Q&A: The Proof from Morality
The Proof from Morality
Question
You wrote in The First Being that Kant needs God in order to establish the standard for good and evil, but not in order to ensure that the good is actually carried out in practice.
After reading the whole chapter, I didn’t understand where this standard is found. Do you mean looking inward into one’s conscience? After all, you rejected that completely.
And likewise, what would happen if through some kind of propaganda the whole world came to support murder—would the standard of good and evil change?
I’m really looking forward to an answer. Thanks for everything.
Answer
That’s not what I wrote there. In fact, I wrote the opposite. I wrote that the definition of good and evil is objective and empirical (in the eyes of moral reason, conscience). The binding force that obligates us to act accordingly requires God. See also Column 457. It is indeed true that in practice people can behave morally even if they do not believe in God (contrary to the common preaching of religious “morality” people, who rely on the verse, “Surely there is no God in this place, and they will kill me”), but that has one of two explanations: 1. They simply want to do so (it feels good to be moral). That is not moral behavior. 2. They are confused, meaning they hold a self-contradictory position. That means either that they are not moral, or that they are covert believers (see Column 456).
If there were propaganda that confused people and caused them to think that murder is good, that is exactly like propaganda that caused them to think that 2+3 = 14.2. So what is the question?
Discussion on Answer
Who told you that what you see actually exists? Maybe that too is propaganda. Who told you that the principle of causality is not a product of propaganda? These are skeptical musings that there is no point in dealing with.
Everything is correct and understandable. I was asking about your very claim that good and evil are empirical. Maybe we are under propaganda that says murder is bad—what is the proof that murder is empirically bad?