A-level – Religious Studies – Ethics – Kantian Ethics
Introduction
Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) presented a Deontological argument so in his
theory the ACTION is what establishes the morality/duty - you establish your
duty and then do it
Kant said that moral statements are not like normal statements.
 Normal statements are either a priori analytic (they are knowable
without experience and verifiable through reason) or they are a
posteriori synthetic (knowable through experience and verifiable
through experience).
 For Kant, moral statements are a priori synthetic – you can know
something is moral without experience, and it can be checked with
experience.
Good will and Duty
Kant believed that there was nothing that could be said to be good except a
good will:
Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly
be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good
will (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785)
Something is good only when someone carries out their duty to do it – so
goodness is based on doing the correct thing.
The Categorical Imperative
Kant specified that moral actions are absolute actions that must be done in all
circumstances – there are to be no conditions attached.
Moral actions cannot be hypothetical (based on something else – e.g. if I want
X I must do Y) because they become too subjective.
If an action is to be entirely objective, it must be universal and if it is to be
made properly, the human must be in total control (autonomous) and assume
all others are autonomous.
Therefore Kant has three key formulations of his Categorical Imperative
1. Always perform actions that may be made rules for everyone
(universalisability) (Act only according to that maxim whereby you
can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
[Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785])
2. Always treat people as ends in themselves, not as means to an end.
(Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person
or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and
never merely as a means. [Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals,
1785])
3. Pretend you live as a member of (and as a leader of) the Kingdom of
Ends where all people live as if these rules are totally valid ([E]very
rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a
legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends. [Groundwork for
the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785])
The Summum Bonum
Kant noted that if we are to do our duty then we must be able to be rewarded
for our actions.
He talked about the summum bonum – the place where our happiness and
our virtue (good actions through doing our duty) come together.
This is obviously not something that can be found on earth – we see bad
people living happy lives and good people living unhappy lives – therefore the
summum bonum must be able to be achieved in the afterlife.
Three Postulates of Pure Practical Reason
Following on from this approach, Kant postulated three things that were
necessary for his theory to work, but which rationally must exist.
1. We must be free to be able to make decisions.
2. There must be an afterlife (or immortality) for us to be able to achieve
the summum bonum.
3. God must exist in order to be a fair judge to bring us to the afterlife or
not.
This is why Kant is referred to in discussions about the Moral Argument for
the Existence of God.
Strengths of Kantian Ethics





It is universal so everyone is treated equally and given equal value.
Human life is given particular value.
You have particular rules to follow – you know where you are with the
theory.
It promotes good will, which is beneficial for society
There are no references to the future or to consequences, which
cannot be known.
Weaknesses of Kantian Ethics


It does not seem to account for the complexities of life –
universalisability cannot work as no two situations are the same.
For example, would you tell a known murderer where his victim was?
(Kant says we have to.)



It does not account for any particular duty we may have for certain
people (e.g. family).
It does not account for times when two absolutes clash.
Some would say that sometimes human life has to be sacrificed to stop
others or more people being killed or suffering.
A-level – Religious Studies – Philosophy of Religion – Arguments for the
existence of God
These arguments can be broadly grouped into:
 arguments that are based on experience (a posteriori arguments) –
the cosmological, teleological (or design) arguments and the argument
from Religious Experience;
 arguments that are based on no prior experience but on logic alone (a
priori arguments) – the ontological argument; and
 moral arguments, which are less easy to classify one way or the other.
A-level – Religious Studies – Philosophy of Religion – Arguments for the
existence of God - Cosmological Argument
Introduction
The key question asked by the cosmological argument is ‘Why is there
something rather than nothing?’
The argument works from our experience of the universe towards the
existence of God – it states that we can observe the universe and the very
fact that things exist and therefore must conclude that God exists.
However, we will not find the reasons for the universe within the universe –
God is to be seen as an external being.
Aquinas
St Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) was a well-known monk, philosopher and
theologian.
Aquinas offered five ways to prove the existence of God, of which the first
three are forms of the cosmological argument – arguments from motion,
cause and contingency.
Aquinas was influenced by Aristotle’s approach to causation.
First Way
This is the argument from motion or change (the two terms are equivalent as
if you move from A to B then you have changed).
(1) All things are in a state of change.
(2) Everything is a secondary mover.
(3) If all things are secondary movers then there must be infinite regress.
(4) If (3) is correct then there is no Prime Mover. Without a Prime Mover,
there can be no secondary movers, therefore, (3) is false as infinite
regress is impossible. (The reductio ad absurdum technique.)
(5) Therefore, there must be a prime mover. This we call “God”.
“The chain of movers cannot go on to infinity because then there would be no
first mover and consequently no other mover.” Aquinas, Summa Theologica
Second Way
This is the argument from causation.
(1) There is an order of efficient causes.
(2) No efficient cause can cause itself.
(3) If there is infinite regress then there is no First Cause.
(4) If (3) is true then there can be no subsequent causes. Infinite regress
is impossible. (The reductio ad absurdum technique.)
(5) Therefore there must be a first cause of everything. This we call “God”.
Criticisms of the First and Second Ways
 Aquinas does not explain why there cannot only be secondary causes?
 Some argue he commits the Infinite Regress Fallacy by saying that
infinite regress is wrong. In nature around us, we have an infinite
series, so why shouldn’t nature itself be an infinite series?
 It is too large a leap from First Cause or Prime Mover to God.
(However the argument doesn’t prove or set out to prove the God of
Classical Theism.)
 Why should we make God the exception? Why not make the universe
the exception?
 Who made God – why does God have to be the First Cause?
 The argument only works with an exception, therefore everything is a
secondary mover except God, which is a contradiction. (But the very
nature of the argument shows that there must be a contradiction
because without a First Cause, nothing can exist.)
 Quantum Physics suggests that at a sub-atomic level there may be
random movement and there exist things that do not have causes
themselves.
Third Way
This is the argument from contingency and necessity.
A contingent being is one that relies on something else for its existence. A
necessary being relies on nothing else for its existence.
(1) Things are contingent.
(2) If everything is contingent, there must have been a time when nothing
existed.
(3) Therefore (using reductio ad absurdum) nothing can come from
nothing.
(4) Therefore, there must be a necessary being.
(5) Every necessary being must have a cause either inside or outside of
itself.
(6) Imagine every necessary being had a cause outside itself.
(7) Therefore (using reductio ad absurdum) if (6) is true, then there is no
ultimate cause of necessity.
(8) Therefore, there must be a necessary being which causes and
contains all other necessary and contingent beings. This being we call
“God”.
Criticisms of the Third Way
For more criticisms see the criticisms of the First and Second Ways.




Why can’t there be overlapping contingent beings going back to
infinity? Also, causes may have more than one effect. The jump from
(1) to (2) is a fallacy.
There is no sense in which it proves the God of Classical Theism.
It assumes that infinite regress is impossible.
Some might say it is meaningless to ask what caused the universe.
Hume’s Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument

“If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world
must rest upon some other; and so on without out. It were better
therefore never to look beyond the present material world.” Dialogues
Concerning Natural Religion
Hume’s point is that we must not look beyond this world to anything
metaphysical – The answers are in this world, otherwise we will end up going
back to infinity.

The Fallacy of Composition. Hume says that Aquinas has made a
mistake in the way this argument was put together. Just because there
is a common property to a group doesn’t mean that property must
apply to the group. Just because every event in a series has a cause,
doesn’t mean the series itself has a cause.

Hume also said that we have no experience of a universe being
created and so we cannot talk meaningfully about it.

Hume rejected the idea of necessary existence – every being,
according to Hume is contingent.

Hume questions why motion needs to have a starting point – in other
words why infinite regression is impossible. Surely if there can be an
understanding of a prime mover there can be an understanding of
perpetual motion?