Download MORAL_ARGUME{...}

THE MORAL
ARGUMENT FOR
THE EXISTENCE
OF GOD
OVERVIEW
All of the so-called Moral Arguments
attempt to prove God’s existence from
the evidence and experience of
morality in the world.
MORALITY => GOD
ASSUMPTIONS MADE
 That
the vast majority of us have
experience of the moral life.
 That experience includes a sense of
moral obligation.
 Despite some cultural differences, we
share a broad agreement on what is
morally right and wrong.
WHY ARE THERE
CROSS-CULTURAL
SIMILARITIES?
1.
2.
3.
Morality comes from God who has built
an objective set of rules into our
conscience. (eg. H.P.Owen)
An objective appraisal of the world leads
us to the view that there are good and bad
goals and values to be aimed for and
upheld. (eg. Kant)
Morality is how societies cope with the
demands of living together.
Morality coming from God?
H.P.Owen’s argument

He assumes that there are objective moral
laws – which always hold true
independently of humans.
 Since laws do not write themselves, they
must be either brute facts or put there by
God.
 The former is not an explanation, so God.
Morality coming from God?
Newman’s argument

Start with the fact of conscience, an inner
voice guiding behaviour and producing
feelings of guilt and shame.
 Infer that conscience is the voice of God
within us.
 Therefore God exists.
Morality objectively pointing
towards God

This rejects logic but interprets morality as
a religious experience pointing towards
God.
 A sense of obligation guides our moral
choices. Each person has intrinsic value.
 The source of that value is God,who has
instilled it in creation and we thus have an
indirect experience of God.
Introducing Kant
1724-1804

Kant is one of the most
important philosophers
in history. He is also
one of the most difficult
to get to grips with in
the early stages. Don’t
panic. What follows is
fairly easy as Kant
goes!
Immanuel Kant’s argument #1
Kant’s approach is not really an argument –
he said God is a matter for faith not logic!
 He reasoned like this. In a perfect world
morality leads to the natural reward for
virtue, namely (immediate?) happiness.
 In our world this rarely happens. It is not
the consequences of our actions that
motivate us. It is our objective sense of
moral obligation.

Kant’s argument #2

There are certain rationally discoverable
laws that we are duty bound to follow – the
Categorical Imperatives.
 A Categorical Imperative is a law that is
binding in all situations.
eg. Do unto others as you would have them do
to you.
Kant’s argument #3
Kant effectively is asking, “If I experience
this sense of objective obligation, what else
must I be implicitly accepting as true?”
 His answer was that there are three
assumptions we must make:
 [1] freedom
 [2] immortality
 [3] God

Kant’s argument #4

Freedom, immortality & God are the postulates of
morality.
 If we accept objective morality then we are
required to accept these postulates.
 All this is found in Kant’s “Critique of Practical
Reason”.
 The consummation of all this is in the summum
bonum – the highest good, where absolute
morality and absolute happiness come together.
A summary of Kant so far…
There are three stages in his ‘argument’:
 {1} morality requires that we aim for the
highest good.
 {2} we cannot attain this unless there is a
God to assist us.
 {3} God must exist to ensure that we can
achieve what we are duty bound to do.

Is the moral argument
successful? #1

There is no doubting the appeal of the
Moral Arguments for those who for other
reasons already believe in God.
 But if you do not believe in God, or do not
believe in objective law, the arguments are
unlikely to convince you.
 Four lines of objection are often cited:
Is the moral argument
successful? #2

Not all moral codes agree.You can explain
them without reference to God.
 The concept of objective law has been
vigorously challenged.
 Even if you accept objective law, God may
not be necessary.
 Proof of God is elusive; the best you could
get from Moral Arguments is a lawgiver.
Non-religious explanations
for morality #1

There are many alternatives on offer:
 (1) Cultural evolution: the demands of
living closely with others generates morality
as a safety device to restrict behaviours.
 (2) Sigmund Freud reckoned that the
conscience is the product of the
unconscious mind. He called it the superego, a kind of internalised parent.
Non-religious explanations
for morality #2

Psychological accounts of moral
development speak in terms of social
conditioning as we grow up. Freud’s is only
one particular account.
 The sheer variability of the content of
consciences suggests it is not God speaking.
 The range of ‘objective’ laws suggests a
multiple human origin not a single divine
one.
Problems with the concept of
Objective Law

Moral systems based on laws are callous and
unsatisfactory. It is better to look to consequences
and individual circumstances.
 Situation ethics is an example here. The only
principle is to love agapeistically. Ask “what is
good for my neighbour?”
 A priori objective moral laws, in deontological
systems such as Kant’s, regard consequences as
irrelevant.
Non-religious explanations for
Objective Law

Brian Davies argues that you can believe in
objective law without believing in God.
 It is possible to have ideals and believe that
they are binding on others even if there are
no God given guarantees of attaining them.
 In any case, all that Kantian arguments
establish is a lawgiver, not the ‘fouromni’s’God of Classical Theism.
CONCLUSION
These arguments don’t work.
 It may strengthen some aspects of the
belief of the believer.
 The unbeliever will not become religious on
the basis of this argument.
 If there is a God then moral laws are to be
expected. But moral laws do not necessitate
the existence of God.

Acknowledgement

This presentation is heavily indebted to the
treatment of the topic found in chapter 7 of
“Philosophy of Religion for A-level” by
Jordan, Lockyer & Tate, STP, 1999.
 You are strongly recommended to study the
chapter and to consult other introductory
treatments of the Moral Arguments.