Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is generally considered to be one of the most profound and original philosophers who ever lived. For Kant, morality was not a matter of subjective whim set forth in the name of god or religion or law based on the principles ordained by the earthly spokespeople of those gods. However, that is a contentious view in its own right.A stronger response to Kant’s practical moral argument takes issue with his entire project for grounding morality. [1] Ka… Instead of arguing for the existence of God, it argues for the necessity of.With the argument explained more in depth now, we can see two objections that won’t work against Kant’s version of the moral argument. The harmony itself is not only a logical expectation, but a necessary reward for being moral.– As the summum bonum is a duty as well as a reward, there must be a God who ensures that this harmony (morality & happiness) is attained. Radical skepticism and the related quest for sure foundations may just be unwarranted.Provocative as it is, Kant’s moral argument still fails to make the case for the necessity of belief in God to a consistent pursuit of the moral life.Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in. This is in contrast to consequentialism, or working out the consequences of our actions. The reason is obvious: the consequences of our actions are often out of our control, just as the ball is out of the pitcher’s control once it's left his hand. we can only make sense of the world/universe, by projecting causality (cause & effect) upon it – though in (noumenal) reality, causality does not exist.– Kant therefore argues that like space & time, causality is an a priori concept – rather than an actual real law.– Causality therefore applies to the phenomenal world, but not to the noumenal world.– By making this ontological move, Kant makes (intentional) morality possible:– One later formulation derived from the Categorical Imperative is the.– Therefore, the purpose of reason is not only a morally good will (as stated at the beginning of the GMM), but also the happiness of oneself.– The ultimate goal of reason, the highest good, therefore is a combination of virtue and happiness – this Kant calls the.– But be careful: the summum bonum is not the reason for being moral – it is rather merely the later goal as a result of being moral.– So by being moral, one should ideally also be happy. He argued that, since human beings ought to strive for moral perfection (a concept he would have inherited from his Pietist upbringing), and that they cannot be successful unaided, then they need divine help to achieve the “highest good (.Obligation or “ought” implies “can” (ability), and God makes it possible for humans to achieve the highest good. He divided reality into two: phenomena (appearances) and noumena (things-in-themselves).– Causality exists in the phenomenal world – the world of empiricism/natural science. For instance, if I get you to agree to do something by making a false promise, I am manipulating you. It was not something imposed on us from without. Yet, humans do not achieve what they ought to in this life; so God must make it possible in a future life.
Inconvenient, yes, but not inconsistent.It’s an interesting question why there should need to be a ground of morality to begin with. If we're uncertain, we can work out the answer by reflecting on a general principle that Kant calls the “Categorical Imperative.” This, he claims, is the fundamental principle of morality and all other rules and precepts can be deduced from it.Kant offers several different versions of this categorical imperative. A maxim is moral if it can be reasonably endorsed as a universal principle. Rather, he’s saying, “Without belief in God and immortality, the idea of morality is ultimately incoherent.