[p. 462]
|462| insofar as such a one stands over against it. Each of the two determinacies is equally capable of being thought; which of the two it is to be, which is to be taken up into the unity or thought and which abstracted from, this is entirely undetermined and free; if the one is fixed as subsisting in and for itself, then the other indeed cannot be posited; but this other can just as well be thought and, since this form of thinking is the essence, pronounced as an absolute ethical law. That the commonest understanding without instruction can undertake that easy operation and distinguish which form in the maxim is suited for universal legislation or not, Kant shows by the example of the question whether the maxim, to increase my wealth by all safe means – in case such a means presented itself in a deposit – could count as a universal practical law, which would thus be of the content that anyone may deny a deposit the depositing of which nobody can prove to him; this question decides itself, in that such a principle as law would annihilate itself, because it would bring it about that there would be no deposit at all.2) But that there would be no deposit at all, what contradiction would lie in that? That there be no deposit will contradict other necessary determinacies, just as that a deposit be possible will cohere with other necessary determinacies and thereby be itself necessary. But other purposes and material grounds are not to be called in; rather, the immediate form of the concept is to decide the correctness of the first or the second assumption; but for the form the one of the opposed determinacies is as indifferent as the other; each can be conceived as a quality and this conceiving pronounced as law. If the determinacy of property in general is posited, then the tautological
2) Editors: Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, A 49

Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.