...THE MORAL ARGUMENT KANT’S MORAL ARGUMENT - Immanuel Kant analysed Aquinas’ 4th way and devised his proof for God based on morality INNATE MORAL AWARENESS - Kant’s starting point was that we all have a sense of innate moral awareness: ‘Two things fill the mind with ever new increasing admiration and awe… the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me’ His argument for the existence of God follows: 1. We all have a sense of innate moral awareness – from this we are under obligation to be virtuous 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. There is an ideal state where human virtue and happiness are united – this Kant called the ‘Summum Bonum’ 5. Moral statements are prescriptive – ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ 6. Humans can achieve virtue in a lifetime but it is beyond us to ensure we are rewarded with happiness 7. Therefore there must be a God who has power to ensure that virtue and happiness coincide Kant’s moral argument does not postulate that God is necessary for morality but that God is required for morality to achieve its end ‘Therefore it is morally necessary to assume the existence of God.’ 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.” For Newman, the existence of conscience implies a moral law-giver whom we are answerable...
Words: 803 - Pages: 4
...Moral paralysis, according to Sehen, “she should have no confidence in her moral judgments; she should have no idea when to allow suffering and when not to allow it, and she should also be unwilling to make moral judgments concerning the actions of others. For example, if any of us knew that the Holocaust was going to happen ahead of time, we would warn people, help the Jewish people, anything to prevent the tragedy from occurring or lessen the outcome. But in the belief that God is all knowing and all powerful, God chose not to prevent this from happening. Why? Clearly, God knows something that all of us do not. That is the dilemma that we are faced with known as moral paralysis. We know that morally, these tragedies and events are wrong, but there is nothing that we could or should do about it because God does not prevent them from happening and if God is not willing to stop these tragedies from happening then there is a reason for this and surrender our notions because we believe in God’s word and guidance. One might question on the meaning of “good” in this case if we are to set aside our morals. Sehen replies to this argument stating, “If the goodness of God is to be judged by different, and unknown, standards, then the word “good” no longer has its ordinary meaning when applied to God, and theists...
Words: 1111 - Pages: 5
...Moral Arguments for the Existence of God Name Institution Date Introduction Moral arguments around the existence of God constitute a diverse group of arguments that reason from a certain angle of moral life or morality to God’s existence, with the general understanding of God as a morally good creator. It is important to note that moral arguments are interesting considering the fact that one has to give attention to all the philosophical issues that are handled under Metaethics in order to effectively evaluate the soundness of such arguments. On the other hand, they are important considering their dominance in famous apologetic arguments in support of religious belief. The connection that apparently exists between religion and morality tends to uphold the claim that there is need for a religious foundation that can define moral truths, or that such truths can be best elaborated by the existence of God, or some actions or qualities of God. This essay focuses on the various types of moral arguments, with the intention of drawing on the distinction between practical and theoretical or pragmatic moral arguments. As such, this paper asserts that from the moral perspective, mortal obligations constitute of rules that are imposed by a supreme being that can only be explained by a Godly figure. Moral Arguments for the Existence of God There are various moral arguments that have been established in support of the existence of God, some of which will be discussed in this section...
Words: 1511 - Pages: 7
...philosophers over many centuries. One of the arguments for God’s existence comes from the belief that the type of God that would exist is an all just and all-knowing supernatural being that has laid down objective moral laws for humans to follow. This is called the moral argument. In this paper I argue that the moral arguments does not stand against objections when trying to prove God’s existence. This paper has five parts beginning with a thorough outline and explanation of the moral argument (1). Next I will present four objections and the theists reply to them. First is that morality doesn’t depend on God’s existence only the belief in God (2). Second, that one cannot be truly...
Words: 1547 - Pages: 7
...Kant’s moral argument focuses on the notion that God must exist to provide structure to the moral universe. Technically he did not believe that is was possible to prove the existence of God through rational or empirical means. It is important to outline two key ideas before explaining the details of the moral argument. These ideas centre around his assumptions of the universe: that the universe was fair; and that the world around us is fundamentally rational. He begins with the unspoken assumption that the world is fair, owing to the dominance of the enlightenment belief that the universe was fundamentally knowable through reason. It is important to note that Kant began a new way of looking at knowledge. He believed that we could know the world through reason in a prior synthetic way. This was a complete change from how the world had been view previously and was known as Kant’s Copernican revolution. In essence Kant believed in two separate worlds of knowledge: noumenal and the phenomenal worlds. The noumenal world is the world as it truly is without being observed. It is fundamentally unknowable because the act of observation changes the very thing that we observe. It is as though human beings have a specific set of spectacles that cannot be taken off and like the proverbial rose tinted ones they change our perception of the world around us. This personalised view of the universe is the phenomenal world. However, what is key to explaining Kant’s moral argument is the fact that...
Words: 1159 - Pages: 5
...The moral argument for God’s existence depends on the belief in an objective, and absolute moral law, which has an absolute mind as its basis. If that is true, and there must be an absolute mind as the basis of moral law, that mind is God. It seems apparent that the moral argument begins and ends with the assumption that everyone must recognize and adhere to a universally accepted moral code, an ideal state of what is right and therefore, also the ability to determine what is wrong. In each instance where there is conflict or an argument between us about what is right and what is wrong, there has to be an attempt to look to a higher source (moral law), that we assume everyone is aware of and is beholden to (Miller, Jones p 287). There is...
Words: 265 - Pages: 2
...“On Health and Welfare, Moral Arguments Can Outweigh Economics” article was published on New York Times, the main idea of this articles is deserving and undeserving people regarding the government support. The issues surrounding welfare including health care insurance reform are contentious and difficult to resolve. The early form of welfare was specifically targeted aid to single women with children or people who could demonstrate a need and the ability to maintain minimal assets of their own. Even now, and after a long way of conflict, Congress continues to debate and reform programs. It still brings with it the same intensity, controversy, and conflicting opinion it did years ago. The poor have been always exanimated and categorized into...
Words: 635 - Pages: 3
...Singer’s Moral Guilt T PHI 208 January 7, 2013 Peter Singer’s goal in “Famine, Affluence and Morality” was to try and to get people all around the world to realize that they, as human beings, have a moral responsibility to help other human beings in need if they can. He argues that the way we view moral issues and our moral conceptual schemes need to be altered, and in fact the whole way in which our society takes our way of life for granted. Peter Singer’s argument is that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”. (Singer, 1972). He believes that everyone in similar circumstances as himself should give as much as possible, up to the point that they might also be at risk of poverty themselves. He argues that if everyone in society all across the world did this, that the world would not only solve the Bengal crisis, but would also end world hunger all together. That also by not contributing to helping people suffering from tragedies we are not being morally responsible as a race to our “global village”. Counter points to Peter Singer’s argument that he makes are as follows: First he states that the view that he has taken on the Bengal crisis and world hunger may seem “too drastic a revision of our moral scheme”. (Singer, 1972). That in fact people would not judge other people in the way that he suggests they should, that they would save their judgment...
Words: 1655 - Pages: 7
...One strength of compatibilism is that it provides a basis for universal, enforceable laws; this strength is based on reason. The causes behind our choices are internal to the agent. Our choices flow from our desires and are not determined by any other factor. This gives us a certain degree of responsibility. I may choose to hit my friend Alex on the head and it seems fair that Alex will blame me for doing so. This argument also supports the argument for moral responsibility. To add further weight to the soft determinist argument, there is another reason used to support view that we are responsible for our choices. Without determinism, we could never be morally responsible because our choices would be random – they would be uncaused – and meaningless. Without free will and determinism, there could not be moral responsibility. Many people in today’s society...
Words: 669 - Pages: 3
...Refuting Hume In the reading, Hume makes the claim that “morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions.” I am in agreement that passions and strong sentiments can be aroused by morals, but I am unconvinced that such morals do not produce or prevent human action. From the time we are young children, we have morals hammered into our minds: do not cheat, do not lie, be kind and charitable, etc. People resonate with these truths, and many develop passions for certain morals. I think Hume is correct to say that morals that I have grown up with and impacted my personal development have driven me towards particular passions. As stated previously, it is the latter part of Hume’s argument that breaks down. I do not agree that morals produce or prevent humans of the modern world from taking certain actions. I argue that Reason is the driving force behind action. People preform actions for personal benefit, and are willing to commit most actions, however immoral, if it betters their situation. We, as a species, are inherently selfish and I believe that if there were guaranteed to be no repercussions for our actions, many people would run rampant. That being said, I do think morality plays an important part in our decision-making leading to our actions. Society has relied heavily on morality and has deemed certain actions unlawful or simply frowned upon. Murder and thievery are two actions that are illegal as well as immoral, but I think it is the repercussions of breaking...
Words: 404 - Pages: 2
...wealth; yet, absolutely no one is above it. That facet alone places it in a class all its own. Everyone must yield to its magnitudes. Yet, in all its magnitude there is no moral obligation to obey the law. We are faced with tough decisions day in and day out. There are many deciding factors that aid us in our decision making. One major factor is our moral judgment. Morality may differ from one individual to the next, but the desire to live by them remains the same. When obeying the law comes into play it does not inflict, by any means, whether this moralistic trait determines your duty nor does it dictate cause to obey the law. Your moral duty is loyal to your own wellbeing and what in your own mind is best for your own person. Even if what you are doing is to benefit others your own person is being satisfied, and yes in some cases this may involve not obeying the law. And in many cases whether you obey the law or not the law does not change. So therefore your obligation to it in reality has no value to it, only to yourself and your own wellbeing. The law will not suffer consequence if not obeyed only the one not obeying it. We obey the law out of rational thought not morality. If you are a licensed driver passing through a reduced speed zone in a school district you will slow down and not speed not out of moral duty, but out of rational thought that I may hit a kid if I drive too fast or I may get a ticket, but whatever...
Words: 1363 - Pages: 6
...Review : Some Moral Minima Morality has been an issue that several societies around the world have tried to decipher and label, based on diverse sociology thesis. Morality is described as the acceptable code or behaviors and choices in the content presented or society. On the contrary, the term moral minima is considered to compliment or be as congruent with morality. " The advent of civilization has given room to various forms that moral minima can be derived." ( Goodman, 2010, p.87) In such a way, that morality has become an issue that because of its vast interpretation can be misconstrued. Thus, morality is received or acquired in the ideas. The first is the laws in which a nation upholds to which is demanded as right then is consider to be morally right. Succeeding, morality is believed to be derivation from religion, in which several religious associations follow by-laws that members are deem to follow and behave in a required conduct. Lastly, morality is the individual take of what is morality. These ideas is what has ignited debate of the understandings and interpretation of morality. Influential philosophers, consequently, argue on things which are deems absolutely wrong morally. This review inspires to credit Lenn Goodman's contentions. Goodman, in his argument, verifies the continuation of four essential and widespread ideas that are to be considered morally wrong and deemed intolerable in society. Genocide that is politically initiated deprivation and...
Words: 851 - Pages: 4
...village is in turmoil. The small village is being destroyed by an extremist group who plan to kill all the remaining villagers. Jim runs into the havoc and screams for an end to the violence. The leader of the extremist group, Pablo, offers Jim a choice—Jim can either, pick any one villager and shoot them, having the sworn oath of Pablo and his men to spare the remaining nineteen villagers, or Jim can choose not shoot one villager and leave them to be mercilessly killed by the extremist group. The three positions are that, Jim is obligated to shoot one of the villagers, Jim is not obligated to shoot any of the villagers, or Jim is neither obligated either to shoot or not to shoot. It is my argument that the position in which Jim is neither obligated to shoot or not to shoot. This is the most moral position. Jim is not obligated to either shooting or not shooting for various reasons. These reasons are ultimately dependent on the circumstances surrounding Jim’s final decision of whether or not to shoot, and can find that either choice can be morally acceptable thereby making neither choice obligatory. The first reason as to why shooting is morally acceptable would be that Jim would end one life but save nineteen lives. Many people believe that whenever one person must die you should try to save as many lives as possible, so it is morally acceptable to save the nineteen lives at the cost of the one, on the grounds that you should try to save as many lives as possible.1 This view...
Words: 947 - Pages: 4
...clear and it something that he believes is important for all political scientists to read and consider thoroughly. The topic of this article is set forth through several questions: can politicians achieve good without getting their hands dirty? Is it necessary to get your hands dirty for the greater good? If a good man gets his hands dirty is he still a good man? What should the consequences of getting your hands dirty be? The thesis is clearly stated as: “whether or not a man can ever face, or ever has to face, a moral dilemma, a situation where he must choose between two courses of action both of which it would be wrong for him to undertake” (160). Walzer puts forth a compelling argument that this “dirty hands” dilemma is a common dilemma in present day politics. This problem is considered to be an issue mostly for democracies since these are the governments claiming that we are all free and equal and our leaders represent the citizens’ choice and opinions that are moral and ethical. In Communist governments and other types of suppressive governments the public has no say in the decisions of the governments and “Hoerderer in Satre’s play of that name: “I have dirty hands right up to the elbows. I’ve plunged them in filth and blood. Do you think you can govern innocently?”” (161). Walzer believes it is not possible to govern without getting your hands dirty, and that those who govern are not innocent even if their actions are the right thing to do. Walzer uses Machiavelli to further...
Words: 1205 - Pages: 5
...point and the supporting points of each argument: 1. Throughout history, people have disagreed about moral issues. This isn’t true about science, because science is objective, and people can come to objective agreements. If morality is not like science, and science is objective, morality must be subjective. Morality, then, is just a matter of opinion. Main point: If morality is not like science, and science is objective, morality must be subjective. Supporting points: Throughout history, people have disagreed about moral issues. This isn’t true about science, because science is objective, and people can come to objective agreements. Morality, then, is just a matter of opinion. 2. We should help people that are starving in other countries. We have plenty of things that we can share without adversely affecting our own lives, and we are morally obligated to help people who are less fortunate than us if we can do so without giving up anything of comparable importance to the aid that we are giving. Main point: We should help people that are starving in other countries. Supporting points: We have plenty of things that we can share without adversely affecting our own lives, and we are morally obligated to help people who are less fortunate than us if we can do so without giving up anything of comparable importance to the aid that we are giving. Identify the premises and conclusion in the following arguments: 1. Since large corporations make...
Words: 620 - Pages: 3
