Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, pages 15-17
What We Mean by “an Evil Man” [Some hold that the world has
fallen from primordial happiness into its present evil state. Others, more modern, hold that the
world is improving, going from bad to better, and that the predisposition to such progress
is implicit in human nature. But this latter view is surely not deduced from experience.]
“But since it well may be that both sides have erred in their reading of experience,
the question arises whether a middle ground may not at least be possible,
namely, that man as a species is neither good nor bad, or at all events that he is as much the one
as the other, partly good, partly bad. We call a man evil, however, not because he performs actions
that are evil (contrary to law) but because those actions are of such a nature that we may infer
from them the presence in him of evil maxims. In and through experience we can observe actions
contrary to law, and we can observe (at least in ourselves) that they are performed in the
consciousness that they are unlawful; but a man’s maxims, sometimes even his own,
are not thus observable; consequently the judgment that the agent is an evil man cannot
be made with certainty if grounded on experience. In order, then, to call a man evil, it would have
to be possible a priori to infer from several evil acts done with consciousness of their evil, or
from one such act, an underlying evil maxim; and further, from this maxim to infer the presence in
the agent of an underlying common ground, itself a maxim, of all particular morally-evil maxims.”
Interpretation This passage comes from the beginning
of Book 1 of the Religion, titled “Concerning the Indwelling of the Evil Principle with the Good,
or, On the Radical Evil in Human Nature.” Over the next 20 pages Kant will give an account of
the nature and origin of human evil. In this passage, he shifts our attention, from the
empirical evidence of evil actions, to the maxims or rules of conduct behind those actions, and then
ultimately to a maxim-of-maxims, that might be the ultimate ground of evil in an individual.
Let’s take an example. How do we conclude “Hitler is an evil man”? What sort of evidence would
back up this conclusion? Begin by considering empirical evidence. We could empirically observe
the specific actions Hitler performs: many of these are harmful actions, that we may call evil.
But observation alone will not reveal to us Hitler’s state of mind,
the maxim or rule of conduct behind each of his harmful actions. No matter how closely we observe,
we do not find “evil” in the empirical reality of Hitler’s actions, because it lies concealed
in his will, which is not observable to us. So we need some evidence deeper than observation,
to ground the conclusion “Hitler is evil.” Kant tells us we must be able to employ
some a priori principle which, applied to Hitler’s observed harmful actions,
will reveal to us the presence in Hitler’s mind of a morally evil maxim. This maxim, for those
of you who know Kantian ethics, is the true source of the moral worth (or its opposite) in Hitler’s
actions. It is this maxim that we condemn when we call Hitler’s actions “evil actions.”
To get from “Hitler’s actions are evil” to “Hitler is an evil man,” we must see still
deeper into Hitler’s moral psychology, and conclude the presence of a maxim-of-maxims,
a governing evil super-maxim, so to speak, that directs Hitler’s choice of his evil maxims,
and thus his doing of evil deeds. This is of a piece with Kant’s moral system:
although we observe and praise or condemn actions, we always do so on the basis of our
insight into the maxim, the rule of conduct, in the mind of the one acting. And to call a
man himself evil seems to involve still further insight into his character, his governing maxim.