Let's discuss the Kantian Moral Argument

[Michigan Atheist]

Hello folks,

I was challenged by a Christian recently to explain/challenge the Kantian Moral Argument. So you don't have to look it up, I'll write it out here for you.

Immanuel Kant isn't making an argument based on the nature of morality, but more of an argument for the justice in the afterlife.

It goes something like this:

(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

I could give you the theist explaination of each argument, but if you want to read more, go here: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/th ... -argument/

I would like other views on this before I share mine. Thanks.

 

[PolyHedral]

Premise 3 is false. It doesn't matter morally whether or not God exists if people think he does.

 

[Eliot Wild]

A couple of real quick thoughts:

It seems to me the rationality of moral behavior is not dependant on God or some force of divine and/or ultimate Justice. Moral behavior can have its own rewards, or at least be practical, even in a Godless cause-and-effect universe, making it rational to engage in moral behavior without the expectation of Divine Judgment at some point in time.

Also, couldn't there be ultimate justice without a God? I realize the notion of God makes it a lot easier for us to conceive of divine justice, but what if there is some force, neither intelligent nor willful in any degree, that naturally metes out justice. What if there is a cause-and-effect property of the universe that works on a moral level, we just don't see it sometimes because ultimate justice is enacted outside of man's awareness, such as after death or in another life, if one were inclined to reincarnation or such.

Physical laws tell me if I stick my hand to a flame, I am likely to get burned. There is a consequence, a cause-and-effect process at work in nature. Could this not likewise exist with moral laws as well, but we may not always be aware of the process?

I am just trying to be creative, and I didn't really give this too much thought. I got distractions today. I hate it when work interfers with my philosophizing.

 

[PolyHedral]

Also, this quote is relevant:
I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, "wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?" So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.

 

[Skwim]

(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.​

Because this didn't seem to be as I remembered it I scooted over to Wikipedia to see how it phrases the argument. This is Wikipedia's take on it.

1.Some aspect of Morality (e.g., its objective force) is observed. (Moral realism)

2.Belief in God provides a better explanation of this feature than various alternatives.

3.Therefore, to the extent that (1) is accepted, belief in God is preferable to these alternatives
​

What follows are some of the more common variations of the moral argument.

Moral sanctions

1. Moral norms exist and have authority beyond the socially mediated. It is, for example, perfectly coherent for someone like William Wilberforce to say "slavery may be approved of by society, but it is morally wrong".

2. If they truly have such authority, there should be a rational argument why human beings should act in accordance with moral norms, over and above the reaction of society.

3. The existence of God, who is wholly just, observes everything relevant about human actions and can attach appropriate long-term sanctions to behavior provides such a rational argument, better than alternatives.

4. Therefore, to the extent that (1), (2) and (3) are accepted, belief in God is more reasonable than alternative worldviews that do not offer such explanations.

​

Because the argument hinges on accepting the assumptions, the conclusion is no stronger than their truth, and this I believe is the argument's Achilles heel.

 

[Breathe]

I can't see how this argument works.

Although I can't really offer anything as well thought out as the rest of people here, I thought I'd put my view in, anyway.



Whilst moral behaviour is rational, I'm a bit hesitant to say morality is only rational if you think justice will be done, if this implies some kind of reward. It's more like selfishness to help another person because you think you're going to get something from it.

Morality does not need to come from spiritual sources.

I don't do good things because I'm after a reward, in this life or another, from another human or Deity.
Likewise, I don't do cruel things because I fear some kind of repercussion, human or divine.

I do good and avoid cruelty because of altruism, something that is even present in animals. Humans are animals, so it should be present in us.

I suppose, though, that in some ways it could be seen as selfish. like I do not want someone to harm me, another person does not want me to harm them. In the same way I appreciate someone doing good things for me, another person appreciates me doing good things for them.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
​

-- Albert Einstein​

I agree with Albert Einstein here. Though I believe in the One, if I needed a God in order to encourage me to do good, and to stop me from doing cruel acts, then I really would need my head examining.

Just my $0.02.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hello folks,

I was challenged by a #an recently to explain/challenge the Kantian Moral Argument. So you don't have to look it up, I'll write it out here for you.

Immanuel Kant isn't making an argument based on the nature of morality, but more of an argument for the justice in the afterlife.

It goes something like this:

(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

I could give you the theist explaination of each argument, but if you want to read more, go here: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/th ... -argument/

I would like other views on this before I share mine. Thanks.

#1 - What does this mean?
#2 - Looks like a tautology.
#3 - Unsupportable premise.
#4 - Unsupportable conclusion.

 

[Tathagata]

Kant didn't believe in God so I think Skwim's syllogism is likely more accurate. Kant said that belief in God serves a functional purpose, not that God actually exists.

Also, God isn't the only only alternative required for justice. There is also karma.



.

 

[Penumbra]

(1) Moral behaviour is rational.

I don't necessarily think this is the case. It is often rational, but not always.

(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.

This is very untrue.

-Moral behavior is rational if it makes the moral doer feel good.
-Moral behavior is rational if the moral doer cares for others and wishes to do good to them.
-Moral behavior is rational if one wants to live in a nice, functional society.

In addition, if one is necessarily rewarded for their moral behavior, is it still considered moral behavior? At that point it could basically be just an investment with future returns in mind.

(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.

Karma seems a much more efficient ultimate form of justice.

But again, this is unnecessary considering point 2 is invalid.

Therefore:
(4) God exists.

Not necessarily, especially since all previous points were invalid.

In addition to all three of the first individual points being invalid, the argument also seems circular. Instead of expanding on point 1, point 2 is actually an attempt to validate point 1. Instead of being derived from points 1, 2, and 3, as the "therefore" should imply, point 4 is actually an attempt to validate point 3. And yet point 1 is asserted to be true, but only with these various other points in mind. So it doesn't actually seem to argue anything.

-Lyn

 

[logician]

Hello folks,

I was challenged by a Christian recently to explain/challenge the Kantian Moral Argument. So you don't have to look it up, I'll write it out here for you.

Immanuel Kant isn't making an argument based on the nature of morality, but more of an argument for the justice in the afterlife.

It goes something like this:

(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

I could give you the theist explaination of each argument, but if you want to read more, go here: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/th ... -argument/

I would like other views on this before I share mine. Thanks.

Easily refuted as justice can be done by enforcement of man's laws. In fact, that's the way it works.

 

[LuisDantas]

Easily refuted as justice can be done by enforcement of man's laws. In fact, that's the way it works.

Not really. Law is a cause-and-consequence system, and a crude one even by the standards of those kinds of systems. It is useful when morality fails, but it is no substitute for morality. It DEFINITELY does not breed morality!

 

[LuisDantas]

I fear Kant's argument is quite flawed. I'm surprised at how much, really.

It is useless as an argument for moral behavior, because it relies entirely on the premise that there are both God and an afterlife that he influences according to our merit. As many refutations of Pascal's Wager show, that does not help in making people moral even if the premises turn out to be true.

To the extent that it can be make any sense, this argument can only possibly work as half of a circular argument for the existence of God. The other half attempts to show that God is needed to warrant justice, while Kant's declares that Justice exists because God warrants it.

Not Kant's best moment.