Transcript John Hick ‘Philosophy of Religion’: The Moral Argument

John Hick ‘Philosophy of Religion’:
The Moral Argument.
Hick points to two forms of Moral Argument
First form:
Hello! I feel a moral
compulsion, a
conscience, a sense
of a divine lawgiver.
.
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
John Hick ‘Philosophy of Religion’:
 Kant argues that we
 Second form:
seek a perfect world
 Hello! There is a
unachievable without
immortality and
Moral claim over
therefore God.
me. I therefore
 Why?
believe in a
 Either our moral values
Transhuman source:
tell us something about
God.
the nature and purpose
of reality OR are
 Claim=to work
subjective and therefore
towards the highest
meaningless.
good.
 But: does this
transcendent ground
point to the Judaic
Christian God?
Brian Davies ‘Philosophy of Religion’





Davies begins by examining the
Second form of Moral
Argument: Kant’s.
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
Theology
student
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 !!!!!
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.
1. Jump that hole!
2. 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.
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
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?
Criticism 3:
 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?
Highest
Good
 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. C’s 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
God’s existence, though of course, others
have used it as such!!!!!
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
 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!
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.