ࡱ> <>;y :/bjbj *8{{:'          , qHHHHH###$i #####  HH+# H H#:|,H@gsp A0q   ##########q############# : THE MORAL ARGUMENT How do we explain the fact that people often refrain from immoral acts even when there is no risk of their being caught? There are many formulations of the moral argument but they all have as their starting point the phenomenon (fact) of moral conscience. In essence the moral argument poses the question: where does our conscience, our sense of morality come from if not from God? It also asserts that if we accept the existence of objective moral laws we must accept the existence of a divine law-giver. It is an argument therefore which infers the existence of God from the empirical evidence of a psychological phenomenon. This is the observable fact that human beings sometimes appear to act from a sense of moral duty in which there is no self-interest or thought for the consequences of that act. Cardinal Newman, for example, deduces Gods existence from the fact of conscience rather than from objective moral law: If, as is the case, we feel responsibility,... are frightened at transgressing the voice of conscience, this implies there is One to whom we are responsible... If the cause of these emotions does not belong to this visible world, the object to which our perception is directed must be Supernatural and Divine. Dom Trethowans version of the moral argument rejects the use of logic and instead interprets morality as a religious experience, which points towards the existence of God. When we make a moral decision, that is to say when we are guided by our conscience, a sense of obligation dictates our choice. According to Trethowan, underlying this sense of obligation is the conviction that each person has value. If we accept that other people have intrinsic value then we have to ask what the source of this value is. Trethowans answer is God: We have value because we receive it from a source of value. That is what I mean...by God. HP Owen argues that objective moral laws exist and that there must therefore be a divine law-giver: ...it is impossible to think of a command without also thinking of a commander. It is Kants version of the moral argument, however, which is the best known and which requires closer examination. He drew an important distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. A hypothetical imperative is a directive such as: If you want x, do y. For example: Be considerate to others if you want to get on in life When we obey a hypothetical imperative we do so as a means to an end and the benefit to us is evident. According to Kant, obedience to a hypothetical imperative is not truly moral behaviour. Only when we obey categorical imperatives are we behaving in a truly moral fashion. It is wrong to break a promise, according to Kant, not because in doing so we may lose the trust of others but because in making a promise we have incurred a moral obligation and thus are duty-bound to keep it. One of the best known formulations of the categorical imperative is: So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other as an end withal, never as a means only. Like Trethowan, the essence of moral behaviour for Kant lies in an appreciation of the intrinsic value of other people and also in the fact that the act is not a means to an end. There can be no room for self-interest or consideration of the consequences in truly moral behaviour. If we resist the temptation to steal only because we dont want to get caught we are not behaving morally. We are behaving morally, on the other hand, if we desist because we believe it is wrong to steal and that by stealing we would be treating someone else as a means to an end (e.g for our own enrichment). Kant then goes on to argue that in an ideal world (one in which virtue was always rewarded and vice punished) moral behaviour (that which is in accordance with the categorical imperative) would always lead to happiness. In the real world, however, this does not necessarily happen. Therefore there must be something other than the promise of earthly happiness which motivates us to behave morally. What assumptions, Kant then went on to ask , do we make when we heed our conscience? What do we implicitly believe about the world when we agree to be bound by objective moral laws such as the categorical imperative? When we make a moral choice between two or more possible courses of action without taking into account the benefit to us in this world of our moral behaviour, what does this imply about the way we believe the world to be? For Kant it makes no sense to talk about making moral choices unless we are free. Secondly, if there is to be no reward in this life then we must believe that by acting morally we will be rewarded in the next life. Thirdly, If our moral behaviour is to be rewarded after death there must be an agent who is responsible for guaranteeing that reward. By this line of argument Kant arrives at his three postulates of morality: Freedom Immortality God For a moral choice to be real we must be free to choose otherwise If there is no guarantee of reward for moral behaviour in this life there must be a future life in which the exact coincidence of happiness and morality can be brought about. The existence of these laws presupposes the existence of a law-giver and an agent to help us achieve what we cannot achieve on our own in this world : the exact coincidence of happiness and morality, How convincing are these arguments? As far as the argument from conscience is concerned modern critics argue that Freuds explanation of the phenomenon of conscience (internalised parental authority) is more plausible than either Newmans or Kants. The moral argument is built upon certain assumptions, which are by no means universally accepted. Firstly, the existence of objective moral laws is denied by many moral philosophers. According to them, morality can be explained in non-religious terms. Morality, they argue, is a human invention rather than God-given. Moral values are culturally determined, and differ from one society to another (cf. Durkheims theory of morality). There are too many variations between the moral codes of different societies and between individuals consciences for the concept of objective moral law to be acceptable. Furthermore, even if Kant is right about conscience and objective moral law it is not legitimate to infer the existence of anything more than a law-giver (which need not be God). Alternatively there are those who argue that objective moral laws can be derived from an assessment of what promotes universal human happiness. By studying human beings scientifically (that is, primarily, through the science of psychology) we can discover the laws which govern behaviour and the conditions which promote happiness. These can then provide the basis for objective moral laws. An example of this approach is utilitarianism. Advocates of this approach to the discovery of objective moral laws would concede that Kants argument above may be valid but not that it requires the existence of God to validate it. Kants version of the moral argument is built upon a distinction (between the hypothetical and the categorical imperative) which many consider to be a false one. Mackie, for example, in Ethics Inventing Right and Wrong asserts that all imperatives are essentially hypothetical: So far as ethics is concerned my thesis that there are no objective values is specifically the denial that any such categorically imperative element is objectively valid. The objective values which I am denying would be actiondirecting absolutely, not contingently upon the agents desires and inclinations. According to Mackie and others Kant always introduces some element of consideration for the consequences of moral acts. For example, when he formulates the categorical imperative as the need to act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law he is in fact talking about the wider (social) consequences of our actions. It is wrong to break promises precisely because if everyone did, no one would be able to trust anyone else and all social relations would break down. Similarly, how can actions be counted as truly moral (by Kants own definition) when our motive for performing them, if only subconsciously, is the promise of reward in the afterlife? In generating his three postulates Kant makes the philosophical error of mistaking beliefs for facts. Just because acting out of a sense of duty implies that we have certain beliefs about the world dos not mean that these beliefs correspond to the way the world really is. Kants version of the moral argument is really an act of faith dressed up as a philosophical argument, which does not stand up to scrutiny. In conclusion it must be said that that the moral argument in any of its forms fails to prove the existence of God. Freud provides a perfectly plausible alternative explanation of where conscience comes from whilst Durkheims theory of morality as a social construct, accounts convincingly for the differences between one societys moral code and anothers (even if neither proves the non-existence of God). Others would argue for objectively valid moral laws based on a scientific understanding of mans nature. However to argue from this to a divine or supernatural law-giver is unjustified. As is pointed out in Philosophy of Religion (Anne Jordan): For while the existence of a moral God would indeed suggest the existence of moral laws, the existence of moral laws in one form or another cannot point us back to the existence of God. Someone who already believes in God, therefore, may find their faith strengthened by the moral argument but sceptics are unlikely to find much in it to persuade them of Gods existence. BIBLIOGRAPHY The Puzzle of God-Peter Vardy Ethics-Inventing Right and Wrong-J.L Mackie Philosophy of Religion-Anne Jordan Philosophy of Religion-Mel Thompson Philosophy Made Simple-Richard Popkin NW Sept 2000  a!%5`aksN,-P(*k$$$%&%',-:/ h/5CJ h/6CJ h/CJ h/CJ0< = cdTUcdWXanrs$ & Fa$$a$sd,-RS)*6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH 8`8 Normal_HmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontVi@V 0 Table Normal :V 44 la (k ( 0No List 8B@8  Body Text$a$CJPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭V$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3N)cbJ uV4(Tn 7_?m-ٛ{UBwznʜ"Z xJZp; {/<P;,)''KQk5qpN8KGbe Sd̛\17 pa>SR! 3K4'+rzQ TTIIvt]Kc⫲K#v5+|D~O@%\w_nN[L9KqgVhn R!y+Un;*&/HrT >>\ t=.Tġ S; Z~!P9giCڧ!# B,;X=ۻ,I2UWV9$lk=Aj;{AP79|s*Y;̠[MCۿhf]o{oY=1kyVV5E8Vk+֜\80X4D)!!?*|fv u"xA@T_q64)kڬuV7 t '%;i9s9x,ڎ-45xd8?ǘd/Y|t &LILJ`& -Gt/PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!0C)theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] :'8:/s,/:/8@0(  B S  ?'0 &  " G K FIdh %)!'NTSY !A G !!7#A###&&&&&&$'*'<'g7V3 zn  hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`.zng7V3/\:'<'@:'@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx ArialA$BCambria Math"qhJ&J&J&`!G`!G!0&'&'8JHX  $P\2!xx THE MORAL ARGUMENTResearch Machines plc andrew bull  Oh+'0h   $ 0 <HPX`THE MORAL ARGUMENTResearch Machines plc Normal.dotm andrew bull2Microsoft Office Word@@,,@dfp@dfp`!՜.+,0  hp  RM Connect NetworkG&' THE MORAL ARGUMENT Title  !"#$%&'()*,-./012456789:=Root Entry Ftsp?1TableWordDocument*8SummaryInformation(+DocumentSummaryInformation83CompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q