The Moral Argument
The moral argument is another argument which philosophers use as evidence to
prove that God exists.
Moral – relating to human behaviour, what is right or wrong. What should or
should not be done.
Cultural relativism – acts which are designated right and wrong differ from one
culture to another.
Emotivism – making the decision of whether something is right or wrong based
on your emotions towards it.
Categorical imperative – when an action is either right or wrong by fact not
through wish or desire
Summum bonum – the sum of all goodness, the highest good, which comprises
of all virtue and happiness.
We are only good because God tells us to be
False
True
- If God didn’t command goodness
then we would have nothing to be
good for
- If God is pure goodness, then
whatever he commands must be good
also.
- We are made in the image of God,
therefore if God is good, then we
must have goodness too, and the
desire to do what’s good.
- Humans feel that if God exists then he
should be good, and they want to
please him.
- We have a conscience – the divine
spark in us, telling us what is right or
wrong – what is the point in having
one if there is no God?
- We are given divinely inspired texts
by God which list what is right and
wrong – e.g. the Bible.
- Are atheists really more immoral
than believers?
- If God is all loving and wants us to
be good then why doesn’t he help us
all the time?
- Why is there cultural relativism if
there is only one God? – There are a
variety of morals even though there
should only be one God.
- The Bible doesn’t say that slavery is
wrong, but it is morally wrong to
have a slave in our times – society
makes the moral decisions.
- Christians may be scared of the
punishment that they would be
given if they do wrong, therefore
they are good.
- We are good because we want to be,
not because of God. We get a good
feeling when we are good.
Aquinas
In Aquinas’s writing he doesn’t actually refer to the word morality, but instead he
refers to words like truth, nobility, goodness and value. He said that because we
experience these and because we have a concept of what these things are, these
ideas must come from somewhere, they do not just appear and neither do they
infinitely regress. This idea is like Plato’s idea of the World of Forms. Aquinas
said that there must be something which is the most true, the most valuable, the
most noble and the most good – for Christian theologians this is God.
Aristotle said that humans are goal orientated, that all humans have a purpose, a
goal to which they are striving. Therefore this goal must actually exist. When we
aim for goodness and truth, Aristotle said, we are not only aiming for those
concepts but the actuality of goodness and truth – a being which embodies
goodness and truth. This is where the Christian thought has borrowed Aristotle’s
ideas.
The Nature of Moral Experience
It is universally accepted that there is a right and a wrong. Not everybody agrees
on what is right and wrong, but everybody appeals to some moral authority.
Right and wrong seem to be regardless of what our own opinions are, e.g. some
countries have set laws, regardless of what people’s opinions are. Many people
see that our conscience is the voice of a law giver God. A man called John
Newman wrote in 1870 in his book ‘Grammar of Assent’: ‘if, as is the case, we
feel responsibility, are ashamed, are frightened, at transgressing the voice of
conscience, this implies that there is One to whom we are responsible, before
whom we are ashamed, whose claim upon us we fear.’
Arguments against this:
 Some people do not have a conscience.
 There must be another force telling us to do things that are wrong – this
theory does not just prove the existence of God.
 We may not feel guilty because there is a God watching what we do, but
because society is watching what we do.
 If there is just one God who has only one view of what is right or wrong
then why are there so many people who have different views to him? We
are supposed to be created in the image of God. How do we know who is
actually right?
John Newman said that obedience and guilt are only meaningful if
there is a person to whom we feel responsible. He said that laws
imply a law giver. If we use God as the higher authority then it
shows that he cares for us, and that he has a personal relationship
with us. He will also punish us if we do not do what he wants. This
goes completely against the Hellenistic view of God [transcendent
– completely detached from the world]. In Christian and Jewish
thought God is transcendent, but he is also immanent – he doesn’t
take part in the world, which is why there are wars, but then again
he does take part in the world because we have things like
miracles. God is also transcendent because he is the beginning of
all things. If God was a part of the world then he would also have a
creator, and infinite regression would keep happening.
If God does not exist anything goes
To deny God and Gods existence is to deny the source of authority
for good and moral behaviour. There is no reason for us to behave
in a good way. A man called Hick says that it is difficult to justify
heroic acts if God does not exist.
Kant
He says that God is required for morality to achieve its end/
purpose. He says that Gods existence is implied by human moral
experience. He says that the mind that determines the way in which
we experience things not the external things in themselves.
- If you had new food but you think you aren’t going to like it you
may not, but if you go with a positive attitude you may like it.
- Everyone sees different experiences very different. E.g. a roller
coaster, how people react to it.
He says we can not prove that we ought to do something by analysing
it since we will never have enough evidence. He says that the idea of
moral obligation comes from within us. He says that within ourselves
there is a universal law of what we know is always right and is always
wrong. He calls that the categorical imperative. He says that its
reason not feelings that is our guide. He says that good acts are
obligatory because they are rational. We are under an obligation to
achieve goodness or virtue to the highest standard possible. True virtue
can be identified by happiness since good deeds cause happiness. It is
not right according to Kant that the good are unhappy or that the bad
are happy therefore we identify goodness by its result of happiness. He
says that this highest standard of virtue and goodness is called the
summum bonum. (The highest state of goodness or happiness). Kant
goes on to say that if someone is suffering because they are doing
something good their action would still be good because it is bringing
about the happiness in others but it would not be the summum bonum
because there is still suffering in the equation. He says that we all
recognise that the summum bonum is what is to be achieved. He says
humans can do what is good but it is difficult to also bring about true
happiness for all. This can only be brought about by God. God creates
the summum bonum as the goal of morality and only he can bring it
about. Kant says that virtue, happiness, harmony can not take place in
this life (always someone at the end of the day that suffers). Kant says
although we are aware of this morality (the summum bonum, the goal
of morality) we can’t achieve it; it’s only in the next life that we can
achieve this goal. Kant is saying that there is an afterlife for us. Kant
says you can’t fully put things right in this world, only in the afterlife
can we make things right. Its only god that can achieve perfect
happiness, there God exists. (The utilitarian argument says that for the
best that we can achieve in this life is the greatest happiness for the
greatest amount of people).