Kant’s moral argument & the Categorical Imperative
Early on in this series there was mentioned the revolutionary impact of Immanuel Kant’s critic of the traditional argument for the existence for God. That watershed event was in his book ‘The Critic of Pure Reason.’ He was agnostic in the ability to prove if there is the existence of God through theoretical thought even though he was a theist. ‘The Critic of Practical Reason’ was another book where he discussed more practical ways of proving His existence. Sproul likes say, “one the one hand Kant v was to have ushered God outside the front door of the house, he then runs around to the kitchen and opens up the back door to let Him in.” In his ‘Practical’ book he gave his famous moral argument for the existence of God. Which we are going to look at. But first let us look at some moral arguments from the New Testament.
Paul and Romans meaning
When Paul writes to the Romans from Corinth in the first chapter [which we worked on in a prior lesson], he says the invisible things are known by the things which are made. Now going to a later part of chapter 1 he is making an indictment against the whole human race in their fallen and corrupted state, he says in v28, “even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting. To do those things which are, 1. Unrighteousness, 2.…etc.” It is not an exhaustive list but he catalogues many of the ways in which human beings violate each other with immoral behavior. But the kicker is in v32, “Who [those humans that practice] knowing these things that doing them are deserving of death, do the same and approve of those others who do them also.” God, therefore, has revealed His character to all creatures. Every human knows that God is right and commands from us to know the difference from right and wrong. We know how we ought to behave sexually. We know that we ought not rob from others or murder or be malicious etc. We know that they are wrong. Yet despite our knowing that we don’t want God in our minds eye. We behave this way and yet we approve of this even knowing this is wrong. We enlist the support of other people and encourage participation by others. Name any moral transgression and you will find some group militating for it’s acceptance and tolerance.
Now in chapter 2:12 he says also…{not written]
He says that not only does he give the law to Israel but he also writes his law in the heart of every creature that is born. The proof that He does this is the apparatus that we have called a ’conscientious.’ It is part of the constituent makeup of every human being. Conscience’s can be corrupted and seared and callused and all the rest. At the extreme, If anyone is devoid of a conscience we call them a sociopath. Doing wicked things without feeling of guilt. So to recapture what we are saying is that God bears witness to Himself by planting His moral law in the minds of every human creature. There will be many who say it is not a conscience but either a taboo, or Freud’s notion to freedom and sexual liberty, or puritanical leanings or Victorian constraint, but, the true conscience will not go away. Everywhere in any continent is the construct of an ethical moral structure which is a necessary for social interaction in society and civilization to work.
So in keeping with today’s society some have called it a ‘post-Christian society, some ‘neo-paganism’ but Sproul would call it ‘neo-barbarism’. Meaning that at least 50% act amorally. Including educated barbarians which are apart of the moral revolution in our time. But you cannot extinguish the conscience.
Kant, The Critic of Practical Reason
Now is where Kant’s moral argument comes in. He said it is a universal phenomena that every single person has a sense of ‘oughtness.’ We might call it an internal native sense of right and wrong. He used the phrase the ‘Categorical Imperative’ is a absolute command or duty and requires and obligates them to behave in a certain manner. You can deny it, you can flee from it but you can’t get rid of it. And this leads to the conundrum that you cannot solve for is guilt. When someone says they are an atheist, Sproul will stop and ask them what do you do with your guilt? He has yet to find someone who says they don’t have any. And when each of us knows the other knows that each of us have this, we move onto another plane of speaking about problems and such.
Now Kant says that guilt comes when we fail to do our duty, what we are morally obligated to do. In his reasoning he came to this from a definition of transcendental, which is key to his whole approach of philosophy. This Transcendental approach, even his epistemology, of how do come to knowledge at all, was very innovative. He didn’t say how does knowledge take place. He didn’t start out even saying knowledge is possible. He starts out with a question. If knowledge is possible what would have to be? What are the necessary ingredients to make knowledge possible? He then constructs his philosophy upon this by transcending or getting above the problem and wrestles with the questions of possible knowledge. Saying that if it is possible, what would have to be and proceeds on that premise.
So when he comes to the question for the moral argument for God he comes to this place of a ‘universal sense of oughtness. Now, Kant says, it maybe a glitch in the composition of human beings and as the nihilist would argue, that moral sense is meaningless. And as such, we really should get rid of it because it has no significance. So Kant is saying here that he doesn’t know if it is meaningful but if it is meaningful what would have to be and take place. What would be necessary for true ethics and morality to be, that which imposes obligations on each human for this to be meaningful? He asks another question from the practicality of an objective standard behavior, that in the final analysis, if it is not there really, then culture and society is impossible. Laws, are then, by shear preference and is none other than might makes right or the law of the jungle. Which after some time must destroy civilization. Which is close to where we are today as a society. Dostoevsky said that if there is no God then all things are permissible. If there is no ultimate ground for rightness, then all things have to have permission. Then, after this, it is just a battle over preferences. My preference over your preference. Similar to a time when ‘everybody is doing what is right in their own mind.’ Which brings conflict which eventually brings warfare between states, borders, husbands and wife’s etc. There are no preset rules that have any foundation to the creature.
Kant is acutely aware of this and he knew what was at stake here in his philosophical questioning. No less than Western Civilization was to be defined by this.
So he asked another question; what is necessary for the Categorical Imperative to be meaningful? The first thing for this to be meaningful is justice. For ultimately if crime pays then there is no practical reason to be virtuous. There is no reason but to be selfish. There must be justice involved to reward right behavior and punish bad actions. Then he asked the question as to what would be necessary for justice to take place? Well if this were to be so then you would have to have life after death. Because we know that this world does not dispense justice perfectly. There are innocent people who perish at the hands of the guilty. The OT writes of the wicked prospering and the righteous suffering. That can only happen in an environment where justice is not perfectly carried out. Since in this world there are only approximations of justice then you must have life after death. 1. So we have to survive the grave to find true justice.
But you may have in the next life the same results as you find right now. 2. So along with this you have to also have a judge that is morally perfect and right. If the judge who ultimately judges is not perfectly right then he may render imperfect justice. Because he is bribable, corruptible, selfish and on and on. Above reproach and corruption. But suppose you had a judge who was upright and he was doing the best he had in him but he didn’t have complete knowledge and because of these limitations he makes mistakes. He errs by virtue of working from limitations.
So the third factor is he must be Omniscient and know all of the facts. So now, the judgment that is rendered is without error. So now you have 1. Life after death 2. Final judgment 3. A judge who is perfectly right and knows everything. Will that now ensure justice? Not yet! There is still one more element that has to be present in order to insure that justice prevail. 4. He must have the power to enforce his judgment. If he were restricted in anyway, by some outside agency, to bring true justice bear it would not be possible for justice. So the last feature is he must be omnipotent. Kant his arguing transcendentally that your sense of ‘oughtness’ is going to matter, that means you have to matter. It means you have to survive the grave - you have to be held accountable for everything you do in your life. Every deed, thought, virtue that you left undone is known by one who is not blind in any way and holy and perfectly good, and is strong in power to make this perfect judgment.
So, morality, if it is true, makes the affirmation of God a practical necessity. Kant said, ‘we must live as if there is a God, because if there isn’t, we have no hope for civilization. The dissidents who came after him said that even though this sounds grim, all is still meaningless and there is no hope. But most people who don’t want to believe in this moral God are working off of the moral capital inherent in the God. No, they don’t want God but they want morality. Which will bring them significance and a place for their desire for fairness. But Kant says through this argument that you can’t have both.
No comments:
Post a Comment