Explain Freuds challenge to Kants moral argument for the existence of God

Kant called the ideal state where human virtue and happiness are united the ‘Summum Bonum’. Kant’s final stages of his argument stated that humans can achieve virtue in a lifetime but it is beyond us to ensure we are rewarded with happiness therefore there must be a God who has power to ensure that virtue and happiness coincide. Kant’s moral argument does not postulate that God is necessary for morality but that God is required for morality to achieve its end therefore it is morally necessary to assume the existence of God. However Freud’s notion that religion is an obsessional neurosis suggests postulating the existence of God to guarantee a system of objective moral values is just part of the neurosis.

Basically, Freud used the mind to explain how morals occur in our lives in an attempt to disprove Kant’s moral argument for the existence of God. Freud distinguished between three components of the human psyche. The ID being the basic instincts and primitive desires e.g. hunger, lust etc. The Ego is the perceptions of the external that makes us aware of the ‘reality principle,’ one’s most outward part and personality. And finally the Superego, the unconscious mind which consists of ehe ego-ideal which praises good actions and the conscience which makes you feel guilty for bad actions. All of this science cannot be directly observed but is an excellent theory of moral development; all of this theory tends to undermine everything Kant explained in order to prove God’s existence. If conscience is the voice of God, as Kant believes, you would expect it to be consistent. Kant’s concept of an absolute moral code enforced by God does not explain the Yorkshire Ripper who claimed to follow voices in his head or the differing views on issues such as euthanasia and abortion. Conscience is not truly objective and therefore has a human not divine origin.

‘Kant’s understanding of morality leads convincingly to God.’ Discuss. (10 marks)

Kant’s moral argument has many strengths and limitations in an attempt to put forward a reasonable argument in determining the existence of God. Firstly is without a doubt that the argument will strengthen any believer's belief in God already. Kant’s moral argument based upon objective laws might appeal to those who already accept unconditional, a priori laws; these are laws that are made without the need of evidence or examination. The first criticism is based around how many philosophers disagree about the properties of the Summum Bonum. There is no evidence of the Summum Bonum, Just because it might be considered logic, does not make it real. There is nothing to say that the Summum Bonum must be the highest good. There is question to whether virtue must be rewarded with happiness and whether this is universal.

In the defence of Kant’s argument, morality comes from not just people but also from God. For example, Kant stated that God guaranteed that the Summum Bonum is achievable and that humans are aware of God’s law when they act rationally, God’s law being found through reason. Secondly, the issue with what is considered morally right in one culture may not be considered right in another, thus showing that there is no universal moral law. Even Kant admits that his argument is not proof by saying "my conviction is not logical but moral certainty". Lastly is the issue regarding the challenges that Freud’s argument raised, his claim that religion is an obsessional neurosis is damaging to Kant’s argument simply because the statement can be backed up with scientific and psychological evidence. Religion can easily fall into the category of a mild mental disorder with the symptoms of obsession and insecurities. There are very few strengths and many weaknesses to the statement above in leading Kant’s understanding of morality to God. This does not seem like a very convincing statement.