• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Explain Kant(TM)s moral argument for the existence of God and Kant was wrong to suggest that we all share a sense of right and wrong(TM) Discuss

Extracts from this document...


Philosophy and Ethics Christopher Hadden Kant's Moral Argument "Explain Kant's moral argument for the existence of God" (25 marks) Kant's Moral argument is unique to other arguments for God's existence as it doesn't prove God's existence it only suggests it. Another key difference to other arguments is that Kant's moral argument doesn't see the existence of God as necessary, they all use reasoning to reach the conclusion of existence. This existence is dependent on reasoning whereas for Kant as humans we can never prove God's existence as this requires the higher knowledge that only God possesses. Kant's argument is far more based on belief than other traditional arguments such as the teleological and ontological. Nevertheless Kant still follows logical reasoned steps to create his argument. Overall Kant's argument is based around the idea that we all have an inbuilt moral code, an innate sense of right and wrong and that all people feel this same sense of conscience. Kant believed that this idea of morality or conscience was direction from God. ...read more.


Kant didn't ever claim that this argument could prove the existence of God nor did he aim to persuade non believers. It is Kant's claim that we instinctively know what is right and wrong and also instinctively know that we should follow right and believe that this behaviour should be rewarded. This innate sense of justice and moral structure cannot function in this life despite the fact that it ought to exist, and according to Kant this shows that an afterlife with God is there to provide this. 'Kant was wrong to suggest that we all share a sense of right and wrong' Discuss (10 marks) There is no way of providing solid evidence for or against Kant's notion of universal morality, as morality is internal and cannot be accurately judged or measured exteriorly. Kant claims that there is an innate moral understanding within all of us and that we feel obliged to follow this moral outline. Kant uses this idea to claim that God is the reason for this inward morality and moral drive. ...read more.


And as ought is relative then so too must morality as, after all morality is a judgement of what we ought to do, and if ought is at the discretion of the individual then so to must morality. This would lead us further towards Freud's ideas on morality. He believed that morality within any individual comes from outside influence such as parents siblings and society, Freud claimed that these sources provide ideas on morality which in some cases are internalised within the individual at a young age and become their moral values. In this way any culture and even different cultures could have very similar moral beliefs. This could easily explain how there are similarities between cultural moralities. Kant's argument offers an explanation for the existence of God and his idea of universal morality is plausible but both are not conclusively proved nor can they ever be. Due to the impossible nature of judging morality we can never truly know whether morality is universal, yet certain individual cases demonstrate an amoral personality which would contradict this theory. Kant's theory and his idea of universal morality both rely heavily upon the acceptance of other ideas. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Practical Questions section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Practical Questions essays

  1. Explain Anselm ontological argument

    For5 somebody to say that God can not exist would be a contradiction because God is 'that than which noting greater can be conceive,' therefore god has to have an existence. In his second argument Anselm concludes that God cannot be conceived not to exist.

  2. Consider the arguments for and against paid organ donation.

    organ, and without this ability, the UK cannot introduce a fair system of paid organ transplant that will not cause controversy or be universally accepted as reasonable. Altogether, I feel that the falsification method of philosophy offers strong proof that the UK should not adopt a paid organ donor system,

  1. Evaluate the claim that conscience is the voice of God

    Freud believed that the human personality consists of three areas, the id, which is part of the unconscious personality driven by impulses to seek pleasure, the ego, which is the part of the personality that experiences and reacts to the world and the superego, which is the part of the

  2. Explain what you think is the strongest objection to this argument. Next, explain what ...

    Some pairs of actions that differ only in that one is killing (Smith) and the other is letting die (Jones) might differ morally, while other pairs might not. Thus, killing and letting die might be morally different, even though certain instances of killing and letting die do not differ, even

  1. Does everyone have a right to a child?

    intercourse or artificial treatments such as IVF. Scenarios Scenario 1 In this scenario a married woman who has had her embryo's frozen has passed away but she wishes for her embryo's to be destroyed as she had passed away, but her husband now wants to use the embryo's to carry his dead wife's child/baby.

  2. "Humanitarian intervention, which is ruled out by realism and the morality of states, can ...

    If there are no universally acceptable moral standards, no moral standards can be applied across the globe. It is very difficult to decipher whether or not humanitarian intervention is in conflict with the doctrine of cultural relativism. If one supposes that humanitarian intervention is justified in one instance, for example

  1. Evaluate Korsgaard's discussion of the Universalizability Argument. In what ways does she conform with ...

    It describes what a free will must do in order to be what it is. It must choose a maxim it can regard as a law. Once the will have chosen a maxim that can be regarded as a law, it becomes universal. Korsgaard affirms and defends this Kantian view.

  2. Utilitarianism.After Bentham had established that pleasure and pain were the important factors in determining ...

    From this critique a more important point would arise, whether or not humans could act commonly bearing the good of all their personal detriment. Utilitarians thought this unimportant, they believed that as long as the out come of the action is what is morally right it doesn't matter what his motive is, even if it was getting paid.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work