r i e d t o s h o w t h a t t h e r e a r e t w o c o m p e t i n g c o n c e p t i o n s o f th e H i g h e s t

G o o d i n K a n t 's t h o u g h t . B o t h a r e p r e s e n t t o s o m e d e g r e e i n a ll o f K a n t 's

w o r k s , t h o u g h i n l a t e r p e r i o d s h e g iv e s a g r e a t e r e m p h a s i s t o t h e s e c u la r

c o n c e p t i o n . I w il l n o w b e g i n t o u s e t h e r e s u l t s o f th i s s u r v e y o f t h e t e x t s , a n d

d i s c us s i o n o f t h e i r s t r u c t u r e , t o c o n s i d e r h o w t h e t e n s io n s a r e b e s t r e s o l v e d ,

a n d t o d r a w c o n c l u s io n s f o r h o w w e s h o u l d i n t e r p r e t t h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e

H i g h e s t G o o d . T h e c o n c l u s i o n s w ill c o m e a s n o s u r p r i s e .

I h a v e a r g u e d t h a t t h e t h e o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t i o n is o p e n t o c e r t a i n c r it ic is m s ,

w h i c h m a k e i t i n a p p r o p r i a t e a s a c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d . S i n c e itv i ew s i t a s t h e r e s u l t o f d i v i n e a g e n c y , i t is n o t a s t a t e o f a f f a i r s t h a t w e c a n

m e a n i n g f u l l y a d o p t a s a n e n d , a n d t h u s c a n n o t s e r v e t h e p u r p o s e s f o r w h i c h

t h e H i g h e s t G o o d is i n t r o d u c e d . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e d e s c r ip t i o n o f its c o n t e n t i n

t e r m s o f a p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y o f h a p p i n e s s a n d v i r tu e h a s n o a p p a r e n t b as is in

K a n t 's m o r a l v ie w . B u t n e i t h e r o f t h e s e o b j e ct i o n s h a s a n y o b v i o u s b e a r i n g o n

t h e s e c u l a r v e rs i o n . I n t h is f o r m , t h e H i g h e s t G o o d i s a n e n d w e c a n p u r s u e ,

c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y tw o e n d s w h i c h r e p r e s e n t t h e t w o m o s t g e n e r a l c a t eg o r i es o f

e n d s i n t h e K a n t i a n s c h e m e o f m o r a l c o n d u c t . T h e y a r e th e m o r a l p e r f e c t i o n

o f all i n d i v i d u a l s a n d t h e s a t i sf a c ti o n o f t h e i r p e r m i s s ib l e e n d s . H e r e w e

s h o u l d n o t e t h a t b o t h t h e ends a n d t h e way o f combin ing them a r e t a k e n f r o m t h e

c o n c e p t i o n o f m o r a l c o n d u c t , a n d t h a t h a p p i n e s s a p p e a r s in th e c o n d i t i o n e d

r o l e t h a t t h e M o r a l L a w a s si g ns t o i t e l s e w h e r e . T h e s e c u l a r v e r si o n t h u s

a d o p t s t h e o r d e r i n g o f v i r t u e a n d h a p p i n e s s t h a t is g e n e r a l l y c h a r a c t e r is t i c o f

K a n t ' s m o r a l v i ew .

T w o p o i n t s d e s e r v e e m p h a s i s h e r e . F ir st , w e c a n se e t h a t t h e t r a d i ti o n a l

o b j e c t io n s t o t h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d a r e n o t b a s e d o n a s im p l e

m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . M u c h o f it h a s a t e x t u a l ba si s, a n d a n y o n e w h o w i s h es to

d e f e n d t h e d o c t r i n e m u s t r e c o g n i z e t h is f a c t. 2s W e c a n e x p l a i n w h y t h e d o c -

28 On this point I d iffer w ith Alle n W ood 's account of the Highest Good in Kant's MoralReligion, w ith which I am o therwise in general agreem ent. As I see it, W oo d is not sufficiently



6 1 4 J O U R N A L O F T H E H I S T O R Y O F P H I L O S O P H Y ~ 6 : 4 O C T O B E R 1 9 8 8

t r i n e o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d is s o o f t e n r e j e c t e d o u t o f h a n d b y c i t in g th e

p r e s e n c e o f t h e t h e o l o g i c a l v e r s i o n i n t h e t e x ts . S e c o n d , I h a v e c r i t i c i ze d th e

t h e o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t i o n p r i m a r i l y b y s h o w i n g t h a t i t i s n o t c o n s i s t e n t w i th w h a t

K a n t s a y s e l s e w h e r e a b o u t t h e H i g h e s t G o o d . B u t t h e s e o b j e c t i o n s d o n o t

c o n s t i t u t e a n y o v e r r i d i n g w e a k n e s s i n t h e d o c t r i n e a s a w h o l e . T h e y d o n o t

s h o w t h a t K a n t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o s o m e v e r s i o n o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d , o n l y t h a t

h e i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h i s on e .~ 9

T h e a r g u m e n t s o f a r s u g g e s t s a n i n t e r p r e t i v e s t ra t e g y . T h e o b v i o u s w a y t o

d e f e n d t h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d is t o g r a n t t h a t t h e r e a r e r e a l p r o b -

l e m s w i t h s o m e o f w h a t K a n t s a ys a b o u t i t , b u t s h o w t h a t t h e y a p p l y t o a s t r a i n

w h i c h , t h o u g h u n d e n i a b l y i n t h e t e x t s , i s n o t e s s e n t i a l t o t h e v ie w . T h e s e a r e

r e a s o n s t o i g n o r e t h e t h e o l o g i c a l v e r s i o n t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t o n e c a n . B e c a u s e

t h e s e c u l a r v e r s i o n is m o s t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s in i t i a l d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e H i g h e s t

G o o d , a n d b e s t s u i t e d to h i s p u r p o s e s , K a n t w o u l d h a v e d o n e b e t t e r to h a v e

a d o p t e d i t t h r o u g h o u t . S i n c e t h e s e c u la r c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d c a n

b e c o n s t r u c t e d o u t o f th e M o r a l L a w , w e m a y t r e a t i t a s K a n t ' s v ie w w i t h o u t

d i s t o r t i n g h i s b a s i c i n t e n t i o n s . I t c a n c e r t a i n l y c l a i m to c a p t u r e w h a t i s e s s e n t i a l

t o th i s d o c t r i n e .

.

S o f a r I h a v e d i s c u s s e d t h e s e c u l a r c o n c e p t i o n i n f a i r l y g e n e r a l t e r m s . I w a n t t o

c o n c l u d e b y s k e t c h i n g a p o s i t i v e a c c o u n t o f w h a t i t w o u l d i n v o l v e , a n d o f h o w

o n e w o u l d g o a b o u t w o r k i n g o u t f u r t h e r d e t a il s , w h i c h i n d i c a t e h o w i t b e -

c o m e s a p o l i t i c a l n o t i o n . I w i l l f i n is h w i t h a c o m m e n t a b o u t t h e k i n d o f c o n t r i -

b u t i o n t h a t t h e H i g h e s t G o o d c a n m a k e t o K a n t ' s m o r a l t h e o r y a s a w h o l e ,

c r i t ica l o f the tex ts a t cer ta in po in ts . H e is awa re o f the am bigu i t ies be tween th e secu lar and the

theo log ica l s t ra ins in Kan t ' s thoug ht , bu t he seem s to th ink tha t they can be reconci led wi thou t

se r io u s p ro b lem s . ( Cf. 1 3 o - 3 2 , 1 9 1 - 9 2 . ) He a l so ap p ea r s t o accep t t h e p r o p o r t io n a l i t y co n cep t io n

o f t h e Hig h es t G o o d an d th e p r in c ip l e s o f m o r a l d e se r t o n wh ich i t r e st s a s n a tu r a l ly fo l lo win gf rom o ther aspec ts o f Kant ' s views. (Cf. 89, 93-9 7 , 125-~9 .)

29 T h i s i s h o w I wo u ld av o id th e co n c lu s io n s o f T h o m as A u x te r i n h is " T h e Un im p o r t an ce o f

Kan t ' s H ig h es t Go o d , " i n t h e Journa l of the History of Philosophy 17 ( 1979) : 1 21-34 . Au xter a lsof in d s two sen se s o f t h e H ig h es t Go o d in t h e Critique of Practical Reason. He d is t ingu ishes a vers ion

o f t h e Hig h es t G o o d ( the " ec ty p a l wo r ld " , K p V 44f /43f ) , which h as a va l id ro le in Kant ' s p roce-

d u r e o f m o r a l j u d g m en t , f r o m an o th e r w o r ld ly id ea l t h a t h a s a p r im ar i ly r e l ig io u s em p lo y m en t .

T h e l a t t e r c ap tu r e s wh a t I h av e ca l l ed th e th eo lo g ica l co n cep t io n . He t ak es t h e p r o p o r t io n a l i t y o f

v i r tu e an d h ap p in ess a s t h e l e ad in g id ea , an d id en ti f ie s th e r e su l t w i th t h e co n cep t o f t h e Hig h es tGoo d foun d in the "Dialec t ic ." He then goes on to a rgu e tha t an ap peal to any such idea l as a

s t an d a r d o f co n d u c t i s p r ec lu d ed b y v a r io u s a sp ec ts o f Kan t 's p r o ced u r e o f m o r a l j u d g m en t . Iag r ee wi th Au x te r i n t h in k in g th a t a p r o p o r t io n a l i t y o f v i r tu e an d h ap p in ess i s a b ad id ea wh ich is

o u t o f p l ace in Kan t ' s vi ew, an d in t h in k in g th a t t h e i d ea o f an o th e r wo r ld ly en d i s p r o b lem a t i c i ni tsel f. B u t m y ap p r o ach i s t o a t t em p t t o sa lvag e th e co n cep t o f t h e Hig h es t Go o d b y sh o win g th a t

th e se f ea tu r e s r ep r e se n t o n ly o n e d esc r ip t io n o f t h e n o t io n , an d d o n o t i n f act s t a t e t h e e s sen ti a l

idea .



616 JOURN AL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPH Y 26:4 OCTOBER 1988

would also pursue their own ends within the limits that it sets. The two condi-

tions on the use of freedom appear to correspond, respectively, to what the

M etaphysic of Mo rals defines as the duties of virtue and the duties o f justice.

Freedom would be "inspired by moral laws" in that an individual's system of

ends would include the objective ends (one's own moral perfection and the

happiness of others). It would be "restricted by moral laws" in that the pursui t

of personal ends would fall within the limits of what is just.

It is not implausible that individuals would by and large be successful in

achieving their ends within a system of this sort. General adherence to the

duties of justice would lead people to pursue their own ends in ways that do

not interfere with the legitimate interests of others. Moreover, it would likely

have an effect on people's desires that promoted, rather than hindered, their

satisfaction. As individuals would be guided by moral concerns, they would be

less inclined to pursue ends that are divisive, or harmful to others, and would

be willing to accept resolutions to any conflicts that might arise when these

resolutions accord with publically accepted principles. Beyond that, the dut ies

of virtue would lead individuals to take a positive interest in the happiness of

others, as well as a concern for the co mmon good (the prope r functioning of

this social system). Having a virtuous character would include, in addition to

adherence to public moral principles, a willingness to do one's share in main-taining this system. Overall one could expect an atmosphere of mutua l respect

and a shared concern for the interests of all, as well as the h igh degree of social

cooperation n eeded to make this system work.

Kant seems to have thought that the "system of self-rewarding morality"

would be the natural consequence of the actions of individuals whose only

concern was to abide by the moral law and to carry out their duties individu-

ally. Though we should not expect too much from this brief discussion, he

does not seem to consider the coordination of the efforts of differ ent individu-

als, and the institutional structures, that would be needed to bring about andto sustain this system. This gap is made good to an extent in the no tion of the

Ethical Commonwealth, found in Book 3 of the Religion. Without providing

much in the way of details, Kant does begin to emphasize the role of social

institutions and the need for certain forms of social organization. Th e Ethical

Commonweal th is described as "a society in accordance with, and for the sake

of the laws of virtue, a society whose task and duty it is to impress these laws in

all their scope upon the entire human race" (Rel 86/94 ). I t is also called a

"universal republic based on laws of virtue," which requires "a union of such

individuals into a whole toward the same goo d- -into a system of well-disposed

men, in which and through whose unity alone the highest moral good can

come to pass" (Rel 89/97-98 ). These and similar remarks indicate that Kant

sees the Ethical Commonwea lth as a society whose institutions are a rra nge d to



THE HIGHEST GOOD IN KANT 617

embo dy moral principles and to promot e the realization of various moral

ends.

Some of the important developments in this passage are as follows. The

Ethical Commonwealth is not seen as resulting simply from the efforts of

individuals acting f ro m their ord ina ry duties. It is rat her a state of affairs that

we must consciously aim to bring about, and the source o f a special duty, in

addition to the ordinary duties generated by the Categorical Imperative.3o

One would act on the duty to promote the Highest Good by working, collec-

tively with others, to rest ruc tur e existing social institutions in acco rdan ce with

moral principles. Secondly, Kan t suggests that some system of social institu-

tions is needed as a stabilizing force--both as a source of moral education, but

also to provide background conditions that are conducive to moral conduct

and the mai ntena nce of the moral disposition on the part of individuals. Even

individuals of goo d will might fall into conflicts which unde rm in e their ability

to act well, in the absence of appropriate forms of social organization ( R e l 85

f./93 f., 88 f./97 f.). Certainly one's disposition to act from the Moral Law is

strengthened when it is given public support, and when one can count on

others to do so as well. As the title of this book of the R e l i g i o n implies, the

victory of goo d over evil (even in the individual) requir es the establishment of

a certain f or m of society.3'It should be obvious that when the implications of the secular conception

are fully developed, the Highest Good becomes an important social ideal that

makes a substantive contribution to Kant's moral theory. One can plausibly

claim that an account of Kant's moral theory which did not mention the

Highest Good, so understood, would be incomplete, and liable to misunder-

stand so me of its fund am en ta l overall aims. It is impo rta nt to recognize that

the Moral Law defines a final end, specifically a social goal of this sort. On

Kant's own un de rs ta nd in g of it, it is not just a law for individual conduc t, b ut

is also to be the basis of a social order in which certain kinds of ends are

effectively realized. Progr ess toward s the realization of this state of affairs is a

goal of moral condu ct, and its aim over time.

3o Cf. Re189/97: "now here we have a duty which is sui g eneris [yon ihrer ezgnen Art], not of mentoward men, but of the human race towards itself." See also, especially, the opening paragraph ofBk. IV of the Religion, where Kant says that we must make a "special business" of promoting theEthical Commonwealth, since we cannot count on the required unity resulting from the "acciden-tal agreement of all in a common good.. . [without] a special organization" (R e l 139 151 ).

An argument for such a duty might be developed along the following ines. A commitment to

furthering fundamental moral ends could lead one to recognize a duty to promote the HighestGood, once one saw it as providing the social conditions needed for the realization of the former.

3~ It reads: "The Victory of the Good Over the Evil Principle, and the Founding of a King-dom of God on Earth."



618 JOURN AL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSO PHY 26:4 OCTOBER 1988

T h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d is o n e p l ac e w h e r e K a n t c a n b e g in t o

a d d r e s s t h e p r o b l e m s r a i s e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t w e li ve i n a m o r a l l y i m p e r f e c t

w o r l d , w h i c h is n o t c o n d u c i v e t o f u ll y r a t i o n a l c o n d u c t . S i m p l y p u t , w e l iv e i n

c i r c u m s t a n c es i n w h i ch w e c a n n o t c o u n t o n o t h e r s t o a d h e r e t o m o r a l p r i n c i-

p le s a n d t o ac t as t h e y o u g h t . T h e r e s u l t is t h a t d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e ' s c h o ic e s ta k e n

t o g e t h e r c r e a t e c o n f l ic t s t o w h i c h t h e r e m a y b e n o c o m p l e t e l y a c c e p t a b l e so l u -

t io n s , a n d t h a t s i t u a t i o n s a r i s e w h i c h s e e m t o m a k e i t i m p o s s i b l e t o ac t f r o m

m o r a l p r i n c ip l e s . T h e p r o b l e m w h i c h t h is p o se s f o r K a n t is t h a t, in m a n y

s i t u a t i o n s , i t m a y b e c o m e ( o r a p p e a r t o b e c o m e ) i r r a t i o n a l f o r i n d i v i d u a l s t o

a c t f r o m w h a t t h e y r e c o g n i z e a s t h e i r d u t y . ( R e a s o n m a y p l ac e c o n t r a d i c t o r y

d e m a n d s o n t h e i n d i v i d u a l w h i c h c a n n o t b e s a ti sf ie d .) I t m i g h t b e i r ra t i o n a l in

t h e s e n s e t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s w h o a c t f r o m m o r a l p r i n c i p l e s l e a v e t h e m s e l v e s

l ia b le to b e i n g t a k e n a d v a n t a g e o f by o th e r s , o r m a n i p u l a t e d s o t h a t t h e i r

a c t i o n s h a v e c o n s e q u e n c e s w h i c h t h e y d o n o t i n t e n d . 3 ~ O r i t m a y s i m p l y b e

t h a t m o r a l c o n d u c t , a s a r u l e , i s i n e f f e c t iv e a n d f ai ls to a c h i e v e a n y g o o d

r es u lt s. T h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f e i t h e r k i n d o f fa c t c a n b e d e t r i m e n t a l t o m o r a l

m o t i v a t i o n a n d e r o d e t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o m m i t m e n t t o t h e m o r a l l i f e . M o r a l

c o n d u c t w i ll a p p e a r p o i n tl e ss , a t b e st , if n o t h i n g , o r t h e w r o n g t h i n g , c o m e s o f

i t m o r e o f t e n t h a n n o t .

M o s t p e o p l e t h i n k t h a t K a n t ' s m o r a l t h e o r y is i l l -e q u i p p e d t o d e a l w i thm o r a l p r o b l e m s o f t h is s o rt , a n d t h e d i l e m m a s t h e y p o s e . M u c h o f t h is is d u e

t o t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t K a n t e s p o u s e d a n u n a c c e p t a b l y " ri g o ri s ti c " i n t e r p r e ta -

t io n o f m o r a l p r i n c i p le s . H e is w i d e ly c ri t ic i z e d f o r r e q u i r i n g s t ri c t a d h e r e n c e

t o v e r y g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s , i n a w a y t h a t a l lo w s t h e a g e n t n o l a t i t u d e t o t a k e

a c c o u n t o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , o r p o s s ib l e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f a n a c t i o n . A s im i l ar ,

b u t m o r e p l a u s i b l e , c r i ti c i s m is t h a t K a n t ' s v i e w d i r e c t s i n d i v i d u a l s t o a c t f r o m

p r i n c i p le s t h a t o n e c o u l d a c t f r o m i n a R e a l m o f E n d s - - t h a t is, t o ac t a s i f w e

w e r e now i n a R e a l m o f E n ds .3 3 It is n o t c l e a r t o m e t h a t K a n t a d o p t e d e i t h e r

f o r m o f r i g o r i s m , b u t c e r t a i n a s p e c ts o f hi s vi ew d o l e n d t h e m s e l v e s t o s u c h a n

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I n p a r t i c u la r , a c o n n e c t i o n is a p p a r e n t b e t w e e n a f o r m o f

r i g o r i s m a n d t h e t h e o l og i c al c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d . I f o n e a s s u m e s

t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n o t h e r w o r l d w h i c h i s o r d e r e d a c c o r d i n g t o m o r a l la ws , a n d

i n w h i c h g o o d c h a r a c t e r a l w a y s l e a ds to a p p r o p r i a t e c o n s e q u e n c e s , t h e r e su l t s

o n e ' s a c ti o n s in t h is w o r l d c a n s e e m l es s i m p o r t a n t . I t m a y e v e n m a k e s e n s e to

f o l lo w a p o l i c y o f s t r ic t a d h e r e n c e t o g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s , t h a t t a k e s o n l y m i n i -

s" For a discussion of certain aspects of this problem see Christine M. Korsgaar d, "The Right

to Lie: Kant on Dealing with Evil," Philosophy and Public Affairs 15 (Fall, 1986).33 Th e first of t hese criticisms seems entirely implausible, though there may be some supp ort

for the second. On this see Thom as E. Hill, Jr., "Kant's Utopianism," in Akten des 4 InternationalenKant-Kongresses, I I, hrsg. Ger har d Funke (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974).



T H E H IG H E ST G O O D IN K A N T 6 1 9

m a l r e g a r d f o r t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f o n e ' s a c ti o ns . I n t h is w a y , s o m e f o r m o f

r i g o r is m a n d a t h e o l o g i ca l c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d m a y w el l g o h a n d

in h a n d , a n d p r o v i d e m u t u a l s u p p o r t .

B o t h v e r s i o n s o f t h e H i g h e s t G o o d c a n i n i ti a te s o m e k i n d o f a n s w e r t o t h e

p r o b l e m o f th e r o l e o f m o r a l c o n d u c t i n an i m p e r f e c t w o r l d . I w o u l d s i m p l y

p o i n t o u t h o w d i f f e r e n t t h e o v e r a l l o r i e n t a t i o n o f K a n t ' s m o r a l t h e o r y w i ll

a p p e a r , d e p e n d i n g o n w h i c h o n e ch o o s e s. T h e t h e o l og i c a l v e r s i o n m i g h t s u g -

g e s t t h e r e s p o n s e t h a t , w h i l e it is t r u e t h a t g o o d c o n d u c t o f t e n d o e s n o t l e a d t o

t h e r e su l t s f o r w h i c h o n e h o p e s , t h a t s h o u l d n o t b e a m a t t e r o f g r e a t c o n c e r n .

T h e i n j u st i c e s o f th i s w o r l d w i ll b e c o r r e c t e d i n a n o t h e r , s o t h a t a ll m o r a l

a g e n t s e v e n t u a l l y r e c e i v e t h e i r d u e . O f c o u r s e t h is is j u s t t o s a y t h a t a c c e p t i n g

t h e th e o l o g ic a l c o n c e p t i o n s e e m s t o r e m o v e t h e n e e d t o a d d r e s s t h e p r o b l e m

o f n o n - i d e a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s a f t e r a ll .

P r o p e r r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e r o l e o f t h e s e cu l a r, o r p o li ti ca l, c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e

H i g h e s t G o o d i n K a n t ' s m o r a l t h e o r y a l lo w s a m o r e s a t is f a c to r y s o l u ti o n ,

w h i c h p u t s t h e t h e o r y i n a b e t t e r I i g ht . M o r e o v e r , i t s e e m s t o b e o n e o f t h e

n o t i o n s t h a t K a n t n e e d s t o a v o i d t h e s u g g e s t i o n o f r i g o r i sm i n his m o r a l v ie w .

I t a ll ow s K a n t t o a d d r e s s t h e m o r a l i m p e r f e c t i o n s o f th e w o r l d b y p r o p o s i n g a

s o ci al id e a l i n w h i c h m o r a l c o n d u c t is e f f e c t i v e i n a c h i e v i n g c e r t a i n e n d s , t o b e

a d v a n c e d b y a r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f th e e x is t in g so ci al e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e H i g h e s tG o o d , s o u n d e r s t o o d , w o u l d b e r e a l iz e d t h r o u g h a sy s t e m o f s oc ia l i n s ti tu t io n s

w h i c h s u p p o r t s t h e r e a l i za t i o n o f ce r t a i n m o r a l e n d s . T h e a i m o f th is s y s te m o f

i n s ti tu t io n s w o u l d b e t o c r e a t e c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h w o u l d b e c o n d u c i v e t o m o r a l

c o n d u c t , i n p a r t b y m a k i n g i t f u ll y r a t i o n a l t o a c t f r o m m o r a l p r i n c i p l e s . T h i s

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e H i g h e s t G o o d s et s a s t h e f in a l e n d o f m o r a l c o n d u c t a

w o r l d i n w h i c h i n d i v i d u a ls c a n a c t f r o m t h e M o r a l L a w , a n d i n d o i n g s o

a c h i e v e t h e i r i n t e n d e d e nd s. 34

M o u n t H o l y o k e C o l l e g e

s4 Th is pa pe r is adap ted f rom the second chapter of m y dissertation, Morahty and the Course ofNature: Kant 's D octr ine of the Highest Good, (H arv ard , ] 984). I would like to thank my advisers, Prof.Joh n Rawls and Prof. Roderick F irth, for their suggestions about various drafts of the disserta-tion, some of which [ hop e are reflected in the p aper. A version of the p ap er was presented to the

dep artm ent of philosophy at Georgetown University in February o f 1985, and I am grateful f ortheir comm ents. I am also indebted to Christine K orsgaard fo r helpful discussion and suggestionsat man y points, and to the editors o f The Journal of the H istory of Philosophy, whose comm ents andquestions led me to m ake m any revisions on the final draft.

two concepts of the highest good in kant

Documents