John Hick Philosophy of Religion: The Moral Argument. Hick points to two forms of Moral Argument

1
John Hick Philosophy of Religion The Moral
Argument. Hick points to two forms of Moral
Argument

• Why?
• Because these feelings can be explained through
  psychology, social pressure, need for security.
  OR
• Because morality comes from God. He is the ground
  of all values

• .

• First form
• Hello! I feel a moral compulsion, a conscience, a
  sense of a divine lawgiver.

2
John Hick Philosophy of Religion

• Second form
• Hello! There is a Moral claim over me. I
  therefore believe in a Transhuman source God.
• Claimto work towards the highest good.

• Kant argues that we seek a perfect world
  unachievable without immortality and therefore
  God.
• Why?
• Either our moral values tell us something about
  the nature and purpose of reality OR are
  subjective and therefore meaningless.
• But does this transcendent ground point to the
  Judaic Christian God?

3
Brian Davies Philosophy of Religion

• Davies begins by examining the Second form of
  Moral Argument Kants.
• humanity ought to strive for moral perfection and
  since it cannot be successful unless helped by
  divinity, God must exist to ensure humanity can
  achieve that for which it must strive!
• Morality requires us to aim for the highest good.
• And there should be a reward appropriate to
  virtue.
• To be in need of happiness and also worthy of it
  and yet not to partake of it could not be
  appropriate and in accordance with the complete
  volition of an omnipotent rational being. Kant.

Highest Good
God
Theology student
4
Kant

• Willing the highest good means willing a
  correlation between moral rectitude and
  happiness.
• SNAG! it is impossible to ensure what morality
  requires in this life.
• The highest good must be possible but we are not
  omnipotent.
• Answer.
• We must postulate the existence of God as able to
  ensure that fidelity to moral requirements is
  properly rewarded. Only God can ensure its
  realisation.
• It is morally necessary to assume the existence
  of God.

• For the dunce
•  
• The fact that morality demands of the realisation
  of the highest good and the fact that only God
  can see to it that the highest good comes about,
  leads to the conclusion that there is a God.
  Simple !!!!!

5
Kant Criticisms

• Taking it at face value what Kant offers looked
  rather impressive in some respects. It is widely
  accepted that ought implies can.
• If I tell you that you ought to do something, you
  should be able to do it.
• Jump that hole!
• You may be crippled but you ought to walk to
  work.
• 1. Seems reasonable and
• 2. Unreasonable. 
• Temptation
• We are tempted to argue that if the highest good
  ought to be realised, then it can be realised.
  Since it cannot be realised by humans, morality
  is absurd without God.

6
Criticism 1

• From
• We ought to aim at for the highest good, it
  does not follow that anything can bring this
  about.
• All that follows is that we ought to aim for the
  highest good.
• Ok! It is absurd sometimes to say we ought to do
  X even if we cannot achieve it i.e. for someone
  crippled to walk.
• But it sometimes makes sense to say that someone
  ought to aim for what cannot be achieved i.e. A
  child with learning difficulties ought to aim to
  learn French. This does not imply that French can
  or will be learnt, but that the child should try.
  

We all ought to try a to attain the highest good.
It can be beneficial.
Highest Good
7
Criticism 2

• Kant might say
• If the highest good cannot be realised, one
  ought not to aim for it. 
• The critic
• Why can we not conclude that we simply ought not
  to aim at the highest good ?
• Can we suppose that the existence of God follows
  from the fact that we ought to aim for something
  which could only exist if there is a God? Why
  not say that that something should not be aimed
  for?

8
Criticism 3
Highest Good

• Problem.
• We need not agree that only God can ensure the
  realisation of the highest good. God, omnipotent,
  omniscient, could bring it about. The realisation
  of the highest good requires power and knowledge
  not found in nature.
• But do we need omnipotence etc? Why not something
  more powerful and knowledgeable than us i.e.
  Angels, wise Aliens?

9

• Kant's argument does not to lead to the Christian
  God. By the time we have arrived at to the third
  criticism there seems to be a strong element of
  mockery.
• .Kant's moral argument for God does not work.
• Mr. Cs word of warning
• Kant was arguing for his view on morality/duty.
  In order to make sense of this view, he had to
  argue that there was a life after death and
  therefore a God. In a strict sense Kant did not
  produce an argument for Gods existence, though
  of course, others have used it as such!!!!!

10
What about arguments that state moral laws imply
a moral lawgiver or that the sense of moral
responsibility and guilt implies the existence of
God? This is the first from of moral argument
identified by Hick

• If this is proposed we must first know if there
  is a moral law from which to argue a Divine
  lawgiver.
•  Two responses to this
• A. Some philosophers believed in the existence
  of an objective moral law that is binding upon
  all human beings .
• B. Other philosophers believe there is no
  objective moral law. It is not appropriate to
  speak of value judgments which are independent of
  whatever people may think or feel.
• Moral Judgement is a subjective matter.
• Owen follows the first view.. there is an
  objective moral law.
• Trethowen
• Okay I accept an objective moral law.
• But would not explanation for this be better
  found in anthropology or psychology than in God?
• Davies Belief in an objective moral law need
  not even suggest the existence of God. P. 178

11

• It might be said that if one already has reason
  to believe in God independently of moral
  considerations, then the fact that there is a
  moral law.. ..is only to be expected.
• i.e.
• There is a purposeful, intelligent creator
  therefore we should expect objective moral laws
  to exists. Yippee! God exists!
• But equally we could argue
• MORAL LAW-yes there is one but where is the
  particular reason for believing God exists.  
• Help! There are conflicting interpretations!

12
What about the second view that there is no moral
law which is objective or independent?

• There can be no argument from law to the
  existence of God.
• If moral judgements are just expressions of
  feelings and decisions, then they are of little
  weight in an argument for God's existence.