Kant's Moral Argument For The Existence Of God

Moral arguments for the existence of God are based on the premise that if God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not exist. As objective moral values and duties do exist, it can therefore be assumed that God exists. The moral argument claims that morality would not exist without God; morality and a moral law are the result of God. The moral argument has had a great cultural impact, as many religious people believe that religion and morality are intrinsically linked. The cultural importance of the moral argument has meant that it has been an argument explored by many different philosophers and theologians (Evans 2014, p. 1).

In an effort to provide a comprehensive critical survey I have chosen to focus this essay on the argument put forth by Kant and the objections and counter argument’s raised by Elizabeth Anscombe and Soren Kierkegaard. I have chosen to include and discuss two contrasting theories to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of Kant’s moral argument. Kant’s argument was founded on practical rationality; he argued that for moral behavior to be rational it must have a reason. Kant ultimately argued that the only rational explanation was the existence of God and an afterlife (Kant 2002a,

His moral system requires all of one’s decisions conform to the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative makes the unrealistic assumption that there is a set of universal moral laws. Kant’s categorical imperative refuses to consider the eccentricities of individual moral circumstances (Williams 2004, p. 92). Two different individuals could potentially make two different, but equally justifiable moral decisions. Kant offers a strict nature of morality that does not allow for exceptions. Kant’s argument is founded on a premise that morality is universal, but as Kierkegaard’s argument highlighted, that is not necessarily