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

Kant’s argument only works with the understanding and acceptance of three key terms which Kant called postulates. They are: freedom; a given person is free to commit a moral action without obligation or obstruction, immortality; despite moral actions not being rewarded in this life we must have immortal souls that go on to an afterlife, and God; the logical acceptance that ‘summum bonum’ can only be provided by a higher omnipotent power which in this case is God.

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. It seems totally reasonable to claim that we all have the same basic sense of morality; within everyone is there not a moral objection to murder, rape or cruelty? For many people the answer would be yes. But this idea is very hard to prove as an individual’s experience of others morality is highly limited. How can a westernised businessman understand the morality of an aborigine tribesman? For many cultural relativism is a factor which weakens Kant’s argument. Although morality within any given culture may be the same it is far more difficult to claim that these ideas of morality are universal across different cultures. For example there is evidence that within historic cultures rape of women within a tribe was allowed for the leader and that this was seen by everyone as the right of the leader rather than an immoral action.

Kant’s argument relies heavily on his phrase ‘ought implies can’. We ought to be able to achieve the ‘summun bonum’ in reward for moral actions, and as this doesn’t happen in this life it must in an afterlife with God. Yet in many situations just because something ought to be does not mean it is possible. So just because as humans we believe our idea of morality should be rewarded with virtue doesn’t mean that it actually is. Furthermore ‘ought’ relies on judgement, whether something ought or ought not to happen is at the discretion of the person deciding. So just because we feel morality should be rewarded with virtue doesn’t mean that this is actually the case. Ought is relative to the situation and the decision maker and so cannot be applied to the existence of God. 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.