Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:40:24.585Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Faith without hope is dead: moral arguments and the theological virtues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2020

RORY LAWRENCE PHILLIPS*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University College London, Gower Street, WC1E 6BT, UK

Abstract

It is well-known that Kant defends a conception of God and the final end of our moral striving, called the highest good. In this article, I outline Kant's argument for why we ought to have faith in God and hope for the highest good, and argue that the Kantian argument can be extended in such a way as to show the unity of the theological virtues. This feature of the Kantian account can then have ramifications in further questions regarding the relationship of faith and moral action.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aquinas, St Thomas (1947) Summa Theologiae, Fathers of the English Dominican Province (trs) (London: Benziger Brothers).Google Scholar
Benatar, David (2006) Better Never to Have Been (Oxford: Oxford University Press).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296422.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blöser, Claudia & Stahl, Titus (2017) ‘Fundamental hope and practical identity’, Philosophical Papers, 46, 345371.10.1080/05568641.2017.1400918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boden, Margaret A. (1966) ‘Optimism’, Philosophy, 41, 291303.10.1017/S0031819100058848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chignell, Andrew (2013a) ‘Prolegomena to any future non-doxastic religion’, Religious Studies, 49, 195207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chignell, Andrew (2013b) ‘Rational hope, moral order, and the revolution of the will’, in Watkins, Eric (ed.) Divine Order, Human Order, and the Order of Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 197218.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199934409.003.0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chignell, Andrew (2014) ‘Rational hope, possibility, and divine action’, in Michalson, Gordon E. (ed.) Kant's Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: A Critical Guide (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 98117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalferth, Ingolf (2013) ‘Rational hope, possibility, and divine action’, in Michalson, Gordon E. (ed.) Kant's Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: A Critical Guide (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 5879.Google Scholar
Davis, Stephen T. (1993) Risen Indeed (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans).Google Scholar
Dietz, Alex (2016) ‘What we together ought to do’, Ethics, 126, 955982.10.1086/686002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagleton, Terry (2015) Hope Without Optimism (New Haven CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Elliot, David (2017) Hope and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, David (2006) ‘Agency schmagency: why normativity won't come from what is constitutive of action’, The Philosophical Review, 115, 169198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, M. Jamie (2014) ‘Hope, virtue, and the postulate of God: a reappraisal of Kant's pure practical rational belief’, Religious Studies, 50: 326.10.1017/S0034412512000509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fugate, Courtney (2014) ‘The highest good and Kant's proof(s) of God's existence’, History of Philosophy Quarterly, 31, 137158.Google Scholar
Gardner, Sebastian (2006) ‘The primacy of practical reason’, in Bird, Graham (ed.) A Companion to Kant (Indianapolis IN: Blackwell), 259274.10.1002/9780470996287.ch18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gava, Gabriele (2019) ‘Kant and Crusius on belief and practical justification’, Kantian Review, 24, 5375.10.1017/S1369415418000523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul (2005a) ‘From nature to morality: Kant's new argument in the “Critique of Teleological Judgement” ’, in Kant's System of Nature and Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 314342.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273461.003.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul (2005b) ‘The unity of nature and freedom: Kant's conception of the system of philosophy’, in Kant's System of Nature and Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 277313.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273461.003.0012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, John (1996) The Moral Gap (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Hare, John (2005) ‘Kant on the rational instability of atheism’, in Dole, Andrew & Chignell, Andrew (eds) God and the Ethics of Belief: New Essays in Philosophy of Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 202218.10.1017/CBO9780511499166.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, Max Khan (2018) ‘Immoral realism’, Philosophical Studies, 176, 897914.10.1007/s11098-018-1218-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Insole, Christopher (2016) The Intolerable God (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans).Google Scholar
Jay, Christopher (2014) ‘The Kantian moral hazard argument for religious fictionalism’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 75, 207232.10.1007/s11153-013-9435-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, Anne (2017) ‘Does hope morally vindicate faith?’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 81, 193211.10.1007/s11153-016-9603-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1992 [1781/1787]) Critique of Pure Reason, Guyer, Paul & Wood, Allen (trs) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996a) Practical Philosophy, Gregor, Mary (tr.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996b) Religion and Rational Theology, di Giovanni, George & Wood, Allen (trs) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).10.1017/CBO9780511814433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2000) Critique of the Power of Judgement, Guyer, Paul & Matthews, Eric (trs) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).10.1017/CBO9780511804656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, Anthony (1963) Action, Emotion, and Will (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline (2016) ‘Kant on “good”, the good, and the duty to promote the highest good’, in Höwing, Thomas (ed.) The Highest Good in Kant's Philosophy (Berlin: De Gruyter) 3349.10.1515/9783110369007-006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine (1996a) Creating the Kingdom of Ends (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine (1996b) The Sources of Normativity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luther, Martin (1953 [1535]) Commentary on Galatians, Middleton, Erasmus (tr.), Watson, P. S. (ed.) (London: James Clarke).Google Scholar
Michalson, Gordon E. Jr (1999) Kant and the Problem of God (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
Palmquist, Stephen (2009) ‘Kant's religious argument for the existence of God: the ultimate dependence of human destiny on divine assistance’, Faith and Philosophy, 26, 322.10.5840/faithphil20092611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paytas, Tyler (2017) ‘God's awful majesty before our eyes: Kant's moral justification for divine hiddenness’, Kantian Review, 22, 133157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, Curtis H. (1993) Kant's Philosophy of Hope (New York: Peter Lang).Google Scholar
Pieper, Josef (1969) Hope and History, Winston, Richard & Winston, Clara (trs) (London: Burns & Oates).Google Scholar
Pieper, Josef (2012 [1977]) ‘On hope’, in Faith, Hope, Love (San Francisco: Ignatius Press).Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, Arthur (1974 [1851]) ‘Additional remarks on the doctrine of the suffering of the world’, in Parerga and Paralipomena, II, Payne, E. J. F. (tr.) (Oxford: Clarendon).Google Scholar
Schrader, Michael & Levine, Michael P. (2019) ‘Hope: the Janus-faced virtue (with feathers)’, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 11, 1130.10.24204/ejpr.v11i3.2935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Matthew (2015) ‘The schmagency question’, Philosophical Studies, 172, 11271142.10.1007/s11098-014-0340-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheatley, J. M. O. (1958) ‘Wishing and hoping’, Analysis, 18, 121131.10.1093/analys/18.6.121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Allen W. (2008) Kantian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar