Judgment
Original German
Judicium
Regiae Danicae Scientiarum Societatis.
Quaestionem anno 1837 propositam, „utrum philosophiae moralis fons et fundamentum in idea moralitatis, quae immediate conscientia contineatur, et ceteris notionibus fundamentalibus, quae ex illa prodeant, explicandis quaerenda sint, an in alio cognoscendi principio“, unus tantum scriptor explicare conatus est, cujus commentationem, germanico sermone compositam et his verbis notatam: Moral predigen ist leicht, Moral begründen ist28 schwer, praemio dignam judicare nequivimus. Omisso enim eo, quod potissimum postulabatur, hoc expeti putavit, ut principium aliquod ethicae conderetur, itaque eam partem commentationis suae, in qua principii ethicae a se propositi et metaphysicae suae nexum exponit, appendicis loco habuit, in qua plus quam postulatum esset praestaret, quum tamen ipsum thema ejusmodi disputationem flagitaret, in qua vel praecipuo loco metaphysicae et ethicae nexus consideraretur. Quod autem scriptor in sympathia fundamentum ethicae constituere conatus est, neque ipsa disserendi forma nobis satisfecit, neque reapse, hoc fundamentum sufficere, evicit; quin ipse contra esse confiteri coactus est. Neque reticendum videtur, plures recentioris aetatis summos philosophos tam indecenter commemorari, ut justam et gravem offensionem habeat.
28 Dieses zweite „ist“ hat die Akademie aus eigenen Mitteln hinzugefügt, um einen Beleg zu liefern zur Lehre des Longinus (de sublim., c. 39), daß man durch Hinzufügung, oder Wegnahme, einer Silbe die ganze Energie einer Sentenz vernichten kann.
Musean translation
Machine-assisted Musean translation made directly from the complete 1860 German edition, including its quotations, author’s notes, prize question and judgment. Source-language reviewed.
Judgment
of the Royal Danish Society of Sciences.
Only one author attempted to resolve the question proposed in 1837: “Whether the source and foundation of moral philosophy are to be sought in an exposition of the idea of morality immediately contained in the conscience, and of the other fundamental concepts that arise from it, or in some other principle of knowledge.” We could not judge his essay, written in German and bearing the motto “Preaching morality is easy; grounding morality is28 hard,” worthy of the prize. For, passing over what was chiefly required, he supposed the demand was to establish some principle of ethics, and therefore treated as an appendix the part of his essay in which he sets out the connection between the principle of ethics he has proposed and his metaphysics, as though there he were providing more than had been required; yet the question itself called for a discussion in which the connection between metaphysics and ethics would receive particular, indeed foremost, consideration. As for the author's attempt to place the foundation of ethics in sympathy, neither did the form of his argument satisfy us, nor did he in fact prove that this foundation suffices; indeed, he was himself compelled to admit the contrary. Nor, it seems, should we leave unmentioned that several of the greatest philosophers of recent times are spoken of with such indecency as to give just and grave offense.
28 The Academy added this second “is” from its own resources, to furnish an illustration of Longinus's teaching (de sublim., c. 39) that by adding or removing one syllable we can destroy the entire force of a maxim.
Plain English translation
Independent, machine-assisted Plain English translation made directly from the complete 1860 German edition and its embedded passages. Source-language reviewed.
Judgment
of the Royal Danish Society of Sciences.
Only one author attempted to explain the question proposed in 1837: “Should the source and foundation of moral philosophy be sought in an explanation of the idea of morality immediately contained in the conscience, and of the other fundamental concepts that arise from it, or in some other principle of knowledge?” We could not judge his essay, written in German and bearing the motto “Preaching morality is easy; giving morality a foundation is28 hard,” worthy of the prize. For, leaving out what was chiefly required, he thought the request was to establish some principle of ethics. He therefore treated the part of his essay in which he explains the connection between his proposed principle of ethics and his metaphysics as an appendix, in which he offered more than had been asked. Yet the question itself demanded a discussion in which the connection between metaphysics and ethics would receive particular attention. As for the author’s attempt to establish the foundation of ethics in compassion, neither did the manner of his argument satisfy us, nor did he actually prove that this foundation was sufficient. Indeed, he himself was forced to admit the opposite. Nor should we pass over in silence that he refers to several of the greatest philosophers of modern times in so indecent a manner as to cause justified and serious offense.
28 The Academy added this second “is” out of its own resources, to provide evidence for Longinus’s teaching (de sublim., c. 39) that adding or removing one syllable can destroy the whole force of a sentence.
About this section
Judgment is part of On the Basis of Morality by Arthur Schopenhauer. This page sets the German original beside 2 direct-source translations, so any line can be checked against the source. It is section 24 of 24 in the work, which is kept in the European tradition.
Open the work page for the full contents, every edition, and the download links, or go back to Explore to browse other complete works in the European tradition. The reader keeps your place when you are signed in and lets you compare the original with each translation, one edition at a time.