Questions

1. Newman's argument supposes that there is some outside force that is responsible for the existence of morality and conscience. Even if this were so, does this have to be God?

2. Different societies can display remarkably different moral codes. Does this imply that it is in fact societies that are responsible for morality and not God?

3. Sometimes different interpretations of a religious scripture and practice can give rise to conflict. How, in this situation, can God be said to be the source of both conflicting attitudes?

4. Kant's version of the moral argument, although not intended as a proof, still supposes that there is one moral code. How might this argument be defended against the observation that morality seems to differ greatly in various societies?

5. Does the "just deserts" argument prove the necessity of being rewarded for moral actions? Can you think of any other reasons why someone might perform a selfless act such as risking their own life?

6. The argument from morality considers that the existence of morality is proof of something "higher". However, there are other "higher" faculties which we might claim "proved" the existence of God (such as reason or an appreciation of beauty), but is the idea of God necessary as a cause of any of them?

History

Cardinal Newman in his Grammar of Assent (1870) argued that the existence of a conscience as a guiding part of our mind pointed to a source of morality outside of us. From Newman's viewpoint, because our conscience causes us to feel shame when we do wrong and to fear punishment, the necessary object of such fear, and the source of the moral code itself, is God.

A more complicated version of this argument was put forward by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) who argued that the moral law existed as an objective reality. Although not intended as a proof for the existence of God, Kant argued that human beings felt a duty - what he termed a categorical imperative - to act in accordance with this moral code.

Others have argued from what is termed the "just deserts" standpoint, claiming that the idea of God is necessary in order to make sense of why people don't just simply act in whatever way they see fit. John Hick, in his book Arguments for the existence of God, argues that such acts as sacrificing one's life to save another do not make sense unless we suppose that there is some reward - either now, or after death in some form of afterlife.

Summary

The moral argument states that the existence of God must be supposed in order to account for the fact that human beings have developed moral codes. From this point of view, the very idea that there is such a thing as a conscience which influences us to behave unselfishly argues for the existence of something which created it. The moral argument therefore argues that this source is God himself.