Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy

Author: Rawls
Publisher:
Publish Date: April 1, 2003
Features: Preface: I John Rawls established his position in contemporary political philosophy, philosophy of law, and moral philosophy with the publication of A Theory of Justice in 1971. Today, when we discuss fundamental topics such as "justice," "fairness," "equality," "democracy," "freedom," and "virtue," Rawls is one of the figures we cannot bypass. Some compare him with other important Western thinkers in history, such as Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Mill, Hegel, Marx, and Weber, listing him as one of the great political philosophers, philosophers of law, and moral philosophers of the 20th century. As Michael H. Lessnoff mentions in Political Philosophers of the 20th Century, Rawls is one of the three main political philosophers of the contemporary era. "The study of John Rawls's political philosophy is a remarkably outstanding, even extraordinary phenomenon. His major work, A Theory of Justice, is the most influential work in this field in recent years. Since its publication in 1971, it has completely dominated discussions in the English-speaking world on this issue." American legal scholar Richard A. Posner also acknowledges in Beyond Law that Rawls is one of the few philosophers who have had a significant impact on contemporary legal theory. "We live in an era where economists like Ronald Coase and Gary Becker, philosophers like John Rawls and Richard Rorty, and literary critics like Stanley Fish have become true figures in the legal world." Although in Problems of Moral and Legal Theory, Posner includes Rawls and Dworkin among the "academic moralists" and denies the influence of their theories on actual judicial practice, Posner argues that the influence of Rawls and others as "academic moralists" is primarily confined to the university, forming a theoretical group of professors with various differences and divisions but united by a certain family resemblance. Their main views are that "the study of moral theory plays a crucial role in enhancing the moral judgment and behavior of people—themselves, their students, judges, Americans, and foreigners—and that this interdisciplinary field of academic moralism includes philosophers of law like Dworkin, Finnis, and Raz, as well as political philosophers like Rawls." In contrast to Posner's negative evaluation, I believe that Rawls's philosophy attempts to address some fundamental problems prevalent in contemporary society. From its practical ambitions, it has surpassed the meaning of general academic activity and has had a profound impact on many aspects of social, cultural, and political practices worldwide. This is reflected in the "Rawls fever" that swept the world since the 1970s. Of course, in terms of providing solutions or specific strategies to solve basic social problems, perhaps politicians and legal scholars do not actually apply the means influenced by "academic moralists" like Rawls. However, in other aspects, Rawls's philosophy, his advocacy of establishing external law on the foundation of internal law, his view that subjective law, i.e., virtue, becomes the foundation of objective law, and that is, making justice the foundation of legitimacy, undoubtedly has significant guiding significance for us to construct the order of contemporary society. Interestingly, although Rawls's philosophical ideas have had a major impact worldwide, his formally published works are relatively few. In addition to A Theory of Justice, his only other published works are Political Liberalism, The Law of Peoples, and As Justice Requires Liberalism, and the latter two can only be considered expansions of single papers or lectures and do not qualify as strict academic works. Of course, in addition to these, there are his Collected Papers, as well as the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy presented to Chinese readers in October 2000 by Harvard University Press. Although the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy is only a lecture manual for undergraduates and graduates at Harvard University, through the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy, we can clearly see the historical connections between Rawls's philosophy and some important philosophical schools, and we can clearly see Rawls as a Harvard professor in his actual work and identity. Rawls is not only a political philosopher and philosopher of law but also a moral philosopher and historian of moral philosophy. The intellectual influence of the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy is certainly not as significant as that of A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism, but from the perspective of moral philosophy teaching or academic research and education in moral theory, the importance of the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy may even surpass the former two. Moreover, this is the last teaching reference book that Rawls himself was reluctant to publish but was ultimately published, and it provides us with some aspects of Rawls's thought that have not yet been "refined." In this work, Rawls compares classical and modern moral philosophy. He examines the social and historical background of modern moral philosophy and classifies it. Rawls believes that different eras face different moral problems. The solutions to moral problems in ancient times provide little help in solving modern moral problems. In this work, Rawls lays bare all of his thoughts. It is so candid and transparent that we can very clearly see the historical origins of the themes and topics in works like A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism. We can clearly see the intellectual lineage of Rawls in relation to figures like Hume, Kant, and Hegel. Here, I would like to introduce and comment on the basic philosophical ideas and interrelationships of the three philosophers discussed in the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy—Hume, Kant, and Hegel—so as to provide a theoretical context for readers to study the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Furthermore, combining the study of the history of moral philosophy, I attempt to offer some personal views on the current discussions in China's theoretical circles on "rule of law" and "rule by virtue," which also counts as a preliminary attempt to solve practical social problems in China using Western purely theoretical achievements. II In the view of the German classical philosopher Hegel, the establishment of Descartes's "Cogito" principle marks the true beginning of modern philosophy. Hegel assigns Descartes a pioneering role in modern philosophy similar to that of Socrates in ancient Greek philosophy. This view is very representative in the field of modern philosophy. American philosopher Richard Rorty also endorses this: "The transition from the rational mind as reason to the mind as the inner world of the mind in Descartes is not so much the triumph of the proud individual subject that broke free from the shackles of scholasticism as the victory of the search for certainty over the search for wisdom." Clearly, Descartes's philosophy triggered a turn toward the rationalization and scientification of philosophy. Since Descartes, philosophers have been exploring a strictly rationalized, logical, and scientific philosophy. "Science, not life, becomes the theme of philosophy, and epistemology becomes its central part." Descartes's "Cogito" or subjectivity philosophy constitutes the theme of modern philosophy. In contrast, Hume's philosophy, which corresponds to modern philosophy, represents the direction of the non-scientification and everyday life of philosophy, has long been negatively evaluated by Western philosophers. For example, Hegel describes Hume's empiricism as the "completion of Lockeism," saying that "Hume accepted Locke's empirical principles and carried them to their logical conclusion. Hume abandoned the objective reality of various thoughts and their independent existence." Hume's skepticism "has been given more attention in history than it deserves. Its historical significance lies in the fact that, in truth, Kant's philosophy begins with it." Lenin also said: "Hume cancelled the question of whether there is something beyond my senses. This agnostic view is destined to oscillate between materialism and idealism." From the above comments, we can clearly see that Hume's philosophy has received relatively low evaluations from Hegel and Marxist classical writers. Influenced by this, there has been a tendency in China's philosophical circles to understand and treat Hume's philosophy in a simplified manner. Due to the "causal relationship" between Hume and Kant, we have also had an unfairly negative evaluation of Kant's philosophy. This has led to significant misinterpretations of the classical forms of modern philosophical discourse, and modern Marxist philosophy still largely remains in opposition to the discourse of modernity. However, now that 20th-century philosophy is closely related to Hume and Kant, and the rise of ordinary language philosophy has led to a reevaluation of their philosophies. Especially with the linguistic turn in modern philosophy, the reevaluation of the thoughts of some classical philosophers in the history of philosophy has become ripe. Indeed, Hume，。Hume proposed a famous skepticism. He denied the objectivity of laws. He reduced all knowledge to subjective empirical knowledge, arguing that everything is the product of psychological habits and everything is subjective agreement. Hume raised the issues of "the possibility of knowledge" and "the scope of rational ability." These are typically anti-metaphysical issues. Although Hume maintained the consistency of his empiricist philosophy, he led it into incredible errors. Hume sought to establish a complete scientific system, which would be the science of human nature. In the preface to A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume pointed out that all sciences are inseparable from the study of "human nature," and that each specific science ultimately involves some aspect of "human nature." Human nature theory is the science that studies "human nature" as a whole and is the only solid foundation for all sciences. The discussion of "knowledge" constitutes one aspect of human nature theory, but human nature theory is not limited to the discussion of "knowledge." As for knowledge, Hume calls all human knowledge "perception." Perception can be divided into two categories: impressions and ideas. Impressions are vivid and lively sensations of the present, while ideas are dim copies of impressions after the passage of time. Perceptions and ideas only differ in intensity and quantity. Hume believed that "all general ideas are merely individual ideas added to a particular term, the term giving these ideas a broader meaning and reminding us of other similar individuals at the appropriate time." And all ideas, no matter how general and profound, are ultimately the result of different combinations of original impressions. Hume held a skeptical attitude toward any existence beyond human perception and conception. He believed that what we can know is only our own sensations, and whether there is anything beyond our sensations—whether material entities or spiritual entities like God—experience cannot tell us anything. We can only remain silent on them. Hume called this view "skepticism." This skepticism influenced the entire field of modern philosophy, especially German classical philosophy, establishing the fundamental philosophical problem of modern philosophy—the possibility and scope of knowledge. On the other hand, it influenced the entire modern Western philosophy, especially its anti-metaphysical tendencies. The rejection of metaphysics by modern Western philosophy can be directly traced back to Hume. Later, Wittgenstein almost literally repeated Hume's views in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: "One should be silent about what cannot be talked about." Hume divided all philosophical relationships into seven types: resemblance, identity, spatial and temporal relationships, the ratio of quantity or number, the degree of any quality, opposition and causality. These relationships can be divided into two major categories. The first is relationships that depend solely on ideas, such as resemblance, opposition, the degree of quality, and the ratio of quantity or number. The second is relationships that, although ideas may remain unchanged, can change the relationship, such as spatial and temporal relationships and causality. Only the relationship of similarity gives certain knowledge, but this knowledge is probabilistic. Hume further proposed the famous theory of causality. He held a skeptical attitude toward any existence beyond the senses and consequently denied the objective laws of the external world and the causal necessity. He believed that what is called cause and effect are merely phenomena that frequently occur together and succeed each other in experience. Due to such frequent connections in experience, a habitual inference is formed in people's minds. According to this theory of causality, all theories that go beyond experience are unreliable and open to correction, and they all have the possibility of being refuted. Hume limited human knowledge to the range of subjective experience and completely denied objective truth, leaving a space for belief. Hume classified knowledge as science and belief as religion. We have knowledge based on experience, but it may be wrong. We have belief, but its basis is not rational argument. Hume maintained the purity of both scientific knowledge and religious belief, allowing science and religion to coexist peacefully. Later, Kant basically did not break out of the thought framework drawn by Hume. In addition, an important idea in Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature is the full affirmation of the modern secular view of human nature in the West since the Reformation. Hume's discourse is full of affirmation of the capitalist system. Hume frankly recognized that the pursuit of wealth, power, and pleasure, as well as the disdain for poverty and humility, are human nature. He acknowledged the essentiality and rationality of selfish factors in human nature. He said that the essence of wealth lies in the ability to obtain pleasure and comfort in life. "Wealth produces pleasure and pride, while poverty brings discomfort and humility." "Nothing is more respected by one's power and wealth than his poverty, and nothing is more despised by us than his poverty." Hume's identification with secular power and wealth is actually a blunt defense of the emerging capitalist system. In A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume discovered the weakness of the foundations of previous philosophy, that is, the lack of consistency; he believed that predecessors had not grasped the key issues of philosophy but had wasted time and energy on minor issues; he believed that the common flaw of previous philosophy was the neglect of research methods; he expressed skepticism toward metaphysics; he emphasized that all sciences are connected to human nature and all are elaborations of human nature; he believed that all sciences can be reduced to four important disciplines: logic, ethics, criticism, and political science, and human nature theory is the only solid foundation for all sciences, but it must be based on experience and observation. In the third chapter of the third volume of A Treatise of Human Nature, the section "On Knowledge and Probability Inference," Hume elaborated and argued in detail and systematically his theory of causality and his empiricist theory of knowledge. These arguments can be summarized mainly as the following points: First, all knowledge is empirical knowledge. Second, empirical knowledge is presented in two forms: impressions and ideas. Third, all our ideas are derived from impressions. Fourth, the relationship of causality is a knowledge relationship in the sense of experience. Fifth, all inferences about causality come from impressions. Sixth, all probable inferences are merely a kind of feeling. Seventh, all knowledge is the product of psychological habits. Therefore, Hume's philosophy is a summary of the original discourse of modernity. It is a set of everyday discourse, the goal of which is not to make philosophy more scientific or "scientific science," but to lead philosophy toward everyday life and common sense. Hume abandoned the desire for "metaphysics" and the effort to universalize philosophical knowledge, but he directly defended modern secular life. As Charles Taylor pointed out: "Like the Enlightenment thinkers, Hume opposed religion and most traditional metaphysics. However, the basis for this opposition was that these ideas led us to and suppress our own nature." In Hume's view, after the sacred world has been lost, we do not need a metaphysical world to compensate for it. After the decline of religion and theology, we do not need a philosophy of absolute knowledge to replace it. We only have one kind of knowledge—the knowledge of human nature—this knowledge originates in experience and ends in experience. This knowledge is closely tied to secularized reality. Therefore, as Rawls said: "The key to Hume's skepticism is that it is part of a way of life. Compared with the traditional religious way of life, Hume clearly saw this way of life. Therefore, Hume did not simply abandon that religious way of life: he replaced it with another way of life, and it seems he never abandoned that way of life." Philosophers after Hume had to answer the questions he raised. Therefore, Hume is a transitional figure. Hume shattered the philosophers' dream of self-confidence. Hume's philosophy had a significant influence on Kant. His philosophy gave the world meaning through Kant. However, our understanding of Hume's philosophy cannot be limited to Kant's understanding and acceptance of Hume. Hume and Kant actually have very different tendencies and motivations in their philosophical thoughts. Kant's misinterpretation of Hume is a major puzzle in the history of modern philosophy. For this puzzle, John Rawls's Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy provides a good answer. III Hegel's philosophy of law and morality is the result of efforts to reconcile some basic desires in the European intellectual world. Based on a profound reflection and critique of the one-sidedness of the free theory of French Enlightenment represented by Rousseau, the expressionist theory of German Sturm und Drang movement represented by Goethe and Herder, the negative subjectivism of German philosophy represented by Kant, and the terrible consequences of the French Revolution represented by the Jacobins, Hegel put forward his own philosophical and philosophical of law ideas. This gives Hegel's philosophy of law and morality a distinct sense of the times, also making it difficult for predecessors to label him as "mediocre" or "conservative." Two powerful desires—expressionist unity and the achievement of radical autonomy—constitute the contextual background of Hegel's philosophy of law and morality. First, Hegel's philosophy of law is a compromising and harmonizing philosophical theory. The ultimate purpose of his philosophy is the self-awareness and self-realization of the absolute spirit. In the absolute spirit, everything is realized and completed. The basic contradictions are resolved or solved. When this theory is applied to argue for the current social state and system, it inevitably leads to an affirmation of the present reality, thus having a certain conservatism. However, we should note that the reality that Hegel understands and affirms is the Prussian Kingdom that has been impacted by the French Revolution. This conclusion was reached after Hegel had a firsthand experience of the terrible consequences of the French Revolution and the Jacobins' destructive and all-destructive radicalism. Therefore, it is not a simple defense or affirmation of the Prussian Kingdom, but a necessary choice after the French Revolution (whether negated). Moreover, Hegel's comments on the Prussian Kingdom are basically in line with the facts and do not involve any defense or flattery. Therefore, when we understand the specific context of this particular aspect of Hegel's philosophy of law and morality, we can see that his compromise and harmonization are not the needs of the philosophical system but a true reflection of the social and historical reality of the time, as well as his actual summary of human history. In an era that revered revolution, especially in an era that revered the thoroughness and permanence of revolution, the contradiction between Hegel's dialectic and his philosophical system became an irreconcilable contradiction and became a basic motivation for later critiques and attacks on Hegel's philosophy. However, after more than two centuries of social and historical changes and a series of major social and historical events, we must now acknowledge the rationality of Hegel's philosophy and philosophy of law. Second, the ancient Greek city-state has always been an extreme historical example for Hegel's reflection. The ethical governance of the ancient Greek city-state occurred in the early days of human civilization. The young Hegel was deeply fascinated by it. However, in his mature thought, Hegel saw the fundamental limitations of the ancient Greek city-state. Because although the ancient Greeks achieved perfection in governing city-states, they did so based on ethics. The ancient Greeks established an entity of ethical life. People had a full sense of self in it. Their entire identity was closely related to the public reality of their city-state. Everyone was completely identical with the city-state, willing to live and die for it. However, with the birth of individual consciousness in the ancient Greek city-state, especially with the influence of Socrates's pursuit of a universal and rational consciousness, the one-sidedness of the ancient Greek city-state's ethical governance exposed itself. With the dissolution of identity, the democratic system of the ancient Greek city-state had to disintegrate. That is to say，the ethical principle of governing the ancient Greek city-state does not have universality. As Charles Taylor pointed out in his retelling of Hegel's thought: "The beautiful unity of the ancient Greek city-state has disintegrated. Due to its limitations and its one-sidedness, it was destined to disintegrate. The world spirit had to move forward. So once the city-state was realized, the rational trickery called 'the trick of the rational' called by Hegel urged the individual to transcend the city-state. This individual who acts independently is Socrates. Socrates turned toward the loyalty of a universal and rational consciousness. Although he wanted to remain loyal to the laws of his city-state, he tried to base them on reason. Therefore，although he died preserving his loyalty to Athens, his teachings could not but corrupt the young people, because it destroyed the direct between the city-state and public life that it relied on." Modern society is a heterogeneous society rather than a homogeneous one. Since the homogeneity that the ancient Greeks had in governing city-states has disappeared, the ethical governance model of the ancient Greek city-state cannot be restored or replicated in modern states. Third, the recently occurred French Revolution has been another extreme historical example for Hegel's profound reflection. The young Hegel once cheered on the French Revolution and cheered it. However，，，Hegel turned from supporting and participating in the revolution to suspicion and fear of it. Hegel became the first philosopher to theoretically summarize and transcend it. When the ethical governance or of the ancient Greek city-state became impossible, Hegel further argued for the intellectual heritage of the French Revolution. In Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel discussed the terrible consequences of the French Revolution. He argued that the terrible failure of the pursuit of absolute freedom lies in its inability to accept the crucial differences that are vital to society. Its emptiness was destined to cause absolute destruction to society. In many places where Hegel later discussed the French Revolution, it appeared as his counterpoint in establishing a modern state theory. Hegel saw modern society as a heterogeneous society. The modern state can only be an，。 Hegel's basic conclusion from the French Revolution. Therefore, the modern state can only be an， jointly participated by different classes and social strata. Hegel particularly saw a universal class, but not the working class, but the bureaucracy dedicated to managing state affairs. We can see the starting point of Marxist class struggle and the theory of of Weber's bureaucracy theory from here. This also constitutes the core content of Hegel's modern state theory. Fourth, Hegel keenly recognized that revolution cannot solve all problems. On the contrary, after the revolution becomes history, what faces the world is the need to clean up the aftermath of the revolution, heal the wounds of the revolution, turn from revolution to construction, and transform revolutionaries into or into builders. He keenly recognized the actual trend of the world where revolutions are coming to a halt. Hegel's turn from revolution to conservatism has profound social roots. Hegel vaguely realized that the logic of revolution is different from the logic of construction. "Thinking and concept of revolution" and "thinking and concept of construction" are different. Revolution is life-and-death, emphasizing principle and thoroughness, and revolution is prone to extremism; construction emphasizes reconciliation and compromise, and construction tends toward compromise. The foundation science of revolution is philosophy, politics, and military science, and revolution can "do anything." The foundation science of construction is economics, management, and law. Construction must calculate the basic costs and benefits. Therefore，the force driving social development does not rely on a single class but depends on the reconciliation and cooperation of all classes. And the transformation and transformation of the working class is the main challenge facing modern society. However，this class is not the dominant class. Finally，Hegel's philosophy of law is not a revolutionary state theory, but a state theory that acknowledges social and class differences. Hegel held a skeptical, worried, and fearful attitude toward the newly born working class. He did not see it as a universal class, but he still the working class should have its own place in modern society, otherwise, social instability or even violence will be inevitable. In modern society, Hegel places hope on another universal class, the bureaucracy, which is the only class dedicated to the state and serving the state. In a heterogeneous society, they play the role of universality. Whether a society is ruled by whom, whether a society is led by which class, this universal class will be the main force in managing or governing society. Therefore，in modern society，models of ethical governance or like that of the ancient Greek city-state are inappropriate and unworkable. This is the essence of Hegel's philosophy of law. Therefore，Rawls also included Hegel in the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy, making him the main inheritor、critic，and of Kant's moral philosophy. IV Given the current heated discussions in China's academic and intellectual circles on "rule of law" and "rule by virtue," I would also like to say a few words that may not be superfluous. I believe that, like the idealized ancient Greek city-state ethical governance of Hegel's conception, the traditional feudal society in China is another typical model of ethical governance or. However，with China's entry into modern society，in this heterogeneous modern society with increasingly refined social division of labor，ethical governance is impossible. That is to，，。，in modern society，with the disappearance of this homogeneity，with the formation of various interest groups，the decline of the universality of the concept of universal virtue，and the actual prevalence of moral relativism，virtue can only be something confined to a local or parochial view. (We can only say that it has a professional ethics applicable to a certain class or group, but we cannot say that it has a universal professional ethics.) Therefore，I consider the current ideal of ethical governance advocated by China's intellectual and political circles to be another attempt to promote "Chinese-style" or "Eastern-style" modernization theory. As I have mentioned elsewhere: the transition from an antagonistic approach to a dialogical approach in the direction of social development，especially in ideology，has taken nearly a whole century. During this process，in fact，there is no final victor. Of course，this struggle is not without meaning. Looking back，we can clearly see that when "modernity" carries too strong a Western color，that is，when "modernity" is imposed as a Western patent on non-Western countries and nations，the movement of resisting "Westernization" and resisting "modernity" becomes inevitable. Therefore，the modernization process in the East has from the beginning had a subconscious motivation and drive to blaze its own path. In modern society，the rule of law is possible. Because we can formulate complete laws and build a complete legal system, and cultivate sufficient and comprehensive legal talents. As some scholars have pointed out，the essence of the rule of law is the rule of lawyers. However，we cannot propose a set of ethical governance or solutions or strategies as we do with the rule of law. Although some departments seem very active or diligent in the field of "rule by virtue," we find it difficult to come up with a truly objective standard to measure or weigh it. Obviously，we cannot say that is the rule of moralists. is not the rule of a political party, is not the rule of a government. Moralists do not have the special weapons or means to govern the state as lawyers do. Therefore，like Charles Taylor，I draw the lesson from Hegel's theory of ethical governance or of the ancient Greek city-state that，in a society where the rule of law is being fully implemented，ethical governance should proceed with caution. V The study of Kant's moral philosophy is the theme of the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. After reviewing the basic philosophical ideas of Hume, Leibniz, Kant, and Hegel as mentioned above，we now return to the theme of the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. First，in the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy，Rawls discusses Hume's moral philosophy from the following aspects: Hume's theory of artificial virtue, Hume's contract theory, Hume's theory of rational reflection，and Hume's theory of the rational spectator. In the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy，Rawls mainly discusses Hume's moral philosophy from the perspective of the relationship between Hume and Kant. Rawls shows us the origin of Kant's moral philosophy in Hume. Second，Kant is also between Leibniz and Hegel. Leibniz's philosophy directly influenced Kant's philosophy. Kant's philosophy aroused a strong reaction from Hegel. Rawls mainly discusses Leibniz's moral philosophy from the following aspects: First，Leibniz proposed a metaphysical theory of perfectionism. Second，Leibniz proposed a theory of subjective freedom. Third，Rawls places Hegel's moral philosophy between Kant's moral philosophy and his own moral philosophy. Rawls，Hegel's moral philosophy is also part of the liberal tradition of freedom. Kant is between Leibniz and Hegel. Rawls is between Kant and himself. Hegel's moral philosophy is reasonable because it emphasizes ethical life, freedom，and reconciliation. Hegel saw the limitations of the French Revolution. ，Kant's moral philosophy is the main part of the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. From a length perspective, this part accounts for half of the entire lectures. As an appendix to the Kant lectures，Rawls first added the Hume lectures，then added the Leibniz lectures，and later added the Hegel lectures. Therefore，it can be said that the Hume lectures，Leibniz lectures，and Hegel lectures were all added to highlight the Kant lectures. Rawls's Kant lectures consist of 10 lectures. The issues discussed in order are as follows: First lecture discusses the theme of Kant's "goodwill" concept. Second lecture discusses one formula of the categorical imperative. In this lecture，Rawls proposes four steps of the categorical imperative procedure (CI-procedure). Third lecture discusses the second formula of the categorical imperative. Rawls discusses Kant's distinction between justice duties (duties of justice) and virtue duties (duties of virtue). Fourth lecture mainly discusses the autonomy of the moral subject、the realm of ends and the supremacy of reason. Fifth lecture discusses the priority of rights and the object of the moral law. Sixth lecture discusses Kant's moral constructivism. Seventh lecture discusses Kant's theory of rational facts. The last three lectures discuss the moral law as a free law，moral psychology，and the unity of reason. I believe that the above 10 lectures constitute a perfect whole of Kant's moral philosophy. Among them，what is particularly important are Rawls's discussions of "goodwill," the "categorical imperative procedure," "justice duties" and "virtue duties," "the supremacy of reason," "the priority of rights," "moral constructivism," "rational facts," and "the unity of reason." Through the Kant lectures，we can clearly see the true origin of Rawls's moral philosophy，political philosophy，and legal philosophy in Kant. VI In the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy，Rawls explains the moral philosophy of these four most obscure、profound and complex philosophers in the history of philosophy in a very clear and understandable language. It lets us see another side of Rawls's philosophical thought. Rawls explains moral philosophy puzzles as easily as solving mathematical problems，because he avoids using obscure terms as much as possible，so there is no dullness or boredom when reading. For example，to interpret Kant's moral philosophy，he introduces the concept of the "categorical imperative procedure." Due to his thoroughgoing and accessible analysis of the "categorical imperative," it paves the way for us to understand Kant's moral philosophy. Rawls's lectures bring us closer to Kant's moral philosophy. It makes us feel that Kant's thought is not far away，and that we can approach and grasp it through certain methods. In summary，Hume、Leibniz、Kant and Hegel have played core roles in the turning points of modern philosophy. The Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy presents these core roles to readers in a highly clear and lucid manner. Although Rawls is not intentionally writing a new history of moral philosophy，just as this Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy has already firmly established him as a leading figure in the contemporary history of moral philosophy. As for its subtle nuances，please allow the readers to appreciate them slowly.