News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

Let's discuss the Kantian Moral Argument

Started by Martin TK, July 22, 2010, 03:07:47 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Martin TK

Hello folks,

I was challenged by a Christian recently to explain/challenge the Kantian Moral Argument.  So you don't have to look it up, I'll write it out here for you.

Immanuel Kant isn't making an argument based on the nature of morality, but more of an argument for the justice in the afterlife.

It goes something like this:

(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

I could give you the theist explaination of each argument, but if you want to read more, go here:  http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/th ... -argument/

I would like other views on this before I share mine.  Thanks.
"Ever since the 19th Century, Theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are NOT reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world"   Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

Tank

If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: "Martin TK"(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.
I don't know what form the rewards and punishments take in this next life thing.
I could choose to put useful charts on the wall or a work of art, a thing of beauty.
I think the picture provides a reward, so the decision could be considered rational.
An Atheist may decide to live by a moral code, this may result in a beautiful life or picture.
This life provides its own reward and punishment.  A virtuous act enhances the
picture, an act of cruelty may leave an ugly smear.
So I don't need a reward from god for doing good, being a reasonable person is its own reward.
I see no need to assume evil doers will be punished, so I don't have to make the huge leap at (4).

I’m tempted to mention Nietzsche, but Otto from “A Fish Called Wanda” troubles me.
Who gave god copyright on morals anyway?
If I choose to do something that gets me on the nice list it is coincidence.
Does Kant’s reasoning suggest we all really want to be immoral?
I see moral behaviour as normal.  
No reward is needed to be normal.

wildfire_emissary

Why should justice be done in the afterlife?
"All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." -Voltaire

SSY

#4
Quote from: "Martin TK"(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

Hardly convinced about (1), for starters, we need to define what moral is, if you use the bible to define what moral is, then you fail at the first hurdle, the alternatives are pretty crappy definitions as well for this argument, as it clearly relies on absolutist morals.

I disagree with (2), but think it would need robust definitions of justice and rational (in this context) to even get off the ground

(3) is yet another baseless assertion, justice is done in courts and the like every day.

[strike:wzgfg3gt](4) actually makes sense if you accept the premises as true, which I don't, but at least the argument at least has a valid form, which is nice.[/strike:wzgfg3gt] Edit, correction below.

I think this is an argument that a theist would find very beguiling because they want it to be true, they really want to think they are going to be rewarded in the afterlife, and that their belief in an invisible sky daddy will be vindicated, therefore the wishy washy nature of the premises will pass without scrutiny. To a hard nosed atheist, such as my good self, it is obvious the argument has little substance, at least in the presented form.
Quote from: "Godschild"SSY: You are fairly smart and to think I thought you were a few fries short of a happy meal.
Quote from: "Godschild"explain to them how and why you decided to be athiest and take the consequences that come along with it
Quote from: "Aedus"Unlike atheists, I'm not an angry prick

penfold

Truth be told I am somewhat surprised to find this version of the 'moral argument' attributed to Kant.

Kant's 'moral argument' is first found towards the end of the Critique of Pure Reason [CPuR] (it reappears in the Critique of Practical Reason as well). What should be understood is that this argument was never intended to prove God. In fact in the CPuR Kant goes through the traditional 'proofs' of God; the ontological, cosmological and (what he calls) the physico-theological arguments; and systematically demolishes them.

Aside from pointing to the rational flaws in these arguments (primarily the use of 'exists' as a predicate) he makes the far more general claim that there are limits to our power of reason. For Kant one cannot prove God, rather he must be accepted on faith. In fact in the preface to the 2nd edition of the CPuR he famously wrote: “I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.”

Kant's moral argument finds its basis in the distinction between 'pure reason' in which the universe seems to be interlinked spatio-temporal causes, and 'practical reason' which we see ourselves as free moral agents. To put it very simply (and so somewhat inaccurately), Kant's moral argument uses God as a foundation for moral behaviour which does not benefit us. In CPuR he gives the problem of a man who on trial for his life can either (a) tell the truth and be executed or (b) perjure himself and live. Kant wants to say that, as truth telling is a categorical imperative, the correct moral action is (a). The problem is how our 'practical reason' can lead a person to making this suicidal choice. To guarantee this Kant proposes that we should operate at a moral level in awareness that we have immortal souls which will be judged in eternity by God.

What is important to understand is that this argument was never intended to 'prove' God, rather it was a mechanism to justify moral absolutes even though they are beyond the scope of pure reason.

Hope that helps.

KebertX

Quote from: "Martin TK"(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

~ 1) Moral behavior is rational. To a certain extent. If you have Wiccan morals: 'An ye harm none do what ye will' Then I could definitely call that rational. If you have biblical morals: "Keep Holy the Sabbath. Don't take the Lord's name in Vain. Go to Church. No Sodomy. No Premarital Sex. No wearing clothes of two different fabrics. Stone your cheating wife to death. Sell your daughter into slavery: Never let her go free. Kill everyone who doesn't believe in God. Oh yeah, and don't kill or steal."  Then your morals are pretty fucked up.

~ 2) Moral behavior is obviously rational, even if there's no sky daddy to deliver justice. His morality is preconventional at best: He doesn't care about the abstract concept of right and wrong, he only does what he thinks will earn him the greatest reward.  Justice doesn't necessarily need to be dealt for there to be a difference between right and wrong. People deciding not to hurt each other is an inevitability of fuctioning society: That's the origin of the concept of morals. So we can tell it's wrong to rape pillage and plunder without god.   "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." ~ Albert Einstein

~ 3) God must dole out justice.  Let's assume whatever God this guy is talking about, is someone that the bible got DEAD WRONG. So this god is actually just. He's postulated that this just god must exist, because we have morality. Even though this isn't true, Justice doesn't even need to necessarily be dealt in the form of a God. What about Karma? What about the Dao? What about a reincarnation Cycle, or Nirvana?  What if Justice is only dealt with punishment, and there is no God: only a Satan? What if every time you do something wrong pink fairies fly into your brain and scramble your thoughts!!! Or what if people simply evolved a conscience, because we are social animals?  Just because Justice exists, doesn't mean there's a just skydaddy.

~ 4) Therefore: God exists.  YOu just brought yourself from "Morality exists" to "There's an invisible man up in the sky watching everything you do!"  I'm not the only one who sees the necessity of some formal or informal fallacy in this argument, am I?

That line of thought sucks. Tell this dead guy to come back when theists learns simple logic!
"Reality is that which when you close your eyes it does not go away.  Ignorance is that which allows you to close your eyes, and not see reality."

"It can't be seen, smelled, felt, measured, or understood, therefore let's worship it!" ~ Anon.

SSY

Sorry, thinking more about it, I realise I was wrong, the argument is of an invalid form.

I think it's a begging the question fallacy.

For the first premise to be true, you must accept the second, and for the second premise to be true, you must accept the third, and the third premise requires the existence of god to work, which should be the conclusion. That is so bare faced, it was hiding from me in plain site. Does anyone else see this fallacy at work here?
Quote from: "Godschild"SSY: You are fairly smart and to think I thought you were a few fries short of a happy meal.
Quote from: "Godschild"explain to them how and why you decided to be athiest and take the consequences that come along with it
Quote from: "Aedus"Unlike atheists, I'm not an angry prick

Martin TK

Quote from: "SSY"Sorry, thinking more about it, I realise I was wrong, the argument is of an invalid form.

I think it's a begging the question fallacy.

For the first premise to be true, you must accept the second, and for the second premise to be true, you must accept the third, and the third premise requires the existence of god to work, which should be the conclusion. That is so bare faced, it was hiding from me in plain site. Does anyone else see this fallacy at work here?


BINGO, it is a begging the question fallacy, VERY similar to the Kalam Cosmological Argument on the beginning of the universe and it's continually begging the question.  Thank you, thank you :bananacolor:
"Ever since the 19th Century, Theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are NOT reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world"   Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

SSY

Quote from: "Martin TK"
Quote from: "SSY"Sorry, thinking more about it, I realise I was wrong, the argument is of an invalid form.

I think it's a begging the question fallacy.

For the first premise to be true, you must accept the second, and for the second premise to be true, you must accept the third, and the third premise requires the existence of god to work, which should be the conclusion. That is so bare faced, it was hiding from me in plain site. Does anyone else see this fallacy at work here?


BINGO, it is a begging the question fallacy, VERY similar to the Kalam Cosmological Argument on the beginning of the universe and it's continually begging the question.  Thank you, thank you :bananacolor:


Wooooo!! What do I win?

Also, score 1 to re-examining your ideas and not settling for your first answer.
Quote from: "Godschild"SSY: You are fairly smart and to think I thought you were a few fries short of a happy meal.
Quote from: "Godschild"explain to them how and why you decided to be athiest and take the consequences that come along with it
Quote from: "Aedus"Unlike atheists, I'm not an angry prick

Martin TK

Quote from: "SSY"
Quote from: "Martin TK"
Quote from: "SSY"Sorry, thinking more about it, I realise I was wrong, the argument is of an invalid form.

I think it's a begging the question fallacy.

For the first premise to be true, you must accept the second, and for the second premise to be true, you must accept the third, and the third premise requires the existence of god to work, which should be the conclusion. That is so bare faced, it was hiding from me in plain site. Does anyone else see this fallacy at work here?


BINGO, it is a begging the question fallacy, VERY similar to the Kalam Cosmological Argument on the beginning of the universe and it's continually begging the question.  Thank you, thank you lol
"Ever since the 19th Century, Theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are NOT reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world"   Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

Sophus

Quote(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
Yet it never defines moral behavior. There are a large number of examples of people who believe they're being moral but I could argue, are not.

Quote(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
Or in hopes that "justice" be done. Striving toward it does not guarantee justice will be done just as wishing for it to occur in the afterlife doesn't insure it either.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

Tanker

Quote from: "Martin TK"(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.


1. Moral behavior us subjective ie;slavery. The subjective isn't always rational.

2. Moral behavior becomes more likely if imorality meets justice but doesn't garuntee it.

3. Assumes Justice will be done. The universe is at best neutral to us and our plights. Since the Universe is neutral assumes greater force then universe to ensure justice ie; God

4. Uses flawed asupmtions to draw the flawed conclusion that "God exists"
"I'd rather die the go to heaven" - William Murderface Murderface  Murderface-

I've been in fox holes, I'm still an atheist -Me-

God is a cake, and we all know what the cake is.

(my spelling, grammer, and punctuation suck, I know, but regardless of how much I read they haven't improved much since grade school. It's actually a bit of a family joke.

deekayfry

#13
Oops double post.  Sorry fingers are moving faster than my thoughts.
I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not ... you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.-  Davey Crockett, 1834

Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

deekayfry

Quote from: "deekayfry"
Quote from: "Martin TK"Hello folks,

I was challenged by a Christian recently to explain/challenge the Kantian Moral Argument.  So you don't have to look it up, I'll write it out here for you.

Immanuel Kant isn't making an argument based on the nature of morality, but more of an argument for the justice in the afterlife.

It goes something like this:

(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

I could give you the theist explaination of each argument, but if you want to read more, go here:  http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/th ... -argument/

I would like other views on this before I share mine.  Thanks.

Well, at face, it is still an argument defining morality.  (1) Sets all of this up and the argument goes straight in that direction, whether out of context or not.  Step (2) pretty much keeps that ball rolling.  To say all of that and then as an aside say, "Uh, I am not trying to define morality, per se.  I am just defining it in context of an afterlife" in of itself is misleading.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's a duck.  We are talking about morality.  Kant is just discussing it with an extra layer of sugar on it.

However, I totally agree with (1).  Morality is definable, explainable, agreeable, and understandable.  The very concept of morality is rational.  The feelings associated with it are reasonable and acceptable.  What we get tripped up on are the gray areas which is often times pejoratively labeled as, "Moral Relativism."  That for now is far too complex and complicated for the scope of this discussion :)

The fact that (2) and (3) are assertive creates a False Dilemma.  Kant tells that we must accept the inevitable that Justice will be done. It is also Begging the Question.  He avoids realistically arguing morality with any merit.

Is it me or does the whole sequence have a start of Slippery Slope?
I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not ... you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.-  Davey Crockett, 1834

Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"