Absolutist about morals – they don't change. Kant criticised Teleo, Cosmo, Onto arguments = invalid.
Because human reason is limited – God is unlimited. God is beyond our understanding.
These cannot be proofs of God’s existence, not possible to prove God because we don't understand him.
It is however possible to ‘infer’ him , through ‘practical reason’ – infer from human experience of God.
Doing what is right = happiness – which all humans seek People have a sense of moral obligation- duty/ categorical imperative The greatest good or happiness is called Summon Bonum Summon Bonum cannot be achieved in this life Whatever can be sought must be achievable because universe is fair Must postulate (assume) an afterlife where the summon bonum can be achieved Therefore necessary to postulate that God exists in order to guarantee that the universe if fair so that the summon bonum is achieved
Kant is not trying to prove God’s existence but is merely arguing that:
IF the universe is fair
And IF the summon bonum can be achieved
Then God and after life are necessary postulates.
What happens to this arguments if the universe is not fair?
Persuasive to believers = man can see the Divine in his surroundings
Moral Argument is an invitation to have faith, provide a goal for mankind to strive towards
The alternative is bleak and purposeless.
John Henry Newman:
Conscience is the Voice of the Lawgiver - real knowledge of God.
Deep seated sense of moral obligation, responsibility to do what is right.
Feel guilty and ashamed if do something wrong.
Therefore the existence of conscience = existence of God.
Impossible to prove
Evolution: behave morally because want others to behave morally towards us.
Maybe there is a law giver but who says that it is God?
Peter Cole : Why should virtue be rewarded with happiness? Assumes that the universe is fair but is it?
Why should virtue be rewarded at all, not a means to an end.
Kant argues that only God can bring about the Summon Bonum. But why God?
Brain Davies : “why not a pantheon of angels?”
Kant argues that there is an absolute moral law. Is this always the case? What about morality that is based on Cultural Relativism, not the summon bonum.
Morals come from unconscious mind developed by parents .
Oedipus complex: (age 5)
Boy falls in love with mother
Mother loves father
Must kill competition, so mother is all mine.
Bu father is bigger and stronger and will castrate me for such thoughts
Must take away the fear. Must identify with same sex parent and take on his behaviours, habits, beliefs, values and morals.
Must not disappoint parents and be socially unacceptable. Must become like father.
Deep deep down at the bottom of unconscious mind – son’s love of mother. Conscience: based upon guilt of disappointing parents. Must conform to societies behavioural expectations. Morality comes from human conscience not GOD.
Everything we believe is attached to our one life not God/ after life
God only exist in the mind of the believer
Invention of mind
Determined by your own character not God
Only the physical exists
J. L. Mackie:
To much evidence against Moral Argument e.g. from psychological explanations