The Kantian Argument Revisited

Previously I dissected the Kantian argument, and I got more then one response saying I had misrepresented what Kant had been trying to say. Fair enough, that is completely true. Kant was not trying to show that god existed, it was only later that people had modified his argument and used it in this way. So today I will dissect Kant's original argument, and why I think it is still less then satisfactory.

Kant and rational morality

In Kant's original argument he was not trying to show that god exists, oh no! instead Kant was trying to show that if your going to be moral AND rational you must also believe in god, or in other words, to be moral and an atheists is irrational.

so Kant's (roughly translated) original argument goes:

"The highest good is where moral virtue and happiness coincide, and morality is the pursuit of this highest good. In the world we inhabit it's not possible for this highest good to exist, because wicked people prosper and good people suffer, etc. If it's not possible for the highest good to exist, then it's not rational to pursue it - ie, morality is irrational. Therefore, in order for morality to be rational, we must believe in god"

Kant is basically saying that while god may not exist, we must act as if he does and that he will punish us for failure to act properly because only with this belief can we act morally and still be rational.

Note the direction of the argument's thrust. Notice it is not god Kant attempts to prove, nor that atheists are irrational, nor even that god is required for morality (an implied premise), instead he attempts to argue that if we wish to be moral and be rationaly consistent we must strive to believe in god as well. His reasoning is that unless we have punishment for our actions hanging over our heads the only rational choices are amoral ones, which leaves us either moral and irrational or amoral and rational. A devilish (false) dichotomy.

The problem is that it's easy enough to show that people are moral without god, this leads to one of two conclusions. Either people can be moral and rational when there is no god, or the vast majority of people will act morally even over rationality. As the second conclusion seems very unlikely (as rationality and morality has tended to go hand in hand), the first conclusions seems to be correct which means there is a problem in Kant's argument. It's easy to see where as well.

Society

My behavior modifies the behaviors of others. if I wish the behaviors of others to be good towards me then I must act in such a way to modify their behavior to my benefit. We call this moral behavior. It is purely rational to act in such a way to cause others to act in a way I like. The 'moral behavior' to be used depends on the context of the society I live in but this doesn't hurt the argument, in fact it enhances it.

The argument misses intent, the intent of moral behavior is not to make your life a wonder and get everything you want...that is simply a fantasy that very few can achieve (even if they take the route of pure selfishness and attempt to lie and cheat and steal), SOME can...but by far the majority can not. Instead the majority of people take the rational moral route because that is the only route that will afford them gaining some of what they want...namely to be treated decently within the society.

Kant's mistake is that he attempts to disconnect my actions from your behavior. My actions modify your behavior. If you ignore this factor then of course not lying and not cheating and not stealing and the rest of morality will not work and the rational choice is to cheat and lie and steal...because as the argument is presented it makes sense to get what you can. With the factor of society it's easy to see how the entire interconnection works.

Think of it as comparing a child's morality to an adults.

A child needs to know that his actions have consequences. Those consequences are presented through an authority figure. The reason is simple. A child can't understand or even conceive of the complex interactions of give and take of moral behavior in a society. The child doesn't understand that being bad leads to bad results because others will be more likely to do the same to him...no the child needs to know there is an authority figure that will hand down justice.

An adult has a more developed morality and does not need the authority figure to met out justice for crimes or proper behavior. Unfortunately because of the childhood past the mental authority figure model of morality is deeply entrenched mentally but only because that is the only formally presented moral structure. When someone talks about morality this is how a person actually thinks about it. But when we are forced to make a moral decision we rely more on our day to day experience. The schoolyard interactions. The daily 'tit for tat' of work and school. I'm good to others because they will be good to me if I am. If I am unfair to them they will be unfair to me (when they can).

Kant's argument devolves to more steps but it is still the same:

I can't see how you can understand morality in any way but with a moral figure, people are rational, it is irrational to be moral if there is no moral figure to enforce justice (or at least it's irrational to be moral if you do not BELIEVE in such a moral figure), therefore god exists (or at least it is rational to believe god exists).

---

Other parts to this series:
Arguments for god...kind of (Part 2) - The Kantian Moral Argument.
Arguments for god...kind of (Part 1) - Pascal's Wager.

Arguments for god...kind of (Part 2) - The Kantian Moral Argument

Besides the comment 'what if you are wrong' the next most common response to atheism is 'then why are you good?'. This is a laymen version of a moral argument, a class of god arguments that claim morality comes from god and hence god must exist.
The Kantian moral argument, named for Immanual Kant, argues that morality is only rational if there is a god, and since people are moral and rational there must be a god!

The Kant argument is as follows:

1. Moral behavior is rational.
2. Morality behavior is only rational if justice will be done.
3. Justice will only be done if God exists.

Therefore:

4. God exists.

There are some serious issues with this argument but I want to consider each of them in parts.

Moral behavior is only rational if justice will be done.

Rationality must be considered in relation to goals.
Is it rational to step in front of a bus?
Is it rational to step in front of a bus if you are trying to save a child?
without the goal the rationality of the action is in question. with the goal the rationality is clear. If the goal of your morals is to treat others with respect and courtesy and receive the same in kind then it is absolutely rational to behave morally, irrespective of if a god exists to enforce pain on those who reject that behavior themselves.

A moral code need not be perfect or always working, it only needs to work well enough to insure propagation of the moral code within the society it exists in.
All societies have a social norm that states that murder unrestrained is bad, the reason for this is simple. Societies which allow for unrestrained murder fail to propagate and die out.
Societies which have concepts of self ownership also have rules about theft. Even in cultures without a concept of self ownership there is the concept of communal ownership and the rights of the community over the individuals need. these moral codes develop because of the communities needs and previous cultural codes and mores.

Justice will only be done if God exists.

Notice the inherent argument from consequence in this statement. The statement is a blatant attempt to convince the listener that without god, or at least the belief in god, that morality will break down. but the question becomes, why hasn't it then? There are plenty of nonbelievers, and even non-believing majority countries. why are these countries still standing?
Worse then this though is the subtle implication in this whole argument. the implied consequence of 'without my god I would steal, rape, and murder' a claim more then one theist has actually made. This shows that the person making the argument is only as moral as the consequences require them to be. Without big daddy standing over them, without a stick they would break everyones toys.

That is not morality.

There are other issues with this argument, mainly the implied postulates which are either incorrect in part, unlikely, or false entirely.

Implied postulates:

• There is an objective moral code.
• Everyone knows what this moral code is.
• This god is of religion X, of type Z.
  

The implication of an objective moral code is required because if there is no objective moral code, then god can't give it to us. There are a few problems with an objective moral code. I will touch on that in a later post.

The second implied postulate is worse then all of the rest because simple observation will show that not everyone has the same moral code, and even worse, that some people are physically and psychologically unable to know some of these moral codes. It is literally imposable for someone who is a psychopath by the clinical definition to have a conscious, they can pretend and act like everyone else, but they truly can not comprehend emotionally and viscerally why moral behavior is good.

Lastly, this argument even if it was correct says nothing about which god, or what this moral code is! Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

The only thing this would say is that some god, somewhere, of some type, with some properties of some type, will punish people for not following some moral code this god has provided. None of this tells you which moral codes are from humans and which from the god, none of this tells you if the god in question is informed before it makes said decision, etc etc.

If you accept the implied components then, sure it works to support your god....but wasn't the point supposed to be to convince ME?