Need help understanding this section of philosophy from Kant

[Marc_Anthony]

Salve,

As evidenced by my two previous threads on objective morality and Mere Christianity, i am currently trying to understand the philosophy behind and the apologetics used to defend the concept of a moral law.

Poster JohnDamian nicely gave me this link:

oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1217&chapter=97643&layout=html&Itemid=27

…From Immanuel Kant’s book, Of the moral proof of the Being of God.

Unfortunately, I am not a philosopher, and I am unfamiliar with the terminology being used. And so, I ask politely, can somebody please try and summarize/explain what, exactly, Kant’s argument is?

I hate asking like this, but I honestly can’t tell, which very much annoys me since I am an avid reader.

I VERY MUCH appreciate anybody who helps me with this. Thanks in advance a lot.

 

[JohnDamian]

Unfortunately, I am not a philosopher, and I am unfamiliar with the terminology being used. And so, I ask politely, can somebody please try and summarize/explain what, exactly, Kant’s argument is?

I hate asking like this, but I honestly can’t tell, which very much annoys me since I am an avid reader.

It is much more sensible to ask than to either not bother; or remain in confusion - the only stupid question is the one that isn’t asked.

In very simple terms; the argument is as such;

If the world contained lifeless or irrational beings; the world would have no value;

If rational beings existed; but could only posit the value of things in relation then there would be no final purpose; no “teleology” (final end) of value. Even if relative value existed.

The only thing that allows for a final purpose is the existence of God. If there is no God then there is either no purpose; or only purposes with no final purpose.

If someone does not believe in God (Spinoza was example given); then they could only follow an imaginary, invalid and nonobligatory law of morality. Thus; God must be supposed if we are to have any final purpose.

We have a final purpose (morality) which can be seen objectivelly. This final purpose is not contingent upon or instantiated in individuals. This means that God exists; if we are to have any morality at all.

 

[Betterave]

It is much more sensible to ask than to either not bother; or remain in confusion - the only stupid question is the one that isn’t asked.

Quite right. Knowing that you don’t know is sometimes the closest we get to wisdom (Socrates). BTW, the book is The Critique of Judgment, the section is Of the moral proof of the Being of God. I’ll try to pick up some points JD skipped over or seemed to me to get wrong:

If the world contained lifeless or irrational beings; the world would have no value (value that no one values is worthless);

If rational beings existed, but could only posit the value of things in relation (conditionally) then there would be no final purpose, no “teleology” (final end) of value - even if relative (conditional) value existed. [True, but not really part of Kant’s argument here.]

The only thing that allows for a final purpose is -]the existence of God/-] “the existence of a Reason that can be for itself the supreme law in the purposive reference, in other words the existence of rational beings under moral laws”. If there is no God then there is -]either no purpose; or only purposes with no final purpose/-] no possibility of achieving “the highest physical good possible in the world, [which is] to be furthered as a final purpose as far as in us lies,” namely, “happiness, under the objective condition of the harmony of man with the law of morality,” i.e., that condition whereby he is worthy to be happy.

If someone does not believe in God (Spinoza was example given); then they -]could only follow an imaginary, invalid and nonobligatory law of morality/-] would be forced by the perversity of nature to give up on the achievement of their final moral purpose. Thus; God must be supposed -]if we are to have any final purpose/-] so as “not to weaken the respect with which the moral law immediately inspires him”.

We have a final purpose (morality) which can be seen objectivelly. This final purpose is not contingent upon or instantiated in individuals. This means that **(we must believe that) **God exists, if we are to -]have any morality at all/-] hold fast to our final moral purpose in the face of nature, which makes no provision for rewarding moral worthiness to be happy.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Thanks a lot for the help.

Okay, so as I understand Kan’t argument, simplified, is as follows:

1. If the world contained lifeless or irrational beings; the world would have no value (value that no one values is worthless)
2. If we are to believe there is a final purpose, then we must accept the existence of rational beings under moral laws.
3. If there is no God then there is no possibility of achieving "the highest physical good possible in the world.
4. If someone does not believe in God (Spinoza was example given); then they would be forced by the perversity of nature to give up on the achievement of their final moral purpose. Thus; God must be supposed so as not to weaken the respect with which the moral law immediately inspires him.

So form what I understand here, Kant is trying to say that only God can give life meaning.

Still, doesn’t that mean that it’s at least POSSIBLE, under Kant’s reasoning, that life has no meaning and that there is thus no morality or a subjective morality?

 

[Betterave]

So form what I understand here, Kant is trying to say that only God can give life meaning.

It seems to me more like he’s saying that without God life is necessarily a tragedy, because our noblest desires are doomed to frustration - it is obvious that we are incapable, by natural, empirically accessible means, of achieving that which we desire and recognize to be objectively desirable.

Still, doesn’t that mean that it’s at least POSSIBLE, under Kant’s reasoning, that life has no meaning and that there is thus no morality or a subjective morality?

Short answer: no. Kant believes we directly apprehend our own existence as finite rational beings who are unconditionally subject to moral laws. There is no theoretical justification by which we could possibly deny this.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Short answer: no. Kant believes we directly apprehend our own existence as finite rational beings who are unconditionally subject to moral laws. There is no theoretical justification by which we could possibly deny this.

But how does Kant establish this? This is what confuses me.

 

[Betterave]

But how does Kant establish this? This is what confuses me.

Our direct apprehension of our own existence as finite rational beings is just an undeniable fact, I should hope. And this is interpretation, but that apprehension more or less directly establishes the the imperative that our conscience be regulated by our reason, which implies that we are unconditionally subject to the moral laws decreed by reason. Any theoretical justification that would attempt to deny this would require that reason attack itself, which would evidently be absurd.