Kant - the Moral argument Flashcards
What is the overview of the Moral argument?
Morality is about understanding what is the right/ wrong action in a given situation. A moral person has this understanding then acts appropriately
What is the first part of the moral argument?
All people have a sense of morality. They believe they ought to act morally out of a sense of duty to keep the categorical imperative. “Ought” implies a choice which suggests that people are free to act. If people are not free to act then they cannot be moral
What is the second part of the moral argument?
Ought to act morally also implies can act morally. This means that moral actions can happen and are possible to do.
What is the third part of the moral argument?
People are also duty bound to bring about a world where all people are moral and happy (the summum bonum)
What is the fourth part of the moral argument?
However, often moral behaviour does not lead to happiness. Plenty of moral people suffer a great deal. This is because people cannot control the world around them. We are not omnipotent beings. So Summum Bonum ought to be possible but at this level, it appears impossible
What is the fifth part of the moral argument?
It does not make sense to seek an impossible goal/end. If we are moral agents, then it has to be that we live in a moral and just world. A just world means that we have to be able to achieve our goal. The only being powerful enough to bring about Summum Bonum is God. Summum Bonum is achievable. This is because God is the cause of nature and so can control it. God is the omnipotent being that can ensure the Summum Bonum
What is the sixth part of the moral argument?
As Summum Bonum clearly does not happen in this life, God must bring it about in an after life. There has to be a Heaven with God in which all people are moral and happy.
How does Davies criticise the moral argument?
Why God? Why assume that only God can bring about Summum Bonum? “Why not a pantheon of angels?”
What is the issue with arguing that the Summum Bonum is logically possible?
Kant argues that ought implies can. It is logically possible, therefore, for us to achieve the Summum Bonum. However, just because something is logically possible it does not make it true in reality.
What’s the issue with the basis of happiness in the moral argument?
Why happiness? Why make the assumption that virtue must be rewarded with happiness? - Russell - the world is just brute fact
What is the issue of saying that there is an objective moral law?
What if there is not one?
