In spit of Kant himself do not provide an obvious definition of respect, H. J. Patton does give an acceptable definition of it.  He considers that because of humans is frail creatures, thus law has to be a kind of duty, a restriction or compulsion.  On one hand, it is compulsive, and may cause a sense of fear.  On the other hand, it comes from my own reason, and may cause a sense of inclination and attraction.  Respect is exactly an emotion combined by these two factors.  In another word, the reason of humans is limited being, and experience hinders the achievement of pure moral.  In this way, moral law has to be compulsive.  However, this compulsion is not heteronomous.  It is restricted by me myself, and obviously I will never force myself to do something I extremely detest.  Consequently, respect is the combination of the emotion of fear and the emotion of care.  It contains the both sides but not only one-side.

Moreover, respect never stands on the basis of threat, danger or interest (which are heteronomy).  Therefore, respect, a combination emotion, can never be considered as any one of the emotions such as love, inclination or fear.  It also means respect is not impulse and decided by experience.  On the contrary, respect itself, which is from pure reason, can decide experience and actions.  More strictly speaking, respect is not only the motivation of acting according the law, but also the motive powers which can pledge regulations being law.

Now, as an explanation of respect has been presented, I would like to turn to the third section.  Kant says that whether an action being moral does not lie in the intention of it, but depends on the law which stipulates the action.  I think it does not mean that the effect of an action is not important.  However, it means, if the law, which decide the rules of an action, can be respected, the action will certainly has a moral worth.  In addition, I have to say that inclination can never be respect.  Acted according inclination may bring happiness or satisfaction, but this rule of action is very flexible and changeable.  It cannot make sure the action being moral.  If the rule of action is moral law, then the morals is the motivation and the effect of action can be easily seen.  Thus, in order to make actions have moral worth, the law of morals ought to be respected.  Because human’s actions are always influenced or controlled by experience or fortuity, the rule basic on inclination cannot pledge the moral worth of actions.  Only the actions basic on moral law can certainly have moral worth because the law itself is universal, inevitable and effective. 

Moral law is imperative to all actions.  It means actions from duty.  This is the only way can make actions not being against to morals.  The general rules becoming to the law need the pledge of reason of human.  Any passion or inclination can ruin this process.  Now, I want to ask some questions.  Why human has to act on the moral law?  If the reason can be seen as a pledge, what is the motivation?  It is the respect for law.  The respect for law makes the morals directly decide the will, which considers the moral law as the final aim.  As I have already explained, this respect is not only fear or happy.  It shows the concern of moral law.  I have to admit this concern may mean that actions conforming to moral rules, but it cannot make sure whether the motivation is moral or not.  If I pursue the sense of satisfaction after I acting on moral law, the law becomes to be heteronomous but not autonomic.  The key of autonomy is respect, which is a special emotion, giving worth and dignity.  Respect is the premise of acting on moral law spontaneously.  From this sense, Kant’s argument about respect solves the problem of the motivation of actions.

Practically speaking, actions cannot be separate from the will, which cannot be separate from motivation.  Humans can consider themselves as elevated beings because humans do not act merely on impulse, yet most of the time act on motivation.  Only motivation caused by reason and moral law can pledge the universality purely.  Although actions according to respect for law may not bring happiness or sometimes even bring suffering, it can make sure the moral worth of actions.  The respect for law is a duty.  The action which indeed has moral worth is the action on the basic of duty.  Only the action from duty can make the sense of the respect for law.  However, even the action conforming on duty only has contingency to be moral, hence the prerequisite must be respect for law, which can pledge the moral worth of actions.

In conclusion, a location of the argument of the duty and respect, an explanation of Kant’s respect and an evaluation of his this argument has been made.  Kant closely connects morals with our will, and has practically solved the problem of motivation and law.  In addition, Kant emphasizes on reason does not mean that he is against the natural feelings of humans.  His argument focuses on against passion controlling morals.  Meanwhile, his argument of compulsion of moral law is not versus menschheit.  He just supply certain restriction, which is from our own will, and he also agrees with humans act on the law decided by themselves, if they think the law can be universal.  In a word, Kant gives us a conception of what should be done and what could not be done clearly.

(end)

诺亚方舟 23:53:27 我第一次打工被老板骗去了20多块钱,现在又找了一份工作，还好。第一份工她说让我上班，说前两天试工不给钱，我因为急于找到一份工作所以答应了。老板口头通知我8月27日星期六第一天试工。那个星期我就上了这么一天。第二次试工是9月3日星期六，也就是第二个星期的星期六。两次都是12点到3点。我第一天正式上班是9月4日星期天。这样一来，我最后应该是干了16个小时，但老板算我干13个小时。因为她说我8月27日根本没有来上班。我只有9月3日以后来上班的schedule，之前的没有，因为8月27那天是她电话口头通知我的，没有E-MAIL，没有SCHEDULE，什么都没有。我没有证据，所以找她理论的时候她随便找了个员工就做伪证了。所以只好买个教训了……而且那天正好是中秋。那是个台湾人开的甜品店。她把我开了，因为听不懂我说话。她不说自己是中国人，她说自己是台湾人，说我是大陆人。她说广东话，我听不懂。我说中文她听不懂.

上面这个例子，可以说让我对以后的生活也有了一定的准备吧。毕竟人世险恶，至少应该学会自我防范。

然而，还是很有着很多的幻想，很多的幻想。人生何其短哉！在这弹指间，希望能够实现自我，自在的活着应该是很多人的梦想吧。

苏军小分队在废墟中搜索残余的德军

元首的脸上清晰显出德国的失败对他的影响