Page 80 [80]
OCR
The problem of freedom creates tension in both generally and individually, especially within a specific group. This comes from the relationship between the two, i.e., the conflict between the general ethical imperative and individual moral conviction. Let us consider a proposed law that stamp collectors should be persecuted in a country. On the other hand, I particularly love stamps, and I collect them myself. The general and the individual will be in conflict with each other. The question is: how can the tension between the two be eliminated? Can this tension be eliminated at all? Can the contradiction? It is to do so that Schelling reframes the Kantian categorical imperative, which in Kant is phrased as “act so that the maxim of thy will can always at the same time hold good as a principle of universal legislation”. (Kant, 2018. Book I. §.7., Kant 1977.) That is, if you have the opportunity to steal, although you could steal you by no means would want there to be a general rule saying everybody should steal. This would be contrary to the urgings of common sense: if the general rule is for everyone to steal, that could negatively affect you. People could steal from you, too. This contradicts common sense. Thus, I behave rightly when I act in a way that can be made a general rule. Indeed, “do not steal” as opposed to “steal” can indeed become a general rule. This is true even if I myself steal occasionally, when I can. This can be transformed into a moral principle. (S.W. I. 45.§. )?* This formulation seeks to bring something new to the Kantian categorical imperative in many respects, by emphasizing “action,” namely, by stating that action has an effect on the moral world and thus assumes the co-action of the majority. Co-action is the highest level of communication. This is because, even though it is about the relationship between godly and human freedom, at its core it is about internal and external limitations without which freedom would be completely meaningless. 36 Neue Deduktion des Naturrechts (1795.) The title stresses the importance of natural law. I am convinced that when we speak of any positive right, it defies understanding if it has no basis in natural law. I will return to this later when I discuss G. Radbruch.
