RE: Why is Kant's practical reason for God wrong?
October 22, 2013 at 7:22 am
(This post was last modified: October 22, 2013 at 7:25 am by bennyboy.)
Hmmmm. . . I haven't read Kant, so I can only respond to your interpretation.
-not getting your teeth kicked in by the people you've mistreated
-making friends so when your barn is on fire, they'll come put it out
-convincing a woman to let you fertilize her eggs by making her trust and love you
-non-theistic ideals about a perfect world in which people aren't dicks all the time
-human nature
Quote:If there were no God, there would be no reason to be good because it would never bring happiness.This premise is wrong, almost word for word. First of all, it defines morality as a vehicle for seeking happiness, which is too narrow a definition; morality is behavior focused toward some good goal, but it doesn't have to be happiness. Second, there is no reason to feel that there's a God who wants to make us happy; it's perfectly possible that life's a bitch, and then you die. Creating an entity because that entity is required for your wish fulfillment is a comment only on your wishes, not on the possible existence of that entity.
Quote:He claims that this type of reasoning is practical because if there were no God, there would be no reason to be good.False. There are lots of reasons to behave morally without God:
-not getting your teeth kicked in by the people you've mistreated
-making friends so when your barn is on fire, they'll come put it out
-convincing a woman to let you fertilize her eggs by making her trust and love you
-non-theistic ideals about a perfect world in which people aren't dicks all the time
-human nature
