You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The Moral Argument reasons from features of human moral experience — the sense of objective obligation, the demand that goodness be rewarded, the authoritative voice of conscience — to God as the best explanation of those features. It is worth being clear at the outset about its status on the AQA 7062 course. The three arguments the specification names under "Arguments for the existence of God" are the design, ontological and cosmological arguments; the moral argument is not one of them. It is best treated as a supplementary argument — valuable enrichment that connects naturally to the spec's Conscience topic in the Ethics component (where Newman and Freud appear) and to Bentham and Kant. This lesson sets out the two classic versions — Kant's postulate of practical reason and Newman's argument from conscience — then develops the principal criticisms from Freud and from evolutionary accounts of morality, and reaches a judgement about whether moral experience really points beyond itself to God.
Key term: Moral argument — a supplementary argument for God's existence that infers a divine source from features of moral experience (obligation, the highest good, conscience). It is a posteriori in so far as it begins from experienced moral facts.
It is useful to see at the outset that "the moral argument" is really a family of arguments with different logical shapes, because confusing them is the commonest error. One version (Kant's) argues that God must be postulated to make the moral life rational — God secures the eventual proportioning of happiness to virtue. A second version (Newman's) argues that the experience of conscience is best explained by a personal lawgiver. A third, stronger version — divine command theory — argues that God is the very source or ground of moral facts, so that without God there would be no objective right and wrong at all. These are importantly different claims: the first two are compatible with morality being objective independently of God (God enters as guarantor or as the best explanation of moral awareness), whereas the third makes morality depend on God for its very existence. The strongest objection — the Euthyphro dilemma — bites hardest on the third; the strongest naturalistic rivals — Freud and evolutionary ethics — bite hardest on the second. Keeping the versions apart is therefore the key to a controlled evaluation.
It is a striking fact that Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), who in the Critique of Pure Reason (1781) argued that the ontological, cosmological and design arguments all fail as theoretical proofs, nonetheless advanced a moral argument in the Critique of Practical Reason (1788). The key to avoiding misrepresentation here is that Kant does not claim to prove God exists. He argues that God's existence is a necessary postulate of practical reason — something we must rationally assume if morality is to make sense — not a theoretical certainty.
The argument runs through the idea of the summum bonum, the "highest good." Kant holds that we experience the moral law as an unconditional, universally binding demand — the Categorical Imperative, his supreme principle of duty. (His best-known formulation: "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.") Reason, Kant argues, sets before us as the complete object of moral striving not virtue alone but the summum bonum: a state in which perfect virtue is matched by the happiness it deserves. Morality requires us to will this highest good. It is important to be clear that Kant is not making happiness the motive of morality — duty must be done for duty's sake — but is observing that reason, reflecting on the whole, cannot rest content with virtue that is perpetually unrewarded and vice that perpetually triumphs; the complete good that practical reason aims at includes the fitting distribution of happiness according to desert.
Key term: Categorical Imperative — Kant's supreme moral principle: an unconditional command binding on all rational agents regardless of their desires, contrasted with hypothetical imperatives (which are conditional on what one wants).
Key term: Summum bonum — the "highest good": the union of complete virtue with the happiness proportionate to it. For Kant this is the necessary object of the moral will.
But here a problem arises. In this life virtue and happiness manifestly do not reliably coincide — the just often suffer, the wicked often flourish. Nature is indifferent to desert. So the summum bonum cannot be guaranteed by the natural order. Yet reason cannot demand that we pursue something impossible: "ought implies can." Therefore, Kant argues, we must postulate the conditions that make the summum bonum possible: freedom (else moral choice is illusory), immortality (since perfect virtue cannot be completed in one finite life), and God (a being powerful and wise enough to ensure that, ultimately, happiness is apportioned to virtue). God is thus postulated as the guarantor of the moral order — not deduced from the world, but required as a condition of the rationality of the moral life.
Key term: Postulate of practical reason — for Kant, a proposition that cannot be theoretically proved but must be assumed as a necessary presupposition of morality. Kant's three postulates are freedom, immortality and God.
| Condition postulated | Why the moral life requires it |
|---|---|
| Freedom | Moral obligation presupposes that we can do otherwise |
| Immortality | Perfect virtue (holiness) is an endless task, impossible in one lifetime |
| God | Only an omnipotent, just author of nature can unite virtue with proportionate happiness |
Note precisely what Kant is and is not saying. He is not saying we should be moral in order to be rewarded — that would corrupt the purity of duty he prizes. He is saying that, given that we are unconditionally bound by the moral law, we must rationally hope that the universe is so ordered that moral effort is not finally absurd; and that hope commits us to postulating God.
Criticisms of Kant's argument are several, and they are essential AO2 material. First, even if the summum bonum is desirable, it is disputable that morality requires it to be achievable: many philosophers hold that duty is binding regardless of outcomes, so that one can be fully moral while accepting that virtue may go unrewarded — in which case no God need be postulated. The existentialist tradition (e.g. Camus, Sartre) goes further, arguing that morality remains meaningful, perhaps even more admirable, in a universe that offers no cosmic guarantee of justice — the good person does right although the universe is indifferent. Second, "ought implies can" secures at most that the summum bonum is possible, not that I must postulate the specific machinery (God + immortality) Kant prescribes; perhaps the highest good is approximated by collective human progress rather than divine apportionment. Third, even granting the argument, it delivers only a God sufficient to guarantee the proportioning of happiness to virtue — a moral administrator — not obviously the omniscient creator of classical theism; the gap between "guarantor of the summum bonum" and "God" must still be bridged. Fourth, the argument arguably needs what it produces: it assumes the moral law is objectively binding (a "fact of reason"), which a critic may simply deny. These criticisms do not show Kant's argument worthless — as a statement of what the moral life hopes for it is powerful — but they show it falls well short of a proof, which Kant himself concedes.
A different version comes from John Henry Newman (1801–1890), in A Grammar of Assent (1870). Where Kant argues from the structure of moral reasoning, Newman argues from the phenomenology of conscience — what the experience of conscience is actually like.
Newman observes that conscience is not merely a faculty of judging right and wrong; it carries a distinctive emotional charge. When we act wrongly we feel not only that we have miscalculated but that we have offended — we feel shame, responsibility, and a "fear" as if before a person. Conscience speaks with the tone of command and reproach. Now, Newman reasons, these feelings are relational: shame and fear of this kind are directed towards a someone, not towards an abstract rule or an impersonal law. "If, as is the case, we feel responsibility, are ashamed, are frightened, at transgressing the voice of conscience, this implies that there is One to whom we are responsible." The best explanation of the personal character of conscience — its authority, and the sense of accountability it carries — is that conscience is the echo within us of a personal, holy lawgiver: God.
| Feature of conscience (Newman) | What he infers |
|---|---|
| Command and obligation | A commander — a will above our own |
| Shame and reproach | A person we have offended, not a mere rule |
| Fear of judgement | One to whom we are accountable |
| Authority over our preferences | A source higher than human opinion — God |
Newman's reasoning is sometimes compared to how we infer other minds from behaviour: we do not perceive God directly, but the shape of the moral emotions — their being directed at a person — is taken as a trace of the personal reality that elicits them, much as a tone of voice betrays a speaker we cannot see. The analogy also exposes the weakness: traces can be misread, and an emotion felt as if directed at a person need not have a genuine personal object, as the critic will insist.
Newman's argument is an inference to the best explanation rather than a deductive proof: he does not claim conscience logically entails God, but that a personal God makes better sense of the felt data of conscience than any impersonal alternative. This is also where the argument is most exposed, because rival explanations of those very feelings are exactly what Freud and the evolutionists supply.
It helps to place Newman alongside the other thinkers the AQA Conscience topic names, since the moral argument draws on the same disputed territory. Thomas Aquinas offered a more rationalist account: for him conscience is not a mysterious voice but the application of reason to moral situations — he distinguishes synderesis (the innate disposition to pursue good and avoid evil) from conscientia (the act of judging a particular case). On Aquinas' view conscience can err when reason is mistaken, and it is therefore not straightforwardly "the voice of God" but a God-given rational faculty. Joseph Butler (1692–1752) argued that conscience is the supreme authority within human nature — the faculty that "magisterially exerts itself" and was meant to govern; this authority, Butler held, points to its having been placed in us by God. Newman's distinctive contribution is to emphasise the emotional and personal phenomenology — the felt sense of accountability to someone — rather than conscience's rationality (Aquinas) or its authority (Butler). The differences matter for evaluation: an account that ties conscience tightly to reason (Aquinas) is less vulnerable to Freud, since it does not rest its case on feelings that the super-ego could mimic; an account that rests on feelings (Newman) is more vivid but more exposed.
| Thinker | What conscience essentially is | Vulnerability |
|---|---|---|
| Aquinas | Reason applied to action (synderesis + conscientia); can err | Less exposed to Freud; but a fallible faculty is a weaker pointer to God |
| Butler | The supreme authority in human nature, meant to govern | Why does authority imply a divine author? |
| Newman | The felt voice of command and accountability to a person | Freud: the feelings may be the super-ego, not God |
Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) offers a psychological account of conscience that needs no God at all — and so directly undercuts Newman. On Freud's model of the psyche, the super-ego is the internalised voice of authority. In early childhood the developing person internalises the prohibitions, demands and ideals of the parents (and, through them, of society), and these become an inner agency that judges, praises and — above all — punishes the self with guilt. What Newman hears as the voice of God, Freud hears as the voice of the internalised father: conscience is the super-ego, a deposit of childhood authority, not a transmission from a divine lawgiver.
Freud extends this to religion itself. In The Future of an Illusion (1927) he argues that belief in God is a form of wish-fulfilment — the projection onto the cosmos of the child's longing for a powerful, protective father in the face of a frightening and indifferent world; he memorably describes religion as resembling a "universal obsessional neurosis" of humanity. The mechanism, on Freud's developmental story, runs through the Oedipus complex: the young child's ambivalent relation to the father — both feared and loved — is resolved by internalising the father's authority as the super-ego, and is later projected outward, writ large, as belief in a heavenly Father who commands, watches and judges. Conscience and God thus have, for Freud, a common psychological root in the child's relationship to parental authority. The dialectical force against the moral argument is precise: if the feelings Newman appeals to (guilt, the sense of being commanded, fear of judgement) can be fully explained as the workings of the super-ego, then those feelings are no evidence for God. The argument from conscience would be inferring a divine cause for something that has a perfectly mundane psychological cause — committing, in effect, the error of mistaking the internalised parent for the Creator.
Key term: Super-ego — in Freudian theory, the part of the psyche formed by internalising parental and social authority; the source of conscience and guilt. Freud treats it as the natural origin of the moral feelings Newman attributes to God.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.