• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• no.96
• /
• pp.39-70
• /
• 2012

In order to locate Kant's concept of the highest good within ethics and the theory of moral religion, it needs to be approached with some qualifications: there are two rough ways to be suggested. The first way is to focus on the concept of the highest good that is explained in terms of the happiness in proportion to a rational being's virtue or to his/her worthiness to be happy. But the happiness determined in the sense outlined above would be (increasingly or decreasingly) changeable according to each one's individual morality-this is what is meant by each one's 'worthiness' here-, and would not be seen as the perfect one. It might even be said that this kind of happiness is possible in a sensible world generally taken, if the existence of God thought of as harmonizing natural phenomena and the moral order is successfully presupposed. The other way is to understand the concept of the highest good literally: in this view, the highest good shows that a rational being's character is completely appropriate to the moral law and for him/her, its corresponding idea, i.e., the perfect happiness, is considered with full justification. But the highest good in the sense sketched above-along with the existence of God and the immortality of the soul-is expected to be realized only in an intelligible world generally taken. This means that it should be appraised as an ideal of the highest good that includes the so-called 'physical happiness' specified in terms of the first way as its element. In this regard, it is seen to be somewhat restricted. Between the two concepts of the highest good already touched upon, the highest good of the possible world would be the one established in terms of the first way. In other words, it is not the highest good in an intelligible world, but the highest good in this world. Of course, it is true that we cannot help but assume the existence of God-a being as higher, as moral, as most holy, and as omnipotent-in order to explain the highest good in this world (namely, in order to establish the possibility of the combination of the happiness and the worthiness). For as long as both morally good acts and the happiness are considered to happen in a natural world, the cause of the nature (i.e., the existence of its creator), that is, God, must be able to be presupposed. In this vein, Kant interprets that most people view that the key of the Bible is to show that the best world which is characterized by an intelligible or heavenly kingdom is also actually feasible in this world. The wish of the people who have the morally good character is that God's kingdom comes and his will is properly achieved in this world. But we cannot know what God really does in order to realize his world in this world. Nonetheless, we are fully aware of what we should do in order to make ourselves a member of his world. It is specified like this: we should do our ethical duties and further proceed to establish an ethical community. Viewed this manner, it is concluded that an ethical community is not a merely ideal thing like the kingdom of the ends, but a human apparatus or institution that exists in this world.