a) Explain the theodicy of Irenaeus (25).

This essay has been written because I feel that some text books lack a coherent account of what Irenaeus actually said. Please feel free to comment on any aspects of my work. Again, as always, everything written on here has be completed under timed conditions (30 minutes in this case).

A theodicy is the defence of God’s righteousness in the face of evil. For a theodicy to be successful we must expect a full explanation of natural and moral evil, as logically speaking no omnibenevolent and omnipotent God would allow evil to exist (inconsistent triad – Epicurus and Hume).

Irenaeus’ starting point comes from the time he was writing in. A small Christian sect known as the Gnostics believed, as Plato did, that all matter was inherently evil. This would mean that God would not have been able to create ‘matter’ as it would be totally evil so it would be a logical contradiction for an omnibenevolent God to create it; and that Jesus could not have had a physical body (as ‘matter’ is inherently evil) and this would make him imperfect. To solve this dilemma Irenaeus had to find an answer for why evil existed. He wanted to maintain that everything was from God and so had to explain the role of evil in the world.

He uses Genesis 1:26 ‘Let us make man in Our image, in Our likeness.’ to demonstrate that we are here to develop our own soul. Creation is not yet finished. We have been made in the image of God with the potential to be like God. Irenaeus said that God had given human beings free will. This free will entailed the potential for evil. This is his account of moral evil. Choosing to do the right thing implies a decision to avoid doing the immoral. He believed that God giving us free will was better than receiving ready-made goodness. To back up this point he uses the example of a mother not being able to give a child ‘substantial nourishment’ or solid food. In other words, just as a young infant cannot take solid foods and so is given milk as they are immature, humans could not receive fully formed goodness as they were spiritually immature and so are given free will to develop their own goodness. This is echoed in the notion that we are made in the image of God (with the potential for Good) and moving towards the likeness of God (becoming Good). Irenaeus believed that the gift of moral perfection would not have meant anything to human beings if they did not learn the value of it for themselves. We become like God or move towards the likeness of God by freely choosing the good. When we choose to do evil and sin then we are creating evil in the world. So for Irenaeus moral evil is caused by human’s misuse of free will. God allowed us to have this free will as it was seen as more beneficial than making ready-made perfection.

This idea is echoed in Irenaeus’ belief in the story of the fall of man (Adam and Eve). He saw Genesis 3 as literally true and that it demonstrated that we weren’t ready to accept God’s grace or goodness as we were spiritually and morally immature, as described above, but he does not see this as Original Sin in the same way that Augustine does. This is further evidence that humans were not capable of receiving God’s ready-made goodness and perfection. They were led astray by the devil. This was because they were distant from God spiritually. People are like Adam and Eve in that they go astray morally because they haven’t yet gained the wisdom to do what is right.

Irenaeus identifies the fact that humans cannot get to God by their own means. They need a helping hand. Irenaeus uses the example of a potter and clay to help explain this idea. He suggests in ‘Against Heresies Book 4:39-2’ that we should keep ourselves moist so that God can work us without becoming too rigid. God’s ‘hands’ help mould us through the existence of natural evil. It is the experience and contact with natural evil that ‘shapes’ us in the image of God from the likeness. It enables us to develop desirable moral qualities or virtues. If we are open to God’s ‘touch’ then we will move towards the ‘likeness’ of God. It is therefore necessary for God to help humans achieve moral and spiritual perfection. The term recapitulation is often used to describe this theodicy. It means to bring something back to the beginning or head. The notion is that humans are being brought back into a relationship with God (theory of recapitulation). For Irenaeus Jesus is the second Adam who makes this recapitulation possible. Jesus allows us to create a relationship with God that we were not ready to enter into to begin with (as symbolised with Adam with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) through obedience to God through dying on the cross (the second tree). Jesus links God and humans as He is both divine and human.

To explain the role of natural evil Irenaeus suggests that we need to live in a world where the potential for moving towards the likeness of God exists. He uses the example of Jonah and the whale.
He states that Jonah was able to respond to his responsibilities and essentially learn to accept God’s wishes through his experience of being swallowed by the whale. God didn’t intend on killing Jonah, He simply wanted Jonah to learn to accept His will. Natural evil, therefore, is a means to an end of soul making. It provides the environment needed for moving to the likeness of God. Suffering must be endured so that we can move closer to God and His likeness.

God is justified in continuing to allow moral and natural evil because we move to the likeness of God. Natural evil is seen as an instrument for God’s purpose. It is clear that Irenaeus believed that only those who accepted God would be saved and those who reject God will be damned. He believed in some form of a continuation of soul-making in the next life to complete their souls in the likeness of God. However, the damned will be sent to hell as they refused the ‘workmanship’ of God: ‘Your ingratitude, ignoring his goodness in creating you human, will mean you have lost his work on you, you will lose your life (Against Heresies 4:39-2)’.

Consider the view that scripture is divinely inspired (35).

The notion of scripture being divinely inspired is riddled with philosophical problems. Some of the issues arising from it being divinely inspired are: how the text came to human beings?; Did God give it directly or was it human in origin?; moreover, what can we actually learn about God from this text via its inspiration? In attempting to address this question we shall look at a propositional approach to assess the validity of divinely inspired scripture and then a non-propositional approach.

For scripture to be divinely inspired in the traditional sense, a propositional approach is required. Evangelical fundamentalist believers wish to maintain that the text comes directly from God. That it reveals ‘truths’ or propositions (facts) about the divine. In this sense the ‘words’ are directly from God. Yet this assertion is unclear. We shall work through different understandings and assess whether they can be held philosophically. The most obvious is a literal revelation for example Moses is believed by some to have experienced a theophany (God revealing God’s self to Moses) and literally giving him a physical copy of the five books of the law and the two stone tablets with the ten commandments on. In this sense scripture is divinely inspired as it comes directly from God. It can contain no errors (inerrant). If this view were held then scripture would indeed be divinely inspired. However, the problem of interactionism causes issue here as it is difficult to see how a non-physical being, outside of the spacio-temporal universe, or transcendent in the traditional sense can act within the physical realm. Moreover, how can Moses be expected to maintain any notion of free will? If God reveals Himself then Moses has no choice but to do God’s bidding because of fear of reprisals and sure knowledge of God’s existence. The appearance of choice here is simply ‘Hobson’s Choice’ – no choice at all. Also how do we ‘see’ or ‘hear’ a non-physical being? These problems serve to demonstrate that a view of scripture as being physically ‘given’ by God is too problematic. A believer may suggest that it comes down to faith for them, faith that God can do all these things, which does not seem to solve the issues identified above.

Perhaps then the bible/scripture was dictated by God or the Holy Spirit. One view is that of amanuensis that humans have simply copied the text down through divine dictation. This idea is seen in Jeremiah 20:8 “whenever I speak I cry out” implying that God is speaking through the prophet in front of the king. This would mean that the scripture was inspired as the individual was simply told what to write. Someone like Henry Morris would hold that the Holy Spirit was with the writers (Adam at creation for his argument) to ensure inerrancy. This view holds that God inspired the scriptures. Yet it is difficult to maintain this view for the same reasons outlined above. This issue of interactionism hasn’t been resolved here, God (transcendent) is still interacting in a spacio-temporal way. Also here the writer’s free will is being directly compromised. They have no choice but to write these words, the scribe is simply the body which God takes over to use for his own purposes. William James might suggest that this is an example of mystical experience and hold that the nature of these religious experiences is passivity which has been demonstrated in numerous accounts of these experiences. But an issue with this is that James also states these experiences are ineffable (cannot be put into words). How can the religious experience of amanuensis be ineffable if the aim of it is to write the words of scripture? One way would be to maintain that the person has no knowledge of what they are writing. But we still face the challenge from the violation of free will which questions whether this view can be reasonably held.

Perhaps then the scriptures are divinely inspired because the believer/writer has had an experience of the divine and has been inspired to write because of this. In this view the writer would be like the child who is inspired by an excellent footballer or music artist to follow in their footsteps. God plays a more passive role in the writing of the scriptures in this way and partially overcomes the problems of free will and interactionism in the sense that the individual writes their own interpretation because they are inspired by their experience of God. If this view holds then they are inspired to write freely about God. In order to hold this view we must accept that the individual has had an actual experience of God. Swinburne and James suggest that testimony of individuals should count in some way for evidence of God’s existence in the world (Swinburne’s Principle of Testimony) and that people tend not to lie (Principle of Credulity). Even if we accept this then it can only ever be revelation for the individual as the biblical text will always be second hand truths for others who did not experience and were therefore not inspired by the event. Moreover we still must maintain that God has revealed himself to the believer before the writing of the text. This whole issue of whether religious experience can reasonably held to happen casts a vast shadow over this view of scripture’s nature. This issue is too vast to explore fully here save to say that the notion of the individual’s perception of events and the actual reality of these events do not necessarily tally, for example what is the difference between a dream where I experience the divine and a religious experience in a dream? Can I ever be sure that my experience comes through God rather than a phenomenological or material origin? This view seems to lack coherence for scripture being divinely inspired as the free will, interactionism debate is still unsolved as we need to rely on the philosophical soundness of an individual’s religious experience. Also it opens up new problems. How can we maintain a propositional approach that this scripture reveals ‘facts’ about God if it comes from a human source using human language; a language of past, present and future tenses as Dummett points out, a “tense of timelessness”. This could never be an absolutely literal revelation of God. Not to mention the limitations of a spacio-temporal language describing a timeless and spaceless God.

It appears then, at this point, that no view so far discussed would allow us to maintain that scripture is divinely inspired because of the problems surrounding free will, interactionism, the limits of language and the certainty of what it tells us of the divine. However, perhaps this is the wrong way of looking at the problem, maybe the ‘truth’ of God comes through a non-propositional approach to revelation in the sense that it is action that demonstrates inspiration.

If we accept that God revealing Himself is too problematic for scripture then we are holding that we cannot know whether it is divinely inspired yet the non-propositional approach can avoid the problems discussed above. If propositional revelation is ‘belief that…’ something is the case, ‘God is love’ for instance then non-propositional revelation is ‘belief in…’ scripture. In this view scripture reveals more about ourselves and it is our reaction which ‘reveals’ God. However this view cannot give any ‘knowledge’ about God’s nature directly but is still echoed through Bucky Minster-Fuller’s ideas of God being a verb; that when we are inspired by what we read, regardless of ‘fact’ or propositions our actions in some way echo God’s will. Take the parable of the sheep and the goats’ notion of giving practical help to the needy. If I read this and ‘believe in…’ its message I act in the world. This could be seen as the divine inspiration of the scriptures. However this view cuts both ways. It seems to resolve the problems of interactionism, free will and experience of God but only at the cost of not being able to tell us anything about God as scripture maybe removed from God’s word and left as a purely human document.

In conclusion it seems as though holding a propositional approach is too problematic for us to accept that scripture is divinely inspired in some of the more traditional ways and that the main revelation of God comes through human action and inspiration. But one final point needs addressing. It seems that we cannot accept a non-propositional approach, belief in the truth of the Bible, without holding that the Bible contains some form of propositional truth. Otherwise why would religious believers act on these ideas? Since the Bible is not self-authenticating then we must accept that we have to ‘believe in…’ the words in order for the words to have any meaning. It is here that we reach the impasse, without faith in the scriptures the notion of whether the Bible is divinely inspired becomes irrelevant but it is clear that even with faith the assertion that scripture is divinely inspired in the traditional sense is too philosophically problematic to accept.

a) Explain Aristotle’s understanding of the four causes (25).

As with the rest of the essays on this blog, this was written in timed conditions (30 minutes). This question was on an examination paper in May 2011 on the Philosophy of Religion (AS). It was written in the hope that students gain a fuller understanding of Aristotle.

Unlike his teacher, Plato, Aristotle believed that the world could be explained by physical observation. This approach of using the five senses, cataloguing and categorising, is the foundation of scientific enquiry and study. The approach is known as empiricism. Plato believed that we needed to look beyond the physical for a metaphysical explanation of the universe in the guise of the World of Forms. Aristotle refuted this.

Aristotle’s understanding of the four causes begins with the assumption that is present in all Greek philosophy, the notion of pre-existing matter. He observed the world around him and noticed that it was in a state of constant flux, a movement from potentiality to actuality. In Metaphysics book XII he uses the example of ‘Whiteness’. Something that is ‘not white’ has the potential to become ‘actually white’ (to actualise this potential), for example my laptop has the potential to run out of battery as I type but is currently in a state of actualised use of battery power. This movement from potentiality to actuality lead Aristotle to the conclusion that there are stages in causation. He called these the four causes: Material, Formal, Efficient and Final causes.

He understood that each of the four causes was necessary to explain the change from potentiality to actuality. His first cause, the material, explained what the object or thing being described was made from. Aristotle used the example of a bronze sculpture and a silver saucer. Bronze or silver in this case would be the material cause. However, objects can have more than one material cause. Take for example my laptop. It is made of wires, plastic, alloys and other materials. These things become the material cause of my laptop.

The second cause takes the formal shape of the object or the pattern which this class of object or thing takes; the definition of the essence as well as the parts included in this definition. It is what we recognise as the thing we are looking at, the statue of David or the laptop itself for example. We can categorise things that we see this way. For Aristotle this is where the ‘form’ that Plato wishes to speak of resides.

His third cause was the efficient cause. To continue Aristotle’s sculpture idea this was the way in which the marble was moved from its state of potentiality to becoming the actual marble statue. A chisel, hammer and sculptor primarily but also a cloth or water perhaps in order to change the material into the shape required. My laptop’s efficient cause may vary from machines and people to plastic moulds and screwdrivers. At this point in the change of causes we have reach an actualisation of the material cause through the efficient cause to arrive at the formal cause of the object.

Lastly in terms of his understanding of causation, the final cause of a thing or object was its purpose (telos). The purpose of the statue is aesthetic in that it is admired; the purpose of my laptop is to help me do my job well. Aristotle uses the example of health being the cause of walking, 'Why does one walk?' he asks, 'that one may be healthy'. This is perhaps the most important of all the causes. Yet his understanding does not end here. Once something has achieved a state of actuality it is also in a state of potentiality. Take ‘whiteness’ again. Once my shirt becomes clean and so ‘white’ it has the potential to become mucky and so ‘not white’ anymore. In this sense we can see that Aristotle saw that the universe was moving constantly between ‘potentiality’ to ‘actuality’ back to ‘potentiality’ once again. This idea required Aristotle to explain things further still because in order for this theory to work it must explain everything in the universe, including the universe itself.

In Metaphysics Book XII, Aristotle identifies three substance categories. Substance category one contains within it things or objects that are subject to decay, that die or change. These things are moved by the four causes from a state of potentiality to actuality. My laptop would be an example of something in category one as it hasn’t always existed in this form and will no doubt give up on me at some point. Substance category two involves things that are subject to the four causes and a change from potentiality to actuality but will never decay, die or cease to exist. Aristotle believed that the universe and time existed in this category because of the Greek notion of pre-existing matter. The question of where ‘matter’ in the universe comes from is a modern one that didn’t trouble him. The final category was ‘substance’ category three. In this category he placed eternal things that are not subject to the four causes, namely, mathematics (the Greeks believed that mathematics existed in a changeless state awaiting discovery) and what he called the Prime Mover. It is the Prime Mover that finishes Aristotle’s understanding of the four causes.

The Prime Mover becomes the efficient and final causes of the universe. Its ‘action’ in the universe is passive. It exists in a state of ‘pure actuality’ incapable of change (otherwise it would enter substance category two), only contemplating its own existence. This is Aristotle’s god. Things are attracted towards the perfection found within its ‘pure actuality’, as Gerry Hughes describes in his example of a cat being drawn to a saucer of milk (purr actuality?). The milk does not act in anyway but by very virtue of it ‘existing’ the cat is drawn to it. This is why the Prime Mover is known as the great attractor. Objects that move from potentiality to actuality fulfil their purpose because their change is brought about through the existence of the Prime Mover (a point later picked up on by Aquinas in his notion of the ‘unmoved mover’). This is how Aristotle explained the final cause of the universe as objects in the universe moved towards their actuality.

To conclude, Aristotle understood the four causes as a movement from potentiality to actuality within certain substance categories. This movement through material, formal, efficient and final causes was ultimately brought about by the Prime Mover.

(b) ‘Plato does not value experience enough.’ Discuss. (10 marks)

A time limit of 15 mins was given for this.

The key questions are whether Plato does undervalue experience and whether he is correct in assuming this.
In one sense Plato appears correct in his assessment that the physical world cannot give us answers to ‘what is it?’ questions. ‘What is it that makes something beautiful or just?’ doesn’t seem to be able to be answered by pointing at one thing in the physical world because that one thing doesn’t explain the whole concept, only part. Plato was influenced by Heraclitanism that states something is no more ‘X’ than it is ‘Y’. This taught Plato that anything in the physical realm or the realm of experience cannot provide true knowledge as every object is in a relational state with other objects in the universe. This means that it doesn’t make sense to say someone is ‘short’ or ‘tall’ because there can be millions of examples when that individual is ‘shorter’ than something or ‘taller’ than something else. This suggests that Plato is correct not to value experience enough.
However, empiricists such as Hume and Aristotle might argue that Plato doesn’t give enough credit to experience. Hume may argue that Plato’s ideas are counterintuitive as the physical realm and sense experience appear far more real than this spiritual World of Forms. When I cut my finger I feel the pain and experience the sensation of blood passing out of my body, I may even feel queasy at the sight of blood. These experiences are tangible, concrete and follow directly from my stream of consciousness. This makes it very difficult to believe that these experiences are simple illusions or that they are pale reflections of another realm. If Hume and Aristotle are successful here then they would agree that Plato does not value experience enough. Plato might argue in support of his point that these illusions feel very real but cannot be true reality as ‘matter’ is inherently evil and will deceive us. We must break free from the chains of ignorance and seek true knowledge in the Form of the Good. It could be argued that this goes some way to defend Plato’s point but it does not seem to successfully dismiss the empiricists’ point of view. This is mainly because Plato has no evidence to back up his ideas other than his own theory and analogy.
Aristotle might argue that Plato has missed the point. That true knowledge comes from understanding the individual object in the physical realm and not be searching for some other ‘Form’. He believes that the ‘Forms’ are of no use to us as they serve no practical purpose. Any idea such as ‘Goodness’ would need to be seen in a practical light not in its abstract if people were to truly understand it. It appears then that without a physical setting for the Forms they can have no meaning at all. Supporting Aristotle’s point, Kotarbinski has suggested that Plato is guilty of making a mistake about language – the mistake of reification. He believes that there are words that exist in our language that do not point to any ‘thing’ or ‘object’. He thinks Plato is taking the concept of ‘Good’, ‘Truth’, ‘Justice’ or ‘Beauty’ and simply thinking them into actual existence in the World of Forms. It seems that Plato needs to posit the existence of the World of Forms as he believes that ‘Truth’ must be unchanging or eternal. It may be that, as Popper suggests, truth can exist in a state of change. This would mean that we would need to take extra care to analyse the empirical data before us if we wanted to be sure of the true nature of reality.
It seems that Plato’s undervaluing of experience cannot be justified in light of the arguments discussed above.

(a) Explain Plato’s analogy of the cave (25 marks)

Again this has been written in a time limit. I allow 30 mins for part (a).

In Republic book VII Plato explains his analogy of the cave (an analogy is a simple story that has metaphorical meaning). Plato uses the analogy to help describe his philosophical position on the main difference between the physical world and the World of Forms (WoF). He believes that his analogy could clearly explain to others why the physical or world of sense experience was nothing but an illusion; that true reality must be found in the eternal unchanging World of Forms.

Plato’s analogy begins in a cave. The cave is meant to represent the physical world or the world of sense experience. A number of prisoners are bound by their necks and legs so that they cannot turn around. They have been this way since birth and know no other life than this. Behind the prisoners are a low wall, a walkway and a fire that burns. From time to time individuals carry objects like marionettes in front of the fire and shadows are cast against the wall in front of them. The prisoners observe the shadows that flicker before them and have developed a game over time. They try to predict the movements of the shadows. They associate the sounds made by the individuals with the shadows as this is all they know. They think of them as true reality.

The prisoners in this case represent the ignorant unenlightened individuals yet to discover philosophical truth. They are duped into believing that the shadows they see are the real objects in themselves or that the sounds the people make are being made by the shadows. Plato argues that the shadows and games played are equivalent to the five senses deceiving the individual. He believes that the objects we see in the physical world are pale reflections or imitations of the true ‘Form’ of that object in the World of Forms. Furthermore the individuals in the analogy that carry the marionettes represent the Athenian government that wished to maintain the status quo and discouraged free and independent thought.

Plato asks us to imagine that one of the prisoners were to be set free. He would stand with some pain and become dazed and confused by the bright fire light. He would struggle to adjust to his new view of the environment. He would quickly realise that the shadows he saw on the walls were not the real objects themselves. Plato suggests that if the prisoner were led to the entrance to the cave he would have to struggle up the steep and jagged rocks to climb out of the cave. This journey out of the cave by the prisoner is the journey of the new philosopher to enlightenment. Just like the released prisoner, the new philosopher struggles to take in his new world view. It is a painful process thinking in new ways. This is clearly represented in the ascent out of the cave up the steep and jagged rock path.

Once outside the prisoner would further struggle to understand the new world that was around him. At first he would simply focus on the shadows that objects cast in the sun. But given time he would be able to see objects as they really are, in full shape and colour. This section of the analogy is very important as the outside world represents the World of Forms. It is the sun that provides the true shape and colour in the analogy and so the sun represents the Form of the Good (FoG). Plato is stating that the FoG gives all of the other Forms their shapes. This is the goal of every philosopher; to gain intimate knowledge of the FoG and realise that the physical world (or the cave) is not true reality. It should also be noted that the fire in the cave is a superficial sun. The fire that burns only gets its energy from wood which comes via the sun.

Plato believes that true knowledge can only be found in the WoFs. This means that any knowledge that comes through the five senses cannot be true as the physical world is in a state of constant change and flux. Only through developing the skill of reason can the philosopher hope to understand the nature of reality. Plato believes that the soul has been caught in the body and that the only escape is to become like the philosopher and discover true reality. He believes that the soul exists in the WoFs and has always done so. This is why he places such an emphasis on reason. The mind is the key. Through the mind we can reason back to our souls to remember the nature of things.

Once the philosopher is enlightened Plato suggests that they will return to the cave to tell others of their enlightenment. He suggests that if the philosopher were to try to tell the others in the cave that there was a whole other world outside the cave they would laugh at them. If they persisted to try and convince them that this was the case then the prisoners would be prepared to kill them. Here Plato is making the point that the unenlightened are prepared to believe the established order (in Plato’s time the Athenian government) rather than think for themselves. This is a reference to the death of his teacher Socrates.

In conclusion Plato uses his analogy of the cave to demonstrate his belief in the World of Forms. Each element of the analogy highlights the specific differences between the empirical and rational; physical and spiritual.

An explanation of Kant's moral argument

Kant’s moral argument focuses on the notion that God must exist to provide structure to the moral universe. Technically he did not believe that is was possible to prove the existence of God through rational or empirical means. It is important to outline two key ideas before explaining the details of the moral argument. These ideas centre around his assumptions of the universe: that the universe was fair; and that the world around us is fundamentally rational. He begins with the unspoken assumption that the world is fair, owing to the dominance of the enlightenment belief that the universe was fundamentally knowable through reason. It is important to note that Kant began a new way of looking at knowledge. He believed that we could know the world through reason in a prior synthetic way. This was a complete change from how the world had been view previously and was known as Kant’s Copernican revolution. In essence Kant believed in two separate worlds of knowledge: noumenal and the phenomenal worlds. The noumenal world is the world as it truly is without being observed. It is fundamentally unknowable because the act of observation changes the very thing that we observe. It is as though human beings have a specific set of spectacles that cannot be taken off and like the proverbial rose tinted ones they change our perception of the world around us. This personalised view of the universe is the phenomenal world. However, what is key to explaining Kant’s moral argument is the fact that reason is the tool that can be used to know the true nature of the universe as it does not and cannot change.

Kant’s moral argument focuses on reason, good will, duty and the notion that we ought to strive towards moral perfection. It begins with the claim of two things that have him in awe: the starry heavens above; and the moral law within. This moral law for Kant was universal and objective. An example of this might be seen in the wide scale agreement that murder or torture is wrong. There seems to be agreement across cultures that certain actions are intrinsically wrong. This, for Kant, suggests that there is a universal objective moral law. He believed that the highest form of goodness was the notion of good will, namely that someone would freely choose to do good for no reward whatsoever, only for the sake of goodness. Moreover, Kant believed that we have a moral duty to do such good things. He would argue that we have an awareness of what is right and wrong and that good will should make us act accordingly as reason dictates this to be the case. In a way it doesn’t make any rational sense to act in an immoral way. If I were to act out of nepotism (favouritism) or from emotion then I could never discern the universal objective moral law as these factors would cause me to change my opinion of what was right or wrong depending on how I was feeling or what the circumstances happened to be. So I must choose the good based on good will and reason. Duty was seen by Kant as a way of fulfilling this end without being misguided by emotion or factors of personal gain. It is here that we come to a key point in Kant’s argument, namely the notion of ‘ought’ implies ‘can’. He believed that we can only have a duty to do some thing that we can do. For example, I cannot have a duty to fly unaided as it is not something that I can do; or if I were to come across someone drowning in a lake but could not swim Kant would suggest that I would not have a duty to jump in and save them. My duty in the latter case would be to find someone who could swim so I would need to raise the alarm. Once we have this notion of ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ in our mind the argument becomes much clearer. If I can choose to do the good (using reason, good will and duty) in one case then I should be able to do this in every case, moreover that I have a duty to achieve this moral perfection. Kant called this moral perfection the Summum Bonum. He argued that the Summum Bonum was a state of moral perfection existing coincidently with perfect happiness. It is important to note, as stated earlier, that Kant did not believe that acting out of self interest (in this case achieving perfect happiness) would ever bring us to the correct moral decision. If my aim in life were to achieve perfect happiness then this would not cause me to act morally. For Kant, the problem for human beings acting morally was that it did not lead to happiness. I could be the most moral person in the world yet personal tragedy could befall me, while another individual may lead an immoral life and be happy in some way. This would appear to make the world unfair and would potentially discourage us from acting morally at all. Kant believed that we must have a duty to achieve the Summum Bonum and because it was not achievable in this lifetime that we must be able to achieve this in the next life.

It is here that we come to the conclusion of Kant’s moral argument. Notice that Kant does not see this as ‘proof’ of God’s existence only that in order for moral behaviour of human beings to make sense we must postulate three things. These are known as the three postulates of practical reason: free will, immortality of the soul and God. Kant believed that if we were not free to make moral decisions then we could not achieve a state of moral perfection because we would not be morally blameworthy or praiseworthy for our actions. He also argued for the immortality of the soul as we have seen above; behaving morally in this life defies reason if we cannot achieve the Summum Bonum in this life, as others who act immorally appear happy as opposed to those who behave morally, not to mention the fact that we may die before this state of moral perfection is reached. The afterlife is therefore necessary to provide the opportunity to achieve the obligation of moral perfection and perfection happiness that reason dictates. The final part of the conclusion of Kant’s moral argument is that God must exist as a postulate of practical reason. Without the existence of God we cannot have the afterlife and we would not be able to fulfil our obligation of reaching the Summum Bonum. Therefore God is necessary to ensure fairness in the universe and provide the exact coincidence of moral perfection and perfect happiness known as the Summum Bonum.

‘Kant’s moral argument cannot be defended.’ Discuss.

The claim that Kant’s moral argument cannot be defended is questionable. Freud is someone who would agree with this claim. For Freud our moral awareness comes through a clash between our subconscious desires, instincts or wants (known as the id) and societal and cultural pressures on the conscious mind (or ego). If this were demonstrated to be the case then Kant’s claim of an objective moral law within every human being would be incorrect. Without this objective moral law then Kant would not require God to ensure fairness in the universe. Freud claims that our guilty conscience is formed from the pressure of societal expectation on the mind but he makes these claims based on a very narrow evidence base. It would seem hasty to accept Freud’s claims that morality comes from a psychological phenomena if he has only used five case studies to reach his conclusion. Also Freud has been challenged by others in his field who claim that his methods were unscientific. It would be difficult to hold that Freud was correct in his claims about morality if this is the case and by implication this would mean that this attack would not be strong enough to establish another source of moral understanding. However, Richard Dawkins might also attack Kant’s argument along a similar theme, namely that morality comes from a source other than God. Like Freud, if Dawkins could prove that morality comes from a source other than God then Kant’s moral argument would potentially be indefensible. Dawkins would argue that morality has not come from God but has developed as a part of evolution. Morality for Dawkins fulfils certain functions within society. It keeps human society stable which is beneficial for all human beings. Dawkins has argued that if we existed in a society without morals that this would not be of any use for our species; if we lived in a society where murder was the norm of behaviour we would have quickly died out as a species. However, this notion could be challenged on the grounds that Dawkins makes the assertion that this morality comes from human beings alone. Is it not possible that there has been a divine hand at work which has implanted moral behaviour within human beings? If this were the case then Dawkins’ claim that morality comes from a source other than God could not be defended and the criticism would cease to be effective against the moral argument.

Perhaps the argument itself could be attacked more directly. David Hume would have challenged the notion that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ by stating that we cannot derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. This is known as the ‘is’-‘ought’ fallacy. He claimed that we cannot move from a descriptive statement about the universe, such as ‘there is a bookcase in my living room’, to a prescriptive or normative claim, that said bookcase has any moral status. Hume would therefore challenge the notion of ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ that is integral to Kant’s moral argument by stating that it is a leap of logic to move from a descriptive statement to a moral statement. Hume believed that morality was nothing more than an emotional response from the individual observing the world around them. If this were the case then Kant’s argument would fail in two ways: firstly the logic of the argument would break down, so much so that we would no longer have an obligation to achieve the Summum Bonum as ‘ought’ does not imply ‘can’; secondly the source of human morality would be derived from emotional responses to environmental stimuli. In essence for humans there is no universal objective moral law within us. The second claim could be dealt with in much the same way as the Dawkins claim was dismissed. Emotivism assumes a non-cognitivist approach to morality (meaning that moral claims are not statements of facts about the universe). It would be difficult to uphold the claim that Hume makes about moral statements being nothing more than personal expressions of like or dislike against Kant’s view that we can make factual statements about morality in the universe, as neither one can be proved conclusively. However the first claim that we cannot move logically from the observation of the physical world around us to a moral claim (found in the ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ part of the Kant’s argument) seems to be logically sound. Moreover, Kant assumes that the universe is fair in his logical process. This claim could also be challenged as it does not necessarily follow that this is the case because I claim it to be so. Evidence seems to suggest that the universe is not fair. Rich, powerful and selfish people appear to prosper at the expense of the poor and helpless in our society. These deep seated social injustices continue with monetary gains appearing to be the main motive and not moral obligations to the weak and needy. It seems credible that Kant’s enlightenment view of the universe caused him to believe that the universe was fundamentally knowable through human reason thereby causing him to hold the unfounded belief that the universe was fair. This claim seems weak in the face of evidence or reason and so it would seem that this part of the argument must also be questioned.

In conclusion the claim that morality could come from a source other than God is inconclusive as other evidence could be drawn to support this notion (the appearance of objective morals across cultures for example), but that part of the reasoning processes within the argument could be challenged by David Hume (is-ought fallacy) and the assumption that the universe is fair without any evidence to back this claim up. Although the latter point here could be more challengeable because Kant would argue that it is precisely because of this reason that we must postulate the existence of the afterlife and God. However, it does appear as though the Kant’s moral argument cannot be defended because the logical steps of the argument can be effectively challenged by David Hume’s ‘is’-‘ought’ problem.