John Hick ‘Philosophy of Religion’: The Moral Argument. Hick points to two forms of Moral Argument. 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. First form:
Hello! There is a Moral claim over me. I therefore believe in a Transhuman source: God.
Claim=to work towards the highest good.
Kant argues that we seek a perfect world unachievable without immortality and therefore God.
Either our moral values tell us something about the nature and purpose of reality OR are subjective and therefore meaningless.
But: does this transcendent ground point to the Judaic Christian God?John Hick ‘Philosophy of Religion’:
SNAG! it is impossible to ensure what morality requires in this life.
The highest good must be possible but we are not omnipotent.
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 :
Taking it at face value what Kant offers looked rather impressive in some respects. It is widely accepted that ought implies can.
We all ought to try a to attain the highest good. It can be beneficial.
‘We ought to aim at for the highest good’, it does not follow that anything can bring this about.
‘If the highest good cannot be realised, one ought not to aim for it.’
Why can we not conclude that we simply ought not to aim at the highest good ?
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’.
Okay I accept an objective moral law.
But would not explanation for this be better found in anthropology or psychology than in God?