RS Philosophy (moral argument) Flashcards
“Two things fill the mind…?
Moral argument quote
With ever new interesting admiration and awe.. the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me”
Kants moral argument points to the probability that.,,?
God exists
Kant didn’t think it was possible for human..?
Intellect to prove the existence of God
Instead we turn to the moral law within us for guidance
Kant said there are universal..?
agreements that some actions are always wrong no matter time culture or circumstance
Actions like rape and murder are always wrong
Shows the existence of an objective moral law
How do we discover the right action?
By applying reason to find the objective moral law(innate sense of right and wrong) which gives us the categorical imperitive (whether it fits the 3 formulations
We can utilise reason (able to universal it)
The word ‘ought’ implies ‘can’- if we are told it is our duty to do something it should be possible
What is the essential part of finding the right action?
Duty ( duty to help others should be the only motive-goodwill)
Can’t be for any other reason than doing your duty
“Virtue can only be duty for dutys sake”
How do we reach the summum bonum
Although it is wrong to do a virtuous act to get a reward it is logical that virtuous acts get rewarded
Summum bonum ultimate happiness(higher good)
Rarely achieve in one lifetime
What is Kants three postulates of morality?
Moral freedom- action is only moral if someone has the free will to do goodwill
Immortality- virtuous acts in this world are always rewarded by happiness but may attract pain if perfect virtue results in perfect happiness it must be provided in the next world (summum bonum)
God- he is the logical connection between virtue and perfect happiness- happiness is an end everyone seeks- ina perfect world moral behaviour should lead to greatest happiness but some unvirtous acts lead to unhapiness therefore it is necessary to have the possibility of a heaven where they are all rewarded
The argument is ..?
A posteriori since it uses experiance ad empirical observations about the world
Uses inductive reasoning since it assumes god already exists so assumes he must be the only source is morality (rather than another great being)
Criticism: other sources of morality we get our conscience from?
Society Education Parents Friends Media
Criticism: psychological explanation ?
Sociological or psychological explanation might be more convincing since it anaylses the mind and why people are the way they are upbringing
These explanations are rooted in observable phenomens shared human experiences irrespective of human beliefs (applies to all)
Also if conscience is a result of psychological conditioning - it’s going to be different for everyone- if our moral conscience came from god it should be consistent -but it’s not
Eg the Yorkshire ripper hearing voices telling him to kill people(could argue still have a conscience from god but peoples childhood affects how they interpret it)
What is the sumum bonum?
Greatest happiness-world of virtuous happy people
Freud- structures of the psyche- Book- The Outline of Psychoanalysis
The ego: Part of our mind that is conscious ourselves -conscious self- conscience is guilt- children learn the world restricts these desires and this results int he ego
We are aware of it-our opinions what we think about things
The id: unconcious self-part which is not immediately obvious- repressed memories/ repressed wishes that we can’t admit to ourselves
The superego: driving moral force/ moral imperitive that comes from family/friends > internalise these imperatives ‘inner voice’/ disaporval of society that we keep during upbringing- this is where moral awareness comes from
For Freud the assumption that this inner morality comes from something supernatural is entirely illusionary - if it was GOd it would be consisten but its not e.g. Yorkshire ripper hearing commands to kill people- disagrees with Kant’s objectivity
It’s clearly other explanations- sense of duty was based on socialisation
Did Freud successfully demolish Kants moral argument? [6 points]
1) Freuds jnterpretation of early religion just highly fictional- no proof of totemism/carried away by enthusiasm for evolution
2) He was criticised for trying to build an argument based on his own views rather than with supporting evidence
- uses inductive reasoning assume there is NO objective God-hardly surprising he came to his conclusion
3) Freuds atheism is no more proved than theism
4) even if it can just be wishful thinking - no proof- humans desire for higher power does not prove or disprove it
5) belief in god can be mostly influenced by family/ childhood but not necessarily
6) that the super-ego comes from family/community and not god is not demonstrated/ proves
Why does Kant suggest there must be morality?
God is required for morality to achieve its end (summum bonum)
What did cardinal Newman say about the why morality meant the existence of God?
We feel ashame and frightened that transgresses the voice of conscience which implies there is One to whom we are responsible -must be a god
Criticism- ‘ought implies can’
If Kant meant it is logically possible for the summum bonum to exist it doesn’t mean it’s true just that it doesn’t contradict itself
Critiism -god having to supply the summum bonum?
Brian Davies said it could be bought about by a ‘pantheon of Angels’
Criticism- Euthyphro Dilema
Is something good because god commands it or does god demand something because it’s good?
Russel- if god does demand something because it’s good (2nd option)> God is not necessary or an ethical system to work
What seems illogical to Kant?
it would be illogical to seek an impossible end
god’s existance is morally necessary
we have to act like we live in a moral world even if i doesn’t appear so
Kant’s book contianing the moral argument is?
Groundowork of the Metaphysics of Morals
Strenghts of the moral argument?
appealing to think we all share in this innate moral sense
If you belive in a moral law you bleibve in a realtiy- closer to beliving in God
Weaknesses of the moral argument?
Freud’s social conditioning/structure of society
Strengths your belief if you belive in GOd (linked to moralioty) but not if you don’t belive in him
Swinburne- arhues that moral principles are analytic- they are tue by defintiion
moral law isn’t objective
cultral relativism- differnt ime/ culture the society is in (eg. whether polygamy is orally accpetable)/emotivism- moraity is an expression of someon’e feelings/ evoltion-moralioty evolves- not consistent
only points at a lawmaker- not at Go (inductive leap)
Mill objected to God’s existance on……. but there s evidance in St Paul’s letter to the Romans?
moral grounds
‘invisible nature from Giod that we get through conscience
Kat ias not arguing for a morala rgument that proves the existance of God- only that?
most people - logicaly to want an end (teleos)- even if that shouldn’t be your motive
good acts are rewarded with happiness but not always in this life
Thereofrr if you accept a summum bonum can eb achieved
it is logical to postulate life after death
logicla to postukate a god being necessary
Sorely’s arguemnt?
absolut moral law>people feel bad when they break it>finite mind cannot see full picure>so there must be an infinite mind to make the absolute law
Sorley cliams unlike natural moral law (Aquinas)- descriptive more about common nature [syndersis] than an absolute law- what IS (feel)
moral law is prescriptive and is what SHOULD do
C.S Lewis- also absolut moral law?
must be an absolute law>feel bad if we break it>cant be a herd insitinct becuase we sometimes save tohers before ourselves>can’t be a mere convention ebcuase judgements can only be made form outside a society>can’r be a law of nature becuase go agaisnt instinvt t betray a friend doesn’t beefit the whole race>can’t be from the imagiantion- embedded in our minds>has to eb in the mind becuase ‘ought’ means the midn and ‘is’ means matter>must be a mind (source of moral law that is absolutely good)
What are the two problems with C.S lewis and Sorley?
1) argue ha to eban absolute law but cultral relativism and emotivity arge against this
2) Platonist =- say the morals are absolute- no need for a god, like when we see soemthing of beauty it onyl resembles that of the Form Beauty (true world)- forms aren’t created even Gid repsonds to them so they exist on their own
Russel’s objection to the moral argument?
Euhypro dilema
if there is a moral alw it comes form God or it doesn’t
if the moral alw comes from God what is good is arbituary (random as shown in the Bible)
if God commands somehting becuase its good an independant moral standard would exist - subject to it
neither of these Gods is worht worshipping
Camos argues humanitraism is agaisnt theism because?
If there is a priest that is agisnt endign a plague God ahs sent and the doctor wants to stop ot to help the doctor save people is going agaisnt God’s will
Answer: Irenaous- God challenges us- grow and develop/ jesus saved people so we should
This doesn[t work becuase msot wouild say God would wantus to help people
Somehting is good becuase it fulfills its nature- thats what the plague is doing but it is important to save people even if that means killing the virus
What is Freud’s oedipus complex?
sexual desire from child (boy) towards his mother so he feels jealous towards his father
id (resresed wishes)- eleiminate /kill the father
ego- conscious self ( experianced through upringing knows the father is phyically stronger)- represses the id
fears his father will punish him
begins to identify with his father- supeego is formed- moral imperitives from society saying the deire is wrong>internilise father’s voice>tries to suppress the id>more social cnditioning the child experiances (school/media)> the more it treis to suppresss the id (guilt)
