On Verbindlichkeit And Pflicht In Kant's Legal Philosophy

Verbindlichkeit and Pflicht are the core concepts of Kant's moral and legal philosophy.However,there are huge differences in interpretation between the two concepts in the Chinese academic community.The goal of this paper is to clarify the true meaning of Verbindlichkeit and Pflicht in the Kant philosophy system and to judge the interpretations.The ways to achieve the above goals are double problems analysis and dual positions analysis.Double problems analysis refers to the analysis of first-order problem and second-order problem.Dual positions analysis refers to the analysis of internal position and the analysis of external position.Specifically,the internal position analysis points to the first-order problem,while the external position analysis points to both the first-order problem and the second-order problem.The first-order problem refers to the problem pointed out by Kant himself,and the second-order problem refers to the interpretation problem related to Kant's theory.Kant believes that Verbindlichkeit(binding)is "the necessity of rational behavior under a rational command(Verbindlichkeit ist die Notwendigkeit einer freien Handlung unter einem kategorischen Imprativ der Vernunft)",Pflicht(obligation)is "someone's constrained behavior"(Pflicht ist diejenige Handlung,zu welcher jemand verbunden ist)".The first-order question that Kant has to answer through the concept of Verbindlichkeit: Where do you look for the necessary roots of human behavior? The first-order question that Kant faced through Pflicht was: What is the motivation for moral behavior? The second-order problem to be dealt with in this paper is related to Kant's three concepts: Verbindlichkeit,Pflicht,Notwendigkeit.Specifically: First,which interpretation of Verbindlichkeit in the Chinese academic community is more in line with Kant? Second,which interpretation of Pflicht in the Chinese academic community is more in line with Kant? Third,which interpretation of Notwendigkeit in the Chinese academic community is more in line with Kant?The main structure of this paper consists of five parts.The first part outlines the main content of this article.The second part compares and analyzes the differences ofinterpretations between the Verbindlichkeit and Pflicht.The third part explains the concept of obligation(Verbindlichkeit)in Kant's three texts to explore Kant's original intention.The first text is "Foundation of Moral Metaphysics." The second text is "Critique of Practical Reason." The third text is "Moral Metaphysics".The fourth part explains the interpretation of the above three concepts by European and American Kant scholars.The fifth part summarizes the main conclusions about obligation(Verbindlichkeit)and duty(Pflicht).The main conclusions of the second part of this paper:First,the Chinese academic community has four explanations about Verbindlichkeit:(1)Verbindlichkeit = obligation(Mr.Han Shuifa's claim);(2)Verbindlichkeit = responsibility(as opposed by Mr.Li Qiuqi and Deng Xiaomang);(3)Verbindlichkeit = binding(Mr.Miao Litian's Proposition in the Chinese Version of "The Principles of Moral Metaphysics" and Professor Sun Xiaoling's Proposition);(3)Verbindlichkeit = Mandatory(N?tigung)(Proposition of Mr.Miao Litian's "The Order of Morality").Second,the Chinese academic community has two explanations about Notwendigkeit:(1)Notwendigkeit = necessity(Mr.Li Qiuqian's claim in the Chinese translation of Moral Metaphysics);(2)Notwendigkeit = Inevitability(Mr.Li Qiuqi's "Foundation of Moral Metaphysics" The proposition in the Chinese translation,Mr.Deng Xiaomang in the "Critique of Practical Rationality" translation and "Kant's" Foundation of Moral Metaphysics " sentence reading(below)").Third,the Chinese academic community has three explanations about Pflicht:(1)Pflicht = responsibility(Mr.Han Shuifa's claim);(2)Pflicht = obligation(Li Qiuzhen,Deng Xiaomang,Shen Shuping's claim);(3)Pflicht = responsibility(Mr.Miao Litian's claim).Fourth,there is one explanation in the Chinese academic community about the criteria for the distinction between Verbindlichkeit and Pflicht: Mr.Deng Xiaomang's explanation.Mr.Deng believes that Verbindlichkeit is passive and concrete,while Pflicht is proactive and abstract.The main conclusions of the third and fourth parts of this paper:First,regarding the connotation of Verbindlichkeit,this paper believes that this concept should be understood as “binding”.The first reason is that Kant pointed out in Section VII of the first chapter of "Critique of Practical Reason" that Verbindlichkeit is a relational concept,and its connotation includes two aspects: on the one hand,it meansthat pure will depends on the command of command;In terms of it,it is stated that the command of the inevitably stipulates pure will.In the third chapter of Critique of Practical Reason,Kant pointed out that the inevitability(Notwendigkeit)refers to Verbindlichkeit.Verbindlichkeit belongs to the world of reason.The second reason stems from Joachim Ritter's judgment in Historisches W?terbuch der Philosophie:Verbindlichkeit contains two principles,the judgment principle and the fulfillment principle,the former forms an understanding of the specific constrained behavior,and the latter constitutes the constrained behavior being implemented.power.Secondly,regarding the connotation of Pflicht,Marcus Willaschek in Kant-Lexikon believes that Pflicht should be distinguished in two senses: Pflicht as a singular concept expresses a certain idea,and Pflichten as a plural concept expresses concrete behavior.However,this article believes that Pflicht should be understood as“obligation”.The reason is: Kant pointed out in the first section of the first chapter of "Critique of Practical Reason" and the preparatory concept of "Moral Metaphysics" that Pflicht expresses "a certain constrained behavior",which belongs to the perceptual world.Third,regarding the connotation of N?tigung,this paper believes that this concept is included in Verbindlichkeit,which is only part of the meaning of Verbindlichkeit,not its entirety.The reason is that Kant pointed out in Section 7 of Chapter 1 of the Critique of Practical Reason that N?tigung is the law's coercion of pure will,which is included in the relationship expressed by Verbindlichkeit.Fourthly,regarding the relationship between Verbindlichkeit and Pflicht,this paper believes that: First,Verbindlichkeit is the a priori form of Pflicht,Pflicht is the material of Verbindlichkeit;second,Verbindlichkeit is the motivation and cause of Pflicht;third,based on the rules and norms The possibility of conflict,the pure will prescribed by Verbindlichkeit,can oppose the freedom of choice(Willkür),purely practical rationality through this confrontation to gain practical ability.The first reason is that in the preparatory concept part of Moral Metaphysics,the definition of Pflicht contains the relationship between this form and the material.The second reason is that Allison's "Incorporation Thesis" and Baron's "The Method of Isolation" show that the two belong to two worlds,that is,Verbindlichkeit belongs to the intellectual world,and Pflicht belongs to the emotional world.In summary,the relationship represented by Verbindlichkeit(binding)constitutes a“power box”,Verbindlichkeit(binding)is the internal working mechanism of this“power box”,and the power of Pflicht(Tribfeder)comes from this “ "Power box",the command of the order through Verbindlichkeit(binding)to pass power to pure will,pure will in the confrontation with the choice(Willkür),then pass this power to Pflicht(obligation),thereby the morality of behavior And legitimacy to obtain its innate prescriptiveness(the core discussion in the fourth part of this article).