Kant's Moral Argument - Simpled Up

A simplified version of The Moral Argument from the OCR Philosophy of Religion Book.

Hope it's useful :)

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: GoonieC
  • Created on: 10-05-12 19:54
Preview of Kant's Moral Argument - Simpled Up

First 422 words of the document:

The Moral Argument
Immanuel Kant claimed we use our reason to follow an objective moral law, a law that is fact
and constant throughout time, this should make us happy.
Following this objective moral law causes us to do our duty. Our duty is what we are morally
obliged to do out of duties sake, so we should have no other motives otherwise our `moral'
actions are wrong as we haven't used our reason properly.
Doing our duty should eventually lead us to achieving the summum bonum, the highest good.
This is when perfect virtue results in perfect happiness, so if we are a good enough person
and do our duty properly then we should be rewarded with happiness.
The summum bonum must therefore be achieveable for moral goodness to have any point.
However, Kant also took into account the fact that some people however good they are in
this life do not find perfect happiness. He concluded from this that God must be morally
necessary as there has to be an afterlife allowing those who didn't achieve the summum
bonum in this life to achieve it in the next.
Freud claimed that Kant's argument was infantile and was purely wishful fulfilment as it's too
emotionally disturbing for Kant not to have a God. He referred to Kant's need for a
God/religion as obsessional neurosis and saw it as more of a disease than a belief.
Obsessional neurosis causes people to find reasons to believe there is a God to satisfy their
desires rooted in their id. Also, the desire to believe that we live in a fair world.
He also claimed, unlike Kant, the majority of moral laws are purely subjective NOT objective.
Our reason is not what gives us our morality but our experiences and our upbringing, causing
morality to evolve with time unlike Kant's beliefs.
It is questionable whether the summum bonum is even achievable? Do we have any evidence
that it is or that it even exists?
Surely it is contradictory to use your duty with even the slightest intention of achieving the
summum bonum as duty should be done for duty's sake ONLY.
It also does not explain why not every culture has the same moral codes, not everyone can
be ignoring/interpreting their reasoning incorrectly.


No comments have yet been made

Similar Religious Studies resources:

See all Religious Studies resources »See all resources »