The moral argument presupposes the existence of an all powerful, perfect God Essays

The moral argument presupposes the existence of an all powerful, perfect God Essays The moral argument presupposes the existence of an all powerful, perfect God Essay The moral argument presupposes the existence of an all powerful, perfect God Essay The moral argument presupposes the existence of an all powerful, perfect God in order to account for the fact that human beings have developed moral codes. Essentially, our notion of what is right and good, and subsequently the way these notions manifest into good actions is due to the presence of God who created us and that morality within us. Due to our awareness of Gods existence, man acts in one way, and if God did not exist that would render our actions irrational and inexplicable because the very reason that man acts in such a way as they would call good, is for the benefits provided by God for us in an afterlife. In response to that, one does need to question, whether one can be said to be moral if God does not drive that morality. Does mans moral experience have no meaning if they do not act according to the will of God? If so, can one who does not act in accordance to that Will, or follow His laws, either out of disobedience, indolence or ignorance, be judged on the same basis as those who do? Does that mean that their moral experience is invalid and nonsensical? The theological answer to this question comes from a number of sources. Thomas Aquinas tries to prove Gods existence by applying the notion of the different degrees of perfection found in finite things. Things are comparable to other things based on standards of how good or bad things are, and if one judges good things against one another, there must be one good thing which sets the standard for all good. The different degrees of perfection holds that there is ultimately one thing that is perfect. This perfect goodness Aquinas would suggest is God. It follows from this that if God does exist that there is one reason for mans moral experience developing the way that it does. With mans knowledge of Gods existence man wants to please Him, and so tries to be good for Him. Similarly CS Lewis discusses the notion of standards of morality, as a means of proving there is an ultimate and absolute goodness. Lewis states that mans idea of right and wrong gives some clues as to the meaning of the universe. The very fact that people have disagreements alludes to some perception of a standard of behaviour. This allusion can also be applied to perfection and evil. One thing can be more evil than another just as one thing can be more good or perfect than another. He states that whether there is a disagreement as to which thing is right and which thing is wrong, there is always agreement on the concept of right and wrong; the moral law. He goes on to suggest that moral law that we all seem to posses knowledge of cannot be more herd instinct because if this was the case which ever compulsion was stronger would win out. But he states that this is not always the case, citing the example of people who are confronted with imminent danger who chose to do what they ought to do like face the danger, rather than do what they want to do, which could be to run away. Lewis also suggests that this moral law cannot be a fact of social convention, because not everything that man has learned is social convention, some things just are. If morality is invented by each society and each society preserving its right to be different acts according to its own differing standards of morality, no society would be in the position to judge another. Just as moral law cannot be a law dictated by social convention, it cannot be a law of nature. Nature describes how things are but the moral law is prescriptive, prescribing how things ought to be. Lewis concluded that as a result of all this, it is right to say that there exists a moral law above all men, to which all men are accountable. He states that if one questions what the origin of moral law is they would find out that the moral law comes from the mind. If this is the case, that moral law comes from the mind, and there is an ultimate moral law above all else, there must in turn be an ultimate Mind that stands above all men from which it springs. Whereas Aquinas theory attempts to prove Gods existence, in a similar way to Lewis, Immanuel Kant goes further to answer the question about mans moral experience directly. He suggests that Gods existence must be practically posited in order to make sense of mans moral experience1 Kant states that man must assume the existence of God because if they do not, their desire for happiness and perception of moral duty does not make sense. Kant also identified within humans an innate sense of right and wrong, and what they ought to do; a sense of morality. Kant endeavoured to elaborate upon this point by making a suggestion of three transcendental postulates without which morality would flounder. Kant suggests that these are: God, immortality and freedom. Kant discusses the point of immortality and God in terms of rewards. In this life, there seem to be injustices sometimes, the good die young and poverty stricken, and the opposite seems to be the case for the bad. Kant suggests that due to this there must be an afterlife in which the balance is redressed, and a Judge (God) sees that justice is done. Religion therefore suggests that there is a lawgiver (God) who is at the end of humanity, and offers us eternal life where the wrongs of the world are righted. Hastings Rashdall who agrees with Kant on the grounds that although people can be moral without belief in God they cannot believe in absolute moral truths backs up Kants arguments. If morality is a human creation, he contends, there cannot exist a realm of absolute standards. Essentially, there is nothing that one can say is perfect or good in an absolute sense, as this would contradict the very nature of Atheism. Additionally, with the fact that the world that we live in is more and more being influenced by egoism also bears relevance on the question. People are reluctant to believe that they have no purpose, and no reason for being. People often question the meaning of life wondering why they are here. If there is no God and people are here for no reason people find this a hard concept to be reconciled with and as such it is easier to think that there is a God above all men who controls all things; and so thoughts of God and an afterlife are essential for such people to make sense not only of their moral experience, but their whole existence. However, in a world that is becoming increasingly emotivist, and human emotions motivation for all sorts of actions, is it right to say that peoples inclination to do right and wrong can only come from God. Alasdair MacIntyre speaks of a world that is becoming ruled by emotivism and ignoring that which we know for certain to be true or right. Subsequently people act in a way they feel to be right for no other reason than they feel inclined to. This is not governed by some fear of what might come in an afterlife, but rather what they feel at that moment at that time. The many argument about the ultimate good, the ultimate source of perfection and the ultimate lawgiver, too meets with scrutiny. None of the theologians considered the possibility of many sources, in their opinion, there is only one, that being God. Additionally, this source, if it does exist does not have to be eternal and ever lasting. Thus the belief in an afterlife does not automatically follow. But if God doesnt exist, and there is no one and nothing that will finally judge our actions, what stops men from acting in any way that they please; it would not matter. If there is a God our lives have meaning, and the way we conduct ourselves also has meaning, and this is something than man is comfortable with. A Christian believes that an ultimately perfect standard is God, without this there could be no such thing as evil, but people still believe that to exist. There can in actually fact be nothing good unless there is an ultimate good that is the source for all lesser goods2. So in actual fact the actual existence of God is not the question, whether or not Aquinas is right is not the issue at hand, the fact is that in order to truly understand why man is so concerned with morality and doing right, one has to assume that God does exist.