Kant's Moral Argument
- Created by: _alf24
- Created on: 10-04-15 13:44
View mindmap
- Kant's moral argument
- John Hick
- Agrees with Kant
- There is an objective moral law that we should all follow
- H.P.Owen
- If there is a law there must be a law giver
- You can't have a command without a commander
- Dom Trothowan
- Rejects the use of logic
- Interprets morality as a religious experience which brings us closer to God
- Freud
- There's no duty or Summum Bonum
- It's just how we were brought up and the superego
- There is a mediator in you mind that helps you act correctly
- Brian Davies
- Why does the law-giver have to be God? Why can't it be an angel?
- Michael Palmer
- "Looks suspiciously like trying to keep his cake and eat it"
- Fromm
- Our morals are based on what is of value to us
- Kant
- We are all striving towards the Summum Bonum
- When virtue and happiness come together
- We only feel obliged to do things if they are possible
- A paralysed man doesn't aim to get up and do a marathon - it's not achievable
- You can be moral but not create happiness
- E.g. telling the truth about a friends dress and saying it's not very nice
- Because we can't achieve happiness and virtue by ourselves there has to be a God so we can achieve it
- "We must postulate the existence of God to achieve what we feel we must"
- People can't achieve it in this life so there must be an afterlife
- Not a proof of God but logically, this must be the case
- "God is the highest and original good"
- We are all striving towards the Summum Bonum
- John Hick
Comments
No comments have yet been made