Kant’s “Moral Proof”: Defense and Implications

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Kant’s “moral proof” for the existence of God has been the subject of much criticism, even among his most sympathetic commentators. According to the critics, the primary problem is that the notion of the “highest good,” on which the moral proof depends, introduces an element of contingency and heteronomy into Kant’s otherwise strict, autonomy-based moral thinking. In this paper, I shall argue that Kant’s moral proof is not only more defensible than commentators have typically acknowledged, but also has some very interesting implications (e.g. the moral proof is “circular” and thus implicitly self-validating). My account shall proceed in five stages: 1. Preliminary Discussion of the Moral Proof 2. the Argument of the Moral Proof 3. Critics of the Moral Proof 4. Defense of the Moral Proof 5. Implications of the Moral Proof: Circularity and Self-referentiality.”
Reprint years
2000, 2001
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
First archival date: 2019-05-14
Latest version: 1 (2019-11-06)
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
135 ( #40,918 of 65,622 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
18 ( #39,478 of 65,622 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.