Kant claimed that his “moral argument” was not theoretical but based on practical reasoning. The moral argument for God’s existence aims to create total rational acquiescence even without any chance of knowing. The philosopher’s conclusion is not that God exists or that God presumably exists, but rather that a rational, moral agent should believe in God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2021). Hence, the paper claims that according to Immanuel Kant’s “moral argument,” people as moral agents require moral faith in order to continue in moral life.
Kant’s approach to God is based on a philosophical idea of the divine essence as ens realissimum. Insofar as they are consistent with absolute ontological perfection, the atheistic ideas of the Deity incorporate symbolic representations of the traits of intelligence and volition (Wood, 2020). Kant famously refuses to accept traditional theoretical arguments for such a being’s existence. Nonetheless, his theoretical ideology extensively uses the concept of an ens realissimum for regulative reasons, both in metaphysics and in the philosophy of nature, while continuing to insist that this use does not amount to the theoretical cognition of God (Wood, 2020). Kant even spends substantial discussion demonstrating the thesis that only belief in a God as defined by classical metaphysics can meet the criteria of practical reason. He consistently interprets the philosophical difficulties he addresses as being about the existence of a classic scholastic-rationalist Deity. Furthermore, the philosopher’s moral argument does not seek to alter that understanding of God.
It is critical to grasp what Kant means by a “moral” argument for God’s existence. Wood (2020) argues that if individuals believe in God, Kant’s reasoning provides no benefit or advantage, not even a moral or religious one. It does not state that a person should believe anything because embracing it would get them into paradise or make them morally better. Any reward or value to a person for believing is never sufficient cause to believe or provide proper consent to anything. Wood (2020) acknowledges that, at the very most, it might be a warning that such reasons are lurking nearby. For instance, a belief is beneficial because it is genuine and there are theoretical arguments or evidence to support it. In contrast, Kant’s moral argument seeks to provide a reasonable cause for honest and sincere acceptance of God’s existence—assent based on fundamentally practical concerns (Wood, 2020). Therefore, practical grounds might rationally justify an acceptance of the premise that God exists, which is not knowledge of any type and cannot be changed into knowledge.
The core principle underpinning Kantian practical faith is a fundamental contrast between two forms of desire or volition: desire and choice. The philosopher’s moral argument for God’s existence seeks to establish absolute rational assent without any prospect of knowing (Wood, 2020). One should consider whether the assent generated by practical arguments—that is, what Kant refers to as Glaube, or belief or faith— is what people usually conceive as believing (Wood, 2020). Kant contends that all moral actors are rationally obligated to include a comprehensive moral objective known as the greatest good among their aims. Nonetheless, it is impossible to know by evidence or theoretical proof if this purpose is achievable through those activities; and people might be reasonably aware that the end cannot be reached exclusively through actions within their control.
Consequently, this component of the moral argument is wholly theoretical. Nonetheless, it is also entirely negative, lacking theoretical grounds for believing that the ultimate good is feasible or impossible. Nevertheless, Kant asserts, on theoretical grounds, concerning the nature of the ultimate good as humans must perceive it, that if the highest good is attainable, it can only be because a God exists (Wood, 2020). People may accept the existence of God in order to logically establish the highest good as an aim because God’s existence is a prerequisite to the possibility of the ultimate good.
In the case of moral faith, nevertheless, unlike pragmatic faith, the need to pursue the highest good is not conditional or voluntary but somewhat morally obligatory and permanent. According to Kantian ethics, every moral agent must establish this goal (Wood, 2020). Furthermore, all moral actors are in the same situation regarding the theoretical assertion that ties the end with its potential of accomplishment. The existence of a divine creator of nature is logically unclear, regardless of any contingent empirical circumstances, such as those that prompted the physician to make a particular diagnosis (Wood, 2020). These considerations transform the practical reason for acceptance of God’s existence into a universal logical ground of assent, which remains both practical and subjective since choosing the ultimate good as a goal is something individuals may or may not do. A person who did not aim for the highest good may be held accountable if this demonstrates an ethical sin rather than a theoretical error or shortcoming (Wood, 2020). In any case, that individual lacks the practical basis for consent agents have when they establish the highest good as an end.
Kant maintains that moral confidence in God is incompatible with disbelief because it entails the open rejection of the genuine possibility of the ultimate good, which is incompatible with continuing to set it as an aim. He also frequently underlines that moral faith or belief is merely consent in a practical sense (Wood, 2020). Individuals do it as part of their pursuit of the highest good; they must not do it as part of any acts, the explanations for which are theoretical arguments or evidence for their consent. If people commit their lives to the moral mission, they may be considered a widespread pursuit of the ultimate good. Acts of assent for practical reasons may thus become as habitual as acts of assent arising from common belief. Humans’ moral lives are or should be ongoing throughout their lifetimes. As a result, moral belief, as opposed to pragmatic belief, is an inclination to agree on practical goals that might be consistent and widespread in a human being.
To conclude, humans cannot know anything outside of experience, outside of the realm of spatiotemporal-causal order, according to Kant. Therefore, there can be no knowledge of God, the soul, the afterlife, or anything else outside that order (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2021). The highest good is an essential link between morality and enjoyment. Morality is founded on practical reason, and the moral agent must behave following maxims that may be logically accepted as universal standards. Kant argued that a moral agent must presuppose God’s existence as a reasonable presupposition of morality. Thus, in the light of Immanuel Kant’s moral argument, people as moral actors require moral faith if they persevere in their moral life.
References
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2021). Kant’s philosophy of religion. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.
Wood, A. (2020). Moral faith in God. In A. Wood (Ed.), Kant and religion. Cambridge Studies in Religion, Philosophy, and Society. (pp. 27-60). Cambridge University Press. Web.