To have moral it teaches the limits to us of ” poder” of the human beings. For that reason it is that ” The reason does not order imposible.” The idea is not to participate in the happiness but to become worthy of her. For that reason the moral law prescribes: ” you do that one by means of which you become worthy to be feliz” 3, that is to say, not an empirical, uncertain and contingent reason; but, ” to have ser” that it entails the human dignity. From which ” Each has reasons to wait for the happiness exactly insofar as it has become worthy of ella.” 4 Camps Victory, analyzing the affirmation of Kant, will say to us that the happiness is not a necessary consequence of the morality. So that outside it would have to fulfill an additional requirement ” That each does what must.
() like if one will be action of rational beings who happen as if they came from a supreme will that included/understood in himself or under himself all the wills privadas” 5. The criticism that realises Camps is of which ” only in an assumption kingdom of the aims, the happiness and the morality will be inseparables” 6. In the following paragraph I believe that there is a inconsistency in the text. Victory says that in Kant they are united of unique form the faith in the progress and it brings back to consciousness of the limits. And that the answer for the hope depends on its exact fulfillment in the 7 theology. And of there, that stops the study of the moral, more here of the world of the aims, tells on three supposed ones that Camps analyzed widely in the following paragraphs. And these are: 1) I know what I must do (a priori imperative of the morality exists), 2) the happiness union and morality depends on which each does what must, 3) I can wait for the corresponding happiness dignity. Of these three supposed Kantianos, Victory will say to us that only the second is to us allowed to so take it what, to the other declares them two doubtful and until uncertain.