Quote:
Originally posted by Pathfinder
Kant reasoned that the moral law commands us to seek the summum bonum (highest good), with perfect happiness as a logical result. But a problem arises when we contemplate the unpleasant fact that "there is not the slightest ground in the moral law for a necessary connexion between morality and proportionate happiness in a being that belongs to the world as a part of it." The only postulate, therefore, that will make sense of man's moral experience is "the existence of a cause of all nature, distinct from nature itself," i.e., a God who will properly reward moral endeavor in another world. In a godless universe man's deepest experience would be a cruel enigma.
. . . . .
Most modern thinkers who use the moral argument continue Kant's thesis that God is a necessary postulate to explain moral experience. Kant thought the moral law could be established by reason, but he called in God to guarantee the reward for virtue. Modern thinkers do not use God so much for the reward as for providing a ground for the moral law in the first place.
|
This seems to hit closest to home. People make judgments every day--hot/cold, left/right, etc. Most of these decisions are based on empirical decision making processes [on experience]. However, there are some decisions that require moral/ethical guidelines. The elaborations of moral cause differ from culture to culture but it is always phrased in the form of the supernatural--the spiritual. The source[s] of moral guidance is summarized as God.
This is not bulletproof reasoning though. Skeptical scientists may argue, in line with Chomsky's theory of linguistic genesis, that the human trait of "morality" is a byproduct of evolutionary adaptations that focused on self-preservation. There is recent research that suggests that behaviors we humans normally label "altruistic" or "self-sacrifice" or "compassion" are just differing ways organisms employ to ensure the survival of their genetic lines. Along the same lines it can be argued that the "hard wired morality" people may be born with is a psychological by product of psychological adaptations needed to insure survival. Indeed, if people did not have this hard wired moral compass, the strongest will kill all others and genetic diversity [a key component to species' evolutionary viability] suffers. At the most basic, morality can be summed up in self-serving terms--"Do unto others what you want them to do unto you" can easily be interpreted as a clever insurance policy; I forego harming you to incentivize you from harming me.
There's definitely 2 sides to every coin but it all boils down to belief.