The Moral Argument

 

Kant’s moral argument

 

Immanuel Kant analysed the work of Aquinas (his 4th way) and devised his proof for the existence of God based on moral behaviour. Kant believed that we all have innate moral awareness: “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe… the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.” He said that being moral was a case of following the Categorical Imperative, by utilising reason. This means that we should only do things that we could wish were universal laws. The outline of his argument goes:

 

  1. We are all under obligation to do good or be virtuous through an innate moral awareness;
  2. An ‘average’ level of virtue is not enough, we are obliged to aim for the highest standard possible;
  3. True virtue should be rewarded with happiness;
  4. The ideal state where one is both virtuous and happy is called the summum bonum (the Highest Good);
  5. The word ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ – if we are told we ought to do something then it should be possible;
  6. Humans can achieve virtue in a lifetime but it is quite beyond us to ensure that we are rewarded with happiness;
  7. Therefore, there must be a God who has power to ensure that virtue and happiness coincide.

 

The argument does not suggest that there must be a God for there to be morality but it argues that God is required for morality to achieve its end. “Therefore, it is morally necessary to assume the existence of God.”

 

Proponents of the moral argument

 

Cardinal Newman - “we feel responsibility, are ashamed, are frightened at transgressing the voice of conscience, this implies that there is One to whom we are responsible.” He is saying that the existence of conscience implies that there is someone greater that we are answerable to – God.

 

Opponents of the moral argument

 

(i)                 The assumption that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ has been criticised. If Kant meant that it was logically possible to bring about the summum bonum, then all he was saying is that it was not a logical contradiction. But, just because it is not a logical contradiction does not mean that it actually happens.

 

(ii)               Kant’s second assumption that only God can bring about the summum bonum has also been challenged. Brian Davies suggests that it could equally be brought about by a ‘pantheon of angels’.

 

(iii)             Kant’s third assumption that virtue should be rewarded by happiness is also questioned.

 

(iv)              Sigmund Freud – contends that our sense of duty (and our moral awareness) can be explained by socialisation. Kant thought that our sense of duty was based on reason. Freud disagreed and thought that our conscience was the product of our unconscious mind or super ego. The super ego continues the work of the parent in limiting the behaviour of the child – it is the conscience. It develops according to the conditioning received by a growing human. By saying that our conscience is the result of psychological conditioning, Freud allows for differences in consciences. Freud argues that if the conscience was the voice of God as Kant believed then it should be consistent. However, it is not. For example, the Yorkshire Ripper said that he followed voices which told him to commit murder.

 

(v)                Russell – Euthyphro Dilemma – “Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good”. If God commands something because it is good then God is not necessary for an ethical system to work.