按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
employed to attain them。 It may be objected that； had such
scrupulousness about making a beginning in founding a legal state with
force been always maintained； the whole earth would still have been in
a state of lawlessness。 But such an objection would as little annul
the conditions of right in question as the pretext of the political
revolutionaries that； when a constitution has become degenerate； it
belongs to the people to transform it by force。 This would amount
generally to being unjust once and for all； in order thereafter to
found justice the more surely； and to make it flourish。
CONCLUSION
Conclusion。
If one cannot prove that a thing is； he may try to prove that it
is not。 And if he succeeds in doing neither （as often occurs）； he
may still ask whether it is in his interest to accept one or other
of the alternatives hypothetically； from the theoretical or the
practical point of view。 In other words； a hypothesis may be
accepted either in order to explain a certain phenomenon （as in
astronomy to account for the retrogression and stationariness of the
planets）； or in order to attain a certain end； which again may be
either pragmatic； as belonging merely to the sphere of art； or
moral； as involving a purpose which it is a duty to adopt as a maxim
of action。 Now it is evident that the assumption （suppositio） of the
practicability of such an end； though presented merely as a
theoretical and problematical judgement； may be regarded as
constituting a duty； and hence it is so regarded in this case。 For
although there may be no positive obligation to believe in such an
end； yet even if there were not the least theoretical probability of
action being carried out in accordance with it； so long as its
impossibility cannot be demonstrated； there still remains a duty
incumbent upon us with regard to it。
Now； as a matter of fact； the morally practical reason utters within
us its irrevocable veto： There shall be no war。 So there ought to be
no war； neither between me and you in the condition of nature； nor
between us as members of states which； although internally in a
condition of law； are still externally in their relation to each other
in a condition of lawlessness； for this is not the way by which any
one should prosecute his right。 Hence the question no longer is as
to whether perpetual peace is a real thing or not a real thing； or
as to whether we may not be deceiving ourselves when we adopt the
former alternative； but we must act on the supposition of its being
real。 We must work for what may perhaps not be realized； and establish
that constitution which yet seems best adapted to bring it about
（mayhap republicanism in all states； together and separately）。 And
thus we may put an end to the evil of wars； which have been the
chief interest of the internal arrangements of all the states
without exception。 And although the realization of this purpose may
always remain but a pious wish； yet we do certainly not deceive
ourselves in adopting the maxim of action that will guide us in
working incessantly for it； for it is a duty to do this。 To suppose
that the moral law within us is itself deceptive； would be
sufficient to excite the horrible wish rather to be deprived of all
reason than to live under such deception； and even to see oneself；
according to such principles； degraded like the lower animals to the
level of the mechanical play of nature。
It may be said that the universal and lasting establishment of peace
constitutes not merely a part； but the whole final purpose and end
of the science of right as viewed within the limits of reason。 The
state of peace is the only condition of the mine and thine that is
secured and guaranteed by laws in the relationship of men living in
numbers contiguous to each other； and who are thus combined in a
constitution whose rule is derived not from the mere experience of
those who have found it the best as a normal guide for others； but
which must be taken by the reason a priori from the ideal of a
juridical union of men under public laws generally。 For all particular
examples or instances； being able only to furnish illustration but not
proof； are deceptive； and at all events require a metaphysic to
establish them by its necessary principles。 And this is conceded
indirectly even by those who turn metaphysics into ridicule； when they
say； as they often do： 〃The best constitution is that in which not men
but laws exercise the power。〃 For what can be more metaphysically
sublime in its own way than this very idea of theirs； which
according to their own assertion has； notwithstanding； the most
objective reality？ This may be easily shown by reference to actual
instances。 And it is this very idea； which alone can be carried out
practically； if it is not forced on in a revolutionary and sudden
way by violent overthrow of the existing defective constitution； for
this would produce for the time the momentary annihilation of the
whole juridical state of society。 But if the idea is carried forward
by gradual reform and in accordance with fixed principles； it may lead
by a continuous approximation to the highest political good； and to
perpetual peace。
…THE END…