Debate Between Kant and Adams, Essay Example

Moral considerations have been utilized for belief in God, from the normativity of morality, moral order, and others such as moral despair.  Kant’s argument from moral order places a unique twist on the Categorical Imperative, whereby belief in God is supported when one doesn’t believe in God.  Adams breaks this argument to reveal what seems to be a web of illogical links.

Kant

Moral obligation begins with the concept of duty, found in categorical imperatives.  These are simply principles that must be obeyed in all situations and circumstances, which are intrinsically valid and are good in and of themselves.  These imperatives must be followed if our behavior is to follow the moral law.

From the single Categorical Imperative, all other moral obligations are generated and tested by it.  In terms of means and ends, the categorical imperative must be based on something that is an end in itself.  It must be an end that is a means only to itself, and not some other purpose or desire.

Belief is good is necessary, in practical terms.  Within moral obligations and the Categorical Imperative, the ideal of the supreme good is found within the practical purpose of the belief in God.  The moral code brought forth by the idea of God creates a moral necessity to believe in God, through the moral code.  Thus, we must act as if there is a good, to satisfy the moral condition.

Thus belief in God finds its sole reason through moral considerations.  Without this there would be no logical basis for the belief in God, as we have no grounds to assume the presence of God in an absolute manner.  According to the Categorical Imperative and moral considerations, the practical purpose for belief in God is achieved.

Adams

The practical argument for belief in God from Kant is in itself irrational.  While it is important to act according to a high moral code and order, we must not believe in something for the wrong reasons.  We simply cannot believe in God if we do not accept that such a God is in existence.

Kant’s premise fails due to the lack of truth, from the perspective of the believer.  Thus, if one does not believe that God exists, it is not rational to accept such a belief, based on the need to do something that you want to do.  This practical argument becomes severely devoid of rationality, whereby we are supposed to accept a belief to act in accordance to this belief, even if we do not believe in it at any rate.

The reasoning from this involves a sort of invention in belief, just to give oneself a reason for doing something.  An individual should not have to come up with items that aren’t believed to exist, so that he or she may believe this item in order to do something involved in this belief.  This tangled web of reasons and incoherent beliefs, and lack thereof, finds no real basis in moral considerations.

In Kant’s reasoning, there is no logical basis for believing in something that is not believed to exist, just for the sake of doing something that is involved.  If someone were to conceive of such a thing, then perhaps a willingness to go to these lengths would be enough to simply do the action desired.  Then one could rid oneself of the unnecessary belief of something that one does not believe.

Evaluation

Focusing on Kant’s argument, the conversation that can be seen through the writings of Kant and Adams illustrates some interesting assertions.  Kant’s recommendation to follow the highest good seems reasonable, yet the rational line of thought seems to end when the belief of what is not believed is recommended.  This illustrates a weak aspect of Kant’s recommendation, and ultimate moral argument for belief in God.

In light of the rebuttal from Adams, it seems unreasonable to suggest what Kant proposes.  There seems to be no logical response, that would keep Kant’s proposal alive, to the recommendation from Adams to carry out what is wanted to be performed morally, as there is no need to believe in something that one does not believe.  If one wishes to do something for its true moral goodness, a subjectively false notion should not have to be accepted in order to do so.

Kant’s weakness appears to result from the use of a system.  His systematic approach to moral considerations and the Categorical Imperative found an interesting subtlety in Kant’s proposal.  Ultimately, however, his moral argument for belief in God does not appear to be rational, as the argument does not logically follow his own moral advice.  It does not appear normal for one to act as if one believes something, just so that one acts in a certain fashion.  Thus, it may be concluded that Kant’s proposal falls short in giving an appropriate moral consideration for belief in God.