MORAL P II 
Of the Deduction of the Principles of Pure 
Practical Reason. 
It has been fhown that pure reafon is practical; i. e. is 
able to make a demand upon the Will, independently of 
every thing empirical, by the Autonomy of the Moral 
Law. Although this autonomy is indubitably certain, 
the poflibility of fuch a law has not yet been fhown. An 
objectively-practical principle is always a fynthetical poji- 
tion, and is differently expreffed from an hypothetical 
imperative ; which fays, 1 muft do fomething becaufe 
I will fomething elfe. It commands, on the contrary, 
that fomething; Jit all be dove Independently of every ma¬ 
terial determination of the Will. Here there is a fyn- 
theiis between the deed and the will: to fhow how this 
Svnthefis is poflible i? the object of the Deduction of the 
principles of practical Reafon. 
We formerly dated pure practical Reafon to be a faculty 
to determine the Will abfoliitely, without any material 
incentive ; and in the Categorical Imperative, the for¬ 
mula of the law was given, by which pure Reafon muft 
fhow itfelf practical, if it be allowed to be fo. But that 
this conception has objective reality, i. e. that pure Reafon 
is indeed practical, has been proved by the faCl of the 
Law of Morality. 
If we compare this with the procedure of the Critic of 
Speculative Reafon, we difeover a remarkable contrail. 
There we enquired into the conditions of Experience. 
As thefe confift of two elements, the intuition and the 
reference of the intuition to an object; the conditions of 
both were fought. Now, though the Categories are 
the conceptions which give objectivity to our reprefenta- 
tions, yet we cannot be faid to know objeCts immediately 
through thefe conceptions. For the intuition is wanting, 
to them, and this muft be given before thofe conceptions 
can be applied to it, and knowledge thus effected. It is 
therefore evident, that all knowledge confifts in experience, 
and that we have no knowledge of Noumena, the con¬ 
ception of which can only be admitted as the conception 
of a Boundary. 
On the other hand, it has been fhown, that the con¬ 
ception of Liberty is the foundation of that of pure 
practical Reafon, and that the rational being who makes 
the practical law his Maxim muft neceffarily think him- 
felf free ; confequently, as belonging to a different order 
of things from that which is fubjeCt to the neceffity of 
nature ; that is, he muft confider himfelf as a noumenon. 
It is here proper to remark, that the conception of Liberty, 
though not eftablifhed pojitively by Speculative Reafon, 
is yet admitted negatively as a conception denoting an 
ens rationis: it is therefore not a contradictory conception. 
Now, the moral law gives a poftive determination to this 
conception. Notwithftanding that law of nature whereby 
every thing that happens has a canfe, and agreeably to 
which we confider ourfelves as belonging to the fenfible 
world ; yet the Moral Law not only entitles, but compels, 
us, fo far as we hold ourfelves fubjefl to it, to confider 
ourlelves as-members of an intellectual world. Nature 
in the molt general fenfe is the exiftence of things under 
laws. The Senfible nature of rational beings is their 
exiftence under empirically-conditioned Laws ; confe¬ 
quently, in the eye of Reafon, a Heteronomy. The exift¬ 
ence ot rational beings, under laws which are independent 
of all empirical conditions, is a Superfenfible nature. But 
this conception is here only negatively determined; the 
law of morality alone enables us to determine it pofitively, 
for it is implied in it. Under the law of Morality, which 
fprings from the Autonomy of pure Reafon, I contem¬ 
plate the exiftence of Rational beings. We may call this 
Superfenfible nature, the Original nature (natura arche- 
typa), in oppofition to a Senfible and imitative nature 
(natura eCtypa), in fo far as the idea of the former is the 
determining ground of the will, and the latter is there¬ 
fore confidered as its eft'eCl. 
In the Critic of Speculative Reafon we had to enquire 
how a knowledge a priori ifobjecis is poflible ; and we deter- 
Vol. XV. No. 1082. 
ILOSOPHY. 773 
mined that, if there be univerful conceptions by which the 
reprefentation of an objeCt is originally generated in the 
mind, thefe conceptions muft refer d priori to objeCts; 
and that, if there be Jynthetical Judgments, by means of 
wdiich apprehenfions are formed into experience, thefe 
Judgments are valid a priori of experience itfelf. But it 
will be afked how knowledge can be a ground of the ex- 
iltence of the objeCts themfelves; in other words, how 
reafon can have caufality. It is ealy to fee that it is im- 
poffible to anfwer this queftion, fince nothing lefs is re¬ 
quired by it, than to know what a Rational Being is in 
itfelf, and not merely what it is in our experience. .Con¬ 
fequently, a knowledge of a Superfenfible nature would 
be requilite, w hich indeed is impoffible. For the queftion, 
how Reafon, as a faculty to determine the Will imme¬ 
diately, is poftible, is the fame as the queftion how Liberty 
is pofible. A deduction of the fynthetic-praClical poli- 
tion, or of the moral principle, is therefore entirely im- 
poftible. 
But, although we cannot explain the poflibility of 
Liberty, the Moral law prefents itfelf immediately to 
our confcioufnefs as an apodiCtically certain faCt: and a 
rational being muft necelfarily think himfelf free in as 
much as he makes this law his maxim. Notwithftanding, 
therefore, the deduction of the Categorical Imperative 
is fought in vain ; yet this very law of morality ferves for 
a principle of deduction to the infcrutable faculty of 
Liberty, which Speculative Reafon could only conceive 
as an ens rationis. This law determines what (peculation 
could not determine: for, though it does not explain 
how liberty is poflible, yet it gives to its conception politive 
contents, without which it would have remained merely 
negative. The Critic of Speculative Reafon could only 
defend the application of the conception of Liberty to a 
being in the fenfible world, by ftiowdng that there is no 
contradiction in the thought of a being, whofe aCtions 
are phyfically conditional, fo far as he is a phenomenon ; 
but that, fo far as he is an intellectual being, his aCtions are 
phyfically unconditioned. Thus, Speculative Reafon was 
able to ufe this conception, as a regulative principle, 
which, however, Hill remained merely a problematical 
conception. By the moral law this conception receives 
objective Reality, though our infight is not in the lead 
increafed by it, fince indeed a being who confiders this 
Law as obligatory upon him, muft neceflarily think him¬ 
felf free, though this does not in the lead explain to him 
how a Cauja Noumenon is poflible. How a Caufa Phe¬ 
nomenon is poflible is conceiveable; this conception finds 
its application in empirical intuition, rendering the ex¬ 
perience of a Change poflible. If we abftraCl from this 
intuition, we retain only the logical Relation of Ground 
to confequence, by which indeed an objeCt may be 
thought, but none can be known. 
Of the Right of Pure Reason, in its Practical ufe, to 
extend itself, which it is unable to do in its Spe¬ 
culative ufe. 
The Law of Morality announces itfelf as an objeClively- 
praCtical Principle, by which Reafon immediately deter¬ 
mines the Will. Practical Reafon, or, which is the fame 
thing, the Will, (hows itfelf here as an Autonomy; 
confequently, its caufality is one which refers to no 
higher caufe. This is Liberty. Now, as this conception 
cannot in any manner find application in the Senfible 
world, and as the Critic of Speculative Reafon forbids all 
ufe of reafon that forfakes the fenfible world, and denies 
all fignification to conceptions, whofe objeCts cannot be 
(hown in experience; the Queftion is upon what princi¬ 
ple practical reafon can over-ftep the boundary of know¬ 
ledge, as marked out by the Critic of Speculative Reafon. 
When the aggregate of the empirical variety is reprefented 
by the Categories, an objeCt is produced; and the con¬ 
ception of Caufe and EffeCt reprefents objectively the 
fucceflion of the empirical variety, which is otherwife 
only fubjeCtive. If I abftraCl from the empirical variety, 
9 L amf 
