The Irreducible Importance of Religious Hope in Kant's Conception of the Highest Good

Philosophy ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Insole

AbstractKant is clear that the concept of the ‘highest good’ involves both a demand, that we follow the moral law, as well as a promise, that happiness will be the outcome of being moral. The latter element of the highest good has troubled commentators, who tend to find it metaphysically extravagant, involving, as it does, belief in God and an afterlife. Furthermore, it seems to threaten the moral purity that Kant demands: that we obey the moral law for its own sake, not out of interest in the consequences. Those commentators brave enough to tackle the issue look to the concept of the highest good either to add content to the moral law (Silber), or to provide rational motivation, in a way that does not violate moral purity (Beiser and Wood). I argue that such interpretations, although they may be plausible reconstructions, are unable to account for certain conceptual and textual problems. By placing Kant's thought against the background of medieval theology, I argue that the hope for the summum bonum is irreducibly important for Kant, even where its function is not that of providing the content or motivational force of the moral law. Kant is not only concerned with the shape of our duties and motivations, but the shape of the universe within which these emerge.

Philosophy ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 82 (3) ◽  
pp. 381-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Kenny

AbstractIs belief in God reasonable? Richard Dawkins is right to say that traditional arguments for the existence of God are flawed; but so is his own disproof of the existence of God, and there are gaps in neo-Darwinian explanations of the origin of language, of life, and of the universe. The rational response is neither theism nor atheism but agnosticism. Faith in a creed is no virtue, but mere belief in God may be reasonable even if false.


2020 ◽  
pp. 354-380
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Insole

The chapter argues that we can construe the relationship between Kant’s account of the moral law and God as a type of concurring moral dependence, on the basis of formal causation, such that the very activity of willing the moral law is a type of participation in the uncreated divine mind. In the end, morality does require divinity, and, even, a (carefully specified) type of divine activity, albeit that we do not arrive at this commitment through a traditional acceptance of the categories of revelation and faith. It is argued that there is a defensible sense of the notion of ‘divinity’ that Kant can be said to have warrant to believe in, given his assumptions about freedom, although it is a rather different sort of divinity from the ‘divine being’ of philosophical (let alone Christian) theism. I suggest that in his final fragmentary writings, Kant might be said to show some awareness of this. This interpretation throws a new light on Kant’s conception of the Kingdom of Ends, whereby the happiness that constitutes the highest good can be construed as an enactment of divinity, through willing the moral law, rather than the contemplation of a divine being.


2005 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 33-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lara Denis

Kant conceives of moral agents as autonomous, capable of motivating themselves to act on a self-given rule of reason, independently of – and even against – their inclinations. Moreover, Kant's moral theory tells agents to realize their autonomy, by striving to do what is right for its own sake. It is because of Kant's emphasis on autonomy that his notion of the highest good has been a topic of controversy. From Kant's time onward, commentators have suspected that the highest good, which promises virtuous agents happiness proportionate to their goodness, introduces heteronomy into morality. The standard response to this concern is that critics have misunderstood the relationship of the highest good to the agent's will: it is an object, not a spring, of moral action. This is a valid response to some articulations of the objection. But it does not adequately address the version that interests me: the charge that belief in God as the guarantor of happiness proportionate to virtue plays an inappropriate motivational role in Kant's moral theory. Kant appears to say that without belief in a God who will make the virtuous happy we would not be motivated to act rightly. This sort of claim seems to conflict with Kant's notion of moral agents as beings who are capable of doing the right thing just because it is right. If this conflict cannot be resolved, Kantians face a dilemma: either weaken the notion of autonomy, or (more likely) weaken the claims about the moral importance of faith in God.


Author(s):  
Menachem Kellner

This chapter shows that the Torah and the Talmud see religious faith in terms of steadfast loyalty and trust which find expression in behaviour, and not in terms solely of intellectual acquiescence in certain propositions. It is this characteristic of classical Judaism which explains why systematic theology and dogma are so foreign to its spirit. To that end, this chapter considers the occurrence of the term emunah in the Torah. In perusing a concordance and examining the verses in context, the chapter asserts that the basic, root meaning of emunah is trust and reliance — not intellectual acquiescence in the truth of certain propositions. From there, the chapter argues that the Torah teaches belief in God, as opposed to beliefs about God. Furthermore, the Torah teaches, occasionally explicitly — more often implicitly — certain beliefs about God, the universe, and human beings; notwithstanding this, the Torah has no systematic theology.


2020 ◽  
pp. 103-123
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Insole

This chapter considers the extent to which Kant’s critical moral philosophy has some traditional theological features. First of all, it is argued that Kant continues to believe in God. Secondly, Kant engages, in the Groundwork, with the search for the ‘unconditioned’, which, in traditional terms, involves searching that which is all-sufficient, stable, true everywhere, freedom-preserving, and harmonious. In line with the traditional search for the highest good (the Summum Bonum), represented in this discussion by Aquinas, Kant does not find this resting place in a range of created and good-to-a-degree realities, such as passions, sensuous inclinations, gifts, and virtues. Allen Wood’s suggestions about the possibility of ‘innocent practical goodness’ are considered and refuted.


Kant-Studien ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 112 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-298
Author(s):  
Georg Geismann

Abstract Time and again, one finds in the literature the view that Kant held a pre-critical or semi-critical moral philosophy in the canon chapter of the Critique of Pure Reason. This is shown, firstly, by the fact that practical freedom is understood as cognized through experience and, secondly, by the fact that Kant not only allows a sensuous incentive for the observance of the moral law, but considers it necessary. Against that, it is argued in this essay that, firstly, moral philosophy as such is not addressed in the canon at all and, secondly, that the canon by no means approves of sensuous incentives with regard to the morally required promotion of the highest good. What is indeed addressed, although only in the second section of the canon, is moral theology.


Kant Yearbook ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-148
Author(s):  
Nataliya Palatnik

AbstractMany Kantians dismiss Kant’s claim that we have a duty to promote the highest good – an ideal world that combines complete virtue with complete happiness – as incompatible with the core of his moral philosophy. This dismissal, I argue, raises doubts about Kant’s ability to justify the moral law, yet it is a mistake. A duty to promote the highest good plays an important role in the justificatory strategy of the Critique of Practical Reason. Moreover, its analysis leads to a new perspective on Kant’s conception of moral objectivity.


Kant Yearbook ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Kahn

AbstractI have two main goals in this paper. The first is to argue for the thesis that Kant gave up on his highest good argument for the existence of God around 1800. The second is to revive a dialogue about this thesis that died out in the 1960s. The paper is divided into three sections. In the first, I reconstruct Kant’s highest good argument. In the second, I turn to the post-1800 convolutes of Kant’s Opus postumum to discuss his repeated claim that there is only one way to argue for the existence of God, a way which resembles the highest good argument only in taking the moral law as its starting point. In the third, I explain why I do not find the counterarguments to my thesis introduced in the 1960s persuasive.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document