康德的人性善恶论是“性善质恶”说吗——对谢文郁教授《性善质恶——康德论原罪》一文的商榷

Is Kant's Theory of Human Nature “The Human Being Is Good in Nature and Evil in Radical”?——A Discussion on Professor Xie Wenyu's “The Human Being Is Good in Nature and Evil in Radical——Kant on Original Sin”

谢文郁教授从奥古斯丁、路德的原罪—恩典思想传统出发,对康德的原罪思想展开分析。他依据康德的"向善的原始禀赋"认为康德是性善论者,同时依据康德对人的本性的新界定,认为康德所说的"趋恶倾向"并非"本性之恶",而是"本质之恶"("质恶"),由此把康德宗教学著作中的人性善恶论归结为"性善质恶"说。这无疑是一个极具冲击性的新概括,但这一概括是建立在奥古斯丁、路德和康德之间的扭曲而错位的比较框架的基础上的,过于凸显了路德的"原罪"与康德的"向善的原始禀赋"之间的对应关系,未能把康德的"趋恶倾向"说视为对路德原罪说的批判改造。更为重要的是,这一概括不是按照康德本人对人的本性的新界定而得出的,因而偏离了康德的基本思想。康德虽然肯定了人的原始向善禀赋是善的,但这种自然禀赋仅仅是人的善良本性的可能性而非现实性,他所说的普遍趋恶倾向则是一种现实的、恶的本性,因此,就人的现实的、由人自己所造就的本性而言,康德恰好是一位性恶论者,尽管他也认为人的原始向善禀赋应该而且能够获得重建。谢文郁教授的解读固然具有极大的启发性,但也值得从方法论上加以反思。

Professor Xie Wenyu unfolds his analysis of Kant’s conception of original sin from the traditional idea of original sin and grace of St.Augustine and Luther.Based on Kant’s“original endowment to goodness,”he argues that Kant believes human nature is good.At the same time,according to Kant’s new definition of human nature,he thinks that what Kant’s idea of“propensity to evil”is not“the evil of nature”but“the evil of radical.”On this basis,he boils down Kantian theory of human nature in Kant’s religious works as“the human being is good in nature but evil in radical.”This is undoubtedly a very shockingly brand new argument.However,since this argumentation is grounded on a distorted and misplaced framework of comparison between Augustine,Luther and Kant,it fails to take Kant’s“propensity to evil”as a critical modification of Luther’s idea of original sin,rather,it overemphasizes the correspondence between the two.More importantly,this argument is not based on Kant’s new definition of human nature,so it deviates from Kant’s original idea.Although Kant affirmed that human original endowment is good,this natural endowment is only a possibility rather than a reality.On the contrary,human propensity to evil is real.Therefore,regarding human real and self-made nature,Kant is a believer that the human being is evil in nature,although he thinks that human’s natural propensity to the good should and could be reconstructed.In this sense,although Professor Xie’s above mentioned interpretation is greatly thought-provoking,it needs reflection from methodological perspective.