ESSAY · 2026-04-30 · 7 min read

On the Maxim of Easy Exit

論「易進易退」之準則

By Immanuel Kant — channeled via philosopher-llm · curated by Joseph Lai

In response to: William Davies: Easy to Join, Easy to Leave (LRB)

編按 / Why this piece
康德『敢於認識』召喚人告別精神未成年；現代政治的易進易出卻展現相反的軌跡——不是理性過度，而是全然缺席，人們在符號性承諾與退出間游移，永遠未長大。

On the Maxim of Easy Exit

A friend brings me a report from England: that men and women now enter political associations as one enters a coffee-house, and leave them as one rises from the table. The trade-unions thin; the party rolls dwindle; yet the gestures of politics — the badge, the signature, the public sign — multiply without measure. The author asks what this signifies. I shall not answer his question directly, for I am not competent in the affairs of his nation. But the question, considered as a question for practical reason, admits of treatment.

Let me first refuse a tempting framing. It is said that this is "an excess of freedom," that men exercise their liberty too lightly. I do not believe so. Freedom in the practical sense is never the mere capacity to begin and to cease at pleasure; that is the description of inclination (Neigung), not of will (Wille). A will is free only insofar as it gives a law to itself and binds itself by that law. The man who joins where he feels warmth and departs where he feels chill has not exercised his freedom; he has been moved by his sensibility, as a leaf is moved by the wind. To call this freedom is to confuse autonomy with its opposite.

Now let us put the maxim plainly, as it must be put before judgment can begin. The maxim of the easy joiner is roughly this: I shall associate myself with a political body so long as it costs me nothing I do not wish to bear, and I shall withdraw the moment the burden exceeds the gratification. Set this maxim before the test of universality. Imagine a commonwealth in which every rational being acted upon it. Could there be, in such a commonwealth, any political body at all? A political body — a party, a union, a republic — is constituted by the binding of wills across time, that is, by the shared bearing of what cannot be foreseen at the moment of joining. Strip away that time-binding, and the body is not weakened; it is not a body. The maxim therefore cannot be universalized: it presupposes for its own efficacy the very durability it dissolves. It is, in the strict sense, a contradiction in the will (Widerspruch im Wollen).

I am asked whether this is the inverse of Sapere aude — the voluntary perpetual nonage of which I once wrote. Here I must be careful, for I would not be more severe than the matter permits. Selbstverschuldete Unmündigkeit, self-imposed nonage, was the condition of one who does not dare to use his own understanding but defers to a guardian — to the priest, the physician, the book. The easy joiner, on first inspection, has no guardian; he uses his own understanding constantly, deciding now to enter, now to leave. Is this, then, not the very opposite of nonage?

I think not, and the reason is this. The public use of reason — which I distinguished from the private — is the use of a man who addresses the whole reading world as a scholar; that is, of one who stays at his post and bears the consequences of being read. He is bound to his utterances as a soldier to his duty, though in another mode. The easy joiner addresses no public; or rather, he addresses many publics for an instant each, and is bound to none. He has the form of public reason without its substance, for the substance is precisely the durable willingness to be answered. He has therefore not emerged from nonage; he has only diversified his guardians. Where once the guardian was the priest, now it is the affective current of the moment, which carries him in and bears him out. He is governed still, only by something more dispersed.

There remains a further test, which I have lately come to regard as the most useful for political maxims: the test of Publizität, of publicity. Could the easy joiner openly avow his maxim? Could he say to the comrades he joins on Monday: "I am with you only so long as no real cost arrives, and on the day it does I shall withdraw without explanation"? If he so avowed, no body would receive him, for no body can be founded on such avowals. The maxim, then, depends for its operation upon concealment. A maxim that cannot bear publicity is, by that very fact, marked as not belonging to Recht.

I shall not tell your contemporaries what they ought to do; I am not their legislator, and the moral law does not pass through me to them. I only put the question they may put to themselves. When next you enter a political body, can you state the conditions of your withdrawal aloud, before those you join, and in advance? If you cannot, the question is not what is wrong with the body. The question is what is being concealed in the will.

論「易進易退」之準則

一位友人從英倫帶來一則報告：今日男女進入政治團體，如入咖啡館；退出之，如離席。工會凋零，政黨名冊日減；然而政治的姿態——徽章、簽名、公開的記號——卻無度繁衍。文章作者問此何意。我不直接回答他的提問，因為我不諳該國具體事務。但此問題若作為實踐理性之問題提出，則可加以處理。

首須拒絕一種誘人的提法。有人說，這是「自由的過剩」，是人輕率地運用其自由。我不這樣看。實踐意義上的自由，從來不是「可隨意開始、隨意停止」的能力——那是傾向（Neigung）的描述，不是意志（Wille）的描述。意志唯有在為自己立法、並以此法束縛自身時，方為自由。哪裡感到溫暖便加入、哪裡感到寒冷便退出的人，並未行使其自由；他被自己的感性所推動，如葉之被風推。把這稱為自由，是把自律混同於其反面。

現在把準則明白擺出，因為唯有先擺出，判斷方能開始。易進易退者之準則大致為：只要某政治團體不要求我承擔我所不願承擔的代價，我便加入；負擔一旦超過愉悅，我便退出。將此準則置於普遍化之考驗。設想一共同體，其中每一理性存在者皆依此準則而行。於此共同體中，能否有任何政治團體？政治團體——政黨、工會、共和——之所以為一團體，乃在於跨時間地束縛意志，即在於共同承擔加入之際無法預見之物。若把這時間性的束縛抽去，此團體並非變弱；它根本不再是一團體。故此準則不可普遍化：它的效力預設了它所瓦解之物。嚴格而言，這是意志中的矛盾（Widerspruch im Wollen）。

有人問我，這是否即 Sapere aude 之反面，是我昔日所寫之「自願的永遠未成年」？此處我須小心，不願比事情本身更嚴厲。所謂自招的未成年（selbstverschuldete Unmündigkeit），是人不敢運用自己的知性、而託付於監護人——僧侶、醫師、書本——之狀態。易進易退者乍看之下並無監護人；他不停地運用自己的知性，此刻決定加入，彼刻決定退出。這豈不正是未成年的反面？

我以為不然，理由如下。我曾區別公共與私人理性之使用。公共使用，是一位學者向整個讀者世界說話，是駐守其崗位、承擔被讀之後果之人。他繫於其陳述，如士兵繫於其職守，雖在另一意義上。易進易退者並不對任何公眾說話；或不如說，他向眾多公眾各說一瞬，而對誰皆不繫。他擁有公共理性的形式，而無其實質——因為其實質正是「持久地願意被回應」。故他並未脫離未成年；他僅是把監護人多樣化了。從前監護人是僧侶，今日監護人是當下的情感潮汐，把他帶進來，又把他帶出去。他仍然受治，只是治者變得更分散。

尚有一檢驗，我晚近以為於政治準則最為有用：公開性（Publizität）之檢驗。易進易退者能否公開宣告其準則？能否於週一加入之同志面前說：「我與諸君同行，只到真正的代價尚未來臨之時；代價來時，我將不告而退」？若他如此宣告，則無一團體會接納他，因無一團體可建基於此宣告之上。故此準則之運作，必賴其被隱匿。一個準則若不能承受公開，便由此一事實可知：它不屬於 Recht（法權）之範圍。

我不會告訴閣下時代之人應當怎麼做；我不是他們的立法者，道德法則並不經由我傳達於他們。我僅提出他們可以自問之問題：下一次你進入一個政治團體之前，你能否在所加入者面前、預先、公開地說出你退出的條件？若不能，問題便不在此一團體之何處錯了。問題在於：你的意志中，正隱匿著什麼。

Tagged: Philosophy, Kant, Democracy & Masses

Curated by Shiva Dragon · https://amshiva.com/writing/kant-on-the-maxim-of-easy-exit-20260430