Student’s Name

Instructor

Course

Date

Introduction to Philosophy Final exam

Prompt 1: Moral arguments for God’s Existence

The goal of the theist argument is to provide proof that God exists by providing

reasonable premises that cannot be doubted about the existence of God. The moral argument is

one of the most used argument to prove God’s existence. A moral argument must provide

objective moral facts, which they can prove that God is the explanation as to why the moral facts

exist, therefore proving that God exists. The most influential moral argument for God’s existence

is the Kantian argument who claimed postulated a rational theory claiming God as a “postulate

of practical reason” (Evans par. 11). His moral theory stipulates that moral virtue is the primary

condition for true happiness and that the moral virtue and happiness constitute the highest good.

In that the rational moral being should amount to the “highest good” (Ibid). This end of “the

highest good” is sought through moral alignments and to successfully achieve this end, a person

must believe that the enabling constructions of nature are necessary for them to achieve the

highest good; this is equal to the belief in Supernatural good power, which is God.

Kant’s moral argument does not conclude that God probably exists or that god indeed

exists, it stipulates that human beings or the moral agents should believe that God exists. The

structure of the argument follows the argument that humans are morally obligated to live their
lives according to the moral law. Therefore morality is not necessarily happiness, instead it is

about its worthiness for happiness. To achieve morality, the individual must accept their duty to

obey the outright imperative. Moral duty is a central idea in Kant’s argument in that morality is

achieved if the individual does the actions are done to fulfil moral duty and not for personal

happiness (Palmquist 8). Practically all moral actions are not led by the consequences or rewards

but rather are determined by the maxims on which they are based. Thus if the action is done for

the achievement of individual pleasures then it cannot be categorized as a moral action. However

it should be noted that all moral actions are aimed at the “highest good” end which comprises of

the maximization of virtual and happiness in which happiness is conditioned by virtue

(Palmquist 7). Therefore moral perfection must be achievable, but in the constructions of human

beings it seems to be unachievable in this life. This implies that the rational moral self must

outlive death and can only do so if God exists. Therefore a rational moral being must believe in

God.

I agree with the Kantian argument based on the fact that it emphasizes on the moral duty

to do what is morally right and differentiates it from the desire from individual rewards. This can

be interpreted as the duty to do good which is equivalent to the duty to obey the good God. In

Kant’s argument, morality requires the individual to forego their own happiness for the sake of

doing what is good. It make sense that such convictions to do what is right even when it costs

you your own happiness are similar to the convictions to believe in a greater supernatural power.

Though critics may find fault in the argument in that it does not offer a solid proof that God

exists, it is indeed a practical reasoning upon which we can conclude that moral beings must

believe that God exists. Perhaps, its should be noted that moral arguments do not offer an
absolute proof that God exists but instead justify the belief by increasing the amount of evidence

to prove that God exists.

Prompt 2. The existence of God is not Consistence with the existence of Evil (theodicy)

Does the problem of evil arise from the existence of God? Philosophers have for years

argued out this questions with some claiming that the evil is a product of existence of good. The

problem of relating the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being with the

existence of evil is known as Theodicy. It is often confusing when you think there is one

supreme deity with all the evil in the world. Theodicy is therefore a product of the

inconsistencies in thought or the idea that God who is all-powerful is the creator of the universe

with all its contents including the evil. Though it is impossible to measure the amount of evil

present in the world, it is general knowledge that evil exists. This essay will attempt to explain

that the existence of God is not consistent with the existence of evil based on the Hebrew deity

who is considered to be an all-perfect god among the Christians and the creator of the universe.

The existence of evil is not a result of existence of God but is rather a product of man’s

free will. Often people question how an all-knowing God can create humans knowing that they

are capable of committing evil deeds. Thus people are compelled to believe that evil exists only

because there is no such omnipresent and omnipotent deity. Others associate the existence of

rules from the deity to evil in that the presence of the deity who demands that human to shun evil

is the causal of the evil in the first place. However, according to St. Augustine, a Christian

philosopher, “Humans are free and Humans have fallen because they are as children”

(Couenhoven 279). St. Augustine separates the free will of humans or the causal of evil from the

existence of God, in that the existence of God has nothing to do with the evil in the world. He

gives the Hebrew example of creation in which after creation, the world was generally devoid of
evil but man’s free will led him to committing the first evil which is referred to as the

disobedience in the Garden of Eden (QCC par. 3). This implies that evil in the world is a result

of human’s free will and guidance from Satan which absolves the supreme power from

propagation of evil.

However it is questionable as to why God created man with free will instead of creating a

staunch man that is not capable of committing sin. However, it should be noted that by creating

such a man, it would be akin to creating a pet and restrict it in a cage. The existence of evil has

its purpose in the world and is generally associated with soul making. In this thought, the evil is a

not an end but a means to an end in which God is able to distinguish between his true followers

and the spiritually weak beings (QCC, par. 5). According to John Hick, a religion philosopher

and the author of the essay “Evil and Soul Making” the relationship between God and man is

akin to that of a parent and a child in that the parents brings forth their offspring through

conception or birth. Then the parent must teach the child to differentiate between good and bad

but the ultimate decision to do good or bad lies with the child. Therefore the wrong decisions a

child makes cannot be attributed to the existence of the parents but is a rather a consequence of

the child’s actions. In this case the existence of a greater all-good deity cannot be associated with

the existence of evil.

Prompt 3 Arguments against free will

The determinist argument against free will is one of the most famous arguments against

free will. It posits that “everything humans do is caused by forces over which they have no

control over.” (CSU par. 4). In this case if we have no control over what we do then it can be

said that we do not act freely but instead our actions are pre-determined by forces that we cannot

control. The determinist theory underscores the scientific and philosophical nature of human
reasoning and uses these explanations to come up with the conclusions that humans do not have

free will.

I do not agree with this argument since it postulates that human free will is an illusion. I

believe in the Kantian philosophy about freedom and goodness. Human actions are not pre-

determined in any way and humans are free to act as they wish. However, they have to bear the

consequences of their actions or reap from their actions. The general codes of ethics for instance

assume that we can choose between right and wrong but our actions will determine the outcome.

Either way we have to bear the consequences of our actions. the belief that life is predetermined

and that every actions is pre-ordained contradicts the Christian tradition of moral liberty in which

the people are given the power to do good or bad (Cave Par 3). In the Hebrew doctrine when

man was created and place in the Garden of Eden, God gave them the ability to choose between

doing right and wrong. But when man chose to do wrong he was thrown away from the garden.

This is a depiction that even the supernatural deities have no control over human actions, but can

only determine if what has been done is morally right or wrong. The determinist argument does

not further explain who ordains the human action and who or what gives them the power to

control our actions. By suggesting that the human actions are predetermined the argument ought

to explain who has the power to determine the human actions and what power they poses over

humans.

Another reason I do not agree with the argument is because it contradicts the nature-

nature debate. It is commonly accepted that a child will uphold the principles they are taught

from a young age as they grow. In case the child will act according to the way he was taught and

not in a way that they cannot control their actions. Human beings are rational beings and will do

things to maximize pleasure or will act according to the corresponding law or the corresponding
doctrines. For instance, if a person decides to donate to a certain charity every year, this is their

decision and has not been influenced by any unseen force. If there are such forces that pre-

determine the human actions then democracy would lose meaning since the said force would

impose a leader on the people. Free will cannot therefore be an illusion since human beings in

philosophical and religious situations are free beings who make independent choices and reap

from or face the consequences of their actions.

I think most people are right in thinking they have free will. It is sometimes thought that

people do not have free will because they have to adhere to specific doctrines laws or notions of

the society. For instance it is believed that a person from China will behave differently from

people from the western world due to forces above our control that compel the people to act

differently. However, this argument fails to understand that everyone has the choice to conform

to the societal norms or behave in their chosen behaviors.

Prompt 4: Difference between right and wrong

It is common that some people do not understand whether there is a line between right

and wrong. It is also not a surprise that others believe that there is no such a line between right

and wrong. If confronted by such a person who believes that there is no difference between right

and wrong its best to argue in the lines of morality. However, morality is ambiguous since

something moral in one community is totally unacceptable in another community. For instance

the moral obligations for children towards their parents in the western world is totally different

from the children’s responsibilities in the East Asian countries specifically China. Still some

ethical considerations are common across the world, for instance it is common ethics to respect

other people’s right to life and therefore killing a fellow human is seen as wrong thing unless it is

done to save the lives of others or for certain exceptions. Often we hear people talk about moral
decay in the modern world. Moreover, ethical decay has become synonymous with everyday

media news. Then how can there be no difference between right and wrong when we are so

quick to point out an action that is wrong.

I would argue that there is a clear line between right and wrong in regards to moral

obligations. I would argue that right and wrong are not just dictated by religion or the law but

rather is derived from pure reason. The moral law is binding to everyone no matter whether the

person wants to be a moral person or an immoral individual. The fact the humans have shared

public spaces and even the private spaces are mostly shared between family and friends, it makes

sense that humans have the oral conviction to do right. For instance, children between 2 and 5

years often show moral-based behaviors suggesting an inner conviction to do what is morally

right. Take the case of Mercy who sees Trevor take a toy from Doty’s hands the n mercy says,

“Trevor, you a going to get in trouble.” At this point Mercy a three-year old understands that it is

not right for Trevor to take something from someone without their permission. It is also common

that children in this age depict empathy-based guilt which also suggests an understanding of right

and wrong. For instance if Trevor above sees Doty unhappy because her toy was snatched from

her, Trevor will feel sad that he upset Doty. This therefore demonstrates an inner conviction that

drives an individual towards what is morally good even before the exposure to religion or the

common law.

My argument proves that there is a clear line that separate wrong from right by

demonstrating that humans are morally obligated to do what is right. It shows that it is human

nature to act according to a maxim that does not contradict the widely accepted law. A maxim in

this case is a binding rule or action which dictates that the universal law must be adhered to in

similar situations. For instance an individual can make it their maxim to treat others with utmost
respect. The maxim is not based on any law or religion but a personal conviction to do what is

right for the person. This case this argument shows that the difference between right and wrong

is the personal convictions or internal reason. The individual has inner reason which gives them

the intellect to differentiate between right and wrong. In my argument right and wrong are not

defined by the law or justice it is what a person’s inner morality defines as right or wrong.
 Work Cited

Cave, Steven. “There’s no such thing as free will.” The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-

will/480750/

CCUS. Edu. “Chapter 8 The Case against Free Will.”

https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/intro/free%20will.htm

Couenhoven, Jesse. "Augustine's rejection of the free-will defence: an overview of the late

Augustine's theodicy." Religious Studies 43.3 (2007): 279-298.

Evans, C. Stephen. "Moral arguments for the existence of God." (2014).

Palmquist, Stephen R. "Kant’s religious argument for the existence of God: The ultimate

dependence of human destiny on divine assistance." Faith and Philosophy 26.1 (2009):

3-22.

Queens borough Community College (QCC). “Philosophy of Religion: Chapter 6. The problem

of Evil.” https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/

CHAPTER_6_PROBLEM_of_EVIL/Theodicy.htm