Kant's Moral Argument

Moral arguments are the name given to those that try to argue the existence of God because of the fact that we have an inbuilt sense of morality They use the existence of morality as the existence for God, they argue that morality depends on God Kant is known for his moral argument that he developed as a theory to work well with his ethical theory It is important to note that Kant's argument is not freestanding but rather inbuilt within his ethical theory

The existence of God creates an obvious problem for Kant One of the major points of Kant's theory is that we can discover what is morally right but using our sense of reason However one of the major points of a juedo-christian God is that he is the basis for morality, this conflicts with Kant as he believes that reason is the basis for morality Kant rejected previous arguments that attempted to prove God's existence, he believed that this was a matter beyond human understanding and it is stupid to attempt to demonstrate his existence However Kant says "It is morally necessary to assume the existence of God", he views the existence of God as a postulate of pure reason By this, Kant means that through rational reasoning we end up coming to the conclusion that God exists, since he must as he explains Kant's ethical theory A postulate in Kant's sense is something that is put forward to solve a problem Kant believes that you cannot explain morality without the idea of God existing, he was "morally certain" that he did

In Kant's ethical theory, he realised that in this world, crime sometimes did pay and there were people who used their reason all throughout their life who suffered and people who were incredibly selfish but benefited more still Kant explained that there is a place called the Summum Bonum, which is the highest good, it is where virtue and happiness are together By this he meant that in this world, virtue and duty does not necessarily lead to happiness, however in the Summum Bonum, being virtues and acting out of good will directly led to happiness

Kant's Moral Argument

His moral argument is as follows: It would be illogical for the point of acting morally good (reaching the summum bonum) to be unreachable and so therefore it is reachable Because the highest good (summum bonum) must be achievable because there is a point of aiming to achieve it, then something must make it achievable and make sure only virtuous people can enter This being must be God Therefore God exists

Kant understood that people needed a reason to do their duty, reaching the summum bonum His did this because he realised that crime does pay in some cases, and in this world, doing your duty and acting out of pure reason would is normally a weakness to be exploited The idea that God exists is a guarantee that you should not worry, because in the summum bonum, virtue and goodness come together as one and are achievable This is an example of Kant's "ought to is" philosophy This basically claims that if something "ought" to be done (using pure reason to reach the summum bonum) then it "can" be done It can be summarised like this:

1. Someone acting out of good will, seeks to bring about the Summum Bonnum 2. Because we ought to aim the Summum Bonum, then it must be achievable 3. However we cannot bring virtue and happiness together in this world, we cannot achieve the Summum Bonum as humans 4. There must be a rational being who has the power to bring moral virtue and happiness together 5. This being must be God

Kant basically was saying that there was no point in being morally good unless there was a God who would reward it He did not claim that his argument was conclusive but rather just drew from human experience. He argued that we all had an innate sense of duty and virtue and we felt that morality was important in the world, this innate moral duty points to the existence of a God who can ensure justice - "It is morally necessary to assume the existence of God" - Kant A good quotation for point 4 is "The existence is postulated of a cause of the whole of nature, itself distinct from nature" - Kant

Criticisms of his Moral Argument

1. The first major criticism, made by John Hick is that Kant makes the leap from the idea that the Summum Bonum is possible to it exists, he's moved from an assumption of possibility to the assumption of actuality. 2. Hick also argues that there is a contradiction in his moral argument. Kant claims that people ought to achieve the Summum Bonum, but later goes on to say that it is impossible to reach this state and bring together virtue and happiness in this life 3. Many philosophers have criticised the "ought to is" philosophy used in Kant's argument. The idea that we ought to do something normally comes after the confirmation that it is possible to do so, not the other way around. Kant jumps from "the summum bonum ought to be possible" to "therefore it is possible", an unjustified leap. 4. Because the Moral Argument is similar to the Teleological Argument in many ways, the same criticisms can be used for both. Brian Davies argues why Kant comes to the conclusion of a Christian God when choosing a rational being who was able to reach the Summum Bonum? Perhaps it is a number of Gods, perhaps even angels who can bring together virtue and happiness. 5. Another criticism, taken by Freud, insists that morality is a subjective matter and our sense of right and wrong is influenced by our parents and culture. If this is true then Kant's argument is undermined severely since he suggests that moral laws are objective and we simply need to "discover" them through use of our reason. 6. The idea of autonomy of actions is very important in Kant's moral theory and we cannot use our sense of duty if we are not fully autonomous. Bertrand Russel argues that the idea of God involves worship and submission of your own moral freedom to this supernatural being. This completely contradicts one of fundamental principles of Kant's ethical theory 7. Kant assumes there has to a point to acting morally good, this does not necessarily true. Kant' s theory emerged during a time when Leibniz's theory of "sufficient reason" was very popular however now we do not need a sufficient reason for everything. Perhaps the world has no point and neither does morality? It could be a mistake of our human reason to assume that there is a reason to behave in a moral way 8. Kant's theory is too pragmatic, it is trying to show that God must exist only because it is useful for his Ethical theory

Freud's challenges to the Moral Arguments

Freud's theory of psychoanalysis is known for challenging this branch of arguments seeking to prove the existence of God It is important to note however that Freud's criticisms apply mostly to normal moral arguments, which base God as the source of morality. Kant is a special case however and his criticisms need to be a bit bent. Freud was the first major psychologist to realise that people have 3 layers of mental strate:

1. The ego - This is the conscious self and is obvious to use. We are very aware of it and know what we are thinking about 2. The id - This is the unconscious self, this is made up of memories which may have been repressed or forgotten. The memories and ideas here can be brought up when under hypnosis 3. The super-ego - This is basically the conscience. It is the internal voice telling us what is right or wrong. Freud believed that our moral compass came from society as we grew up. We learn what is morally right from people around us and we internalise these rules and guidelines which we interpret as an internal voice. For Freud morality was learned and not entrusted upon us by a lawgiver

Freud believed was a distortion of the human mind and "Comparable to a childhood neurosis." He argued that religion was a universal obsessional case of neurosis Freud concluded that all boys fall victim to the Oedipus Complex and we are all jealous of our fathers for having the mother to themselves Freud argued that it is this complex that gives rise to religion, he claims that boys know it is socially unacceptable to want to kill their fathers and so the desire is repressed into the id This negative feeling is translated into the conscious mind as feelings of love and respect for a symbol that represents the person's own father, in this case, God The belief in God is just a case of overcompensating for negative feelings towards the Father "We shall tell ourselves that it would be very nice if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; But it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be" - Freud Freud's beliefs and ideas are obviously very critical of Kant's moral argument, which has the fundamental belief that morality has its basis in duty and the good will. It also challenges how a belief in God is simply a product of the Oedipus Complex

However many argue that Freud's criticisms do not destroy the moral arguments Hans Kung outlined, in his book "Does God Exist" many rebuttals to Freud's criticisms of the arguments:

1. He argues that Freud's idea of religion and "totemism" is highly flawed and based in ignorance since it was probably never practised by society. Freud was simply carried away in a wave of ideas that were extremely popular at the time. 2. Freud, like Kant, is guilty of the idea that he set out a theory to support his own personal view that religion was a stupid idea. He used Feuerbach's projection hypothesis as fact and went from there, which was a complete assumption.

3. Freud's ideas are unproven, they are still only hypothesis. This is the same for Kant, there is as much conclusive evidence for atheism then there is for theism. 4. Even if Freud's ideas are true that religion is simple wish fulfilment or infantile delusion, it does not necessarily mean that this will always be the case. Just because humanity has a desire to believe in God, it does not prove the existence of God wrong. 5. Again, even if Freud is right about the person's relationship with their parents influencing their beliefs is God, it does not necessarily mean that God does not exist. 6. Freud's idea that the super-ego exists and our conscience is simply us internalising authoritative figures when we were young is not proven and is still an assertion. However there is strong evidence to show he is right