o many, that Hume and others started to apply it to all human knowledge and understanding. Kant was also excited, but could not remain blind to the ridicules paradoxes of that kind of philosophy, its incapability to answer certain questions, particularly, how it is that contingent world of experience allows apodictic laws of science and pure mathematical certainty, how experience itself can be possible without presupposing the unity of apperception, etc.
Kant surely appreciated empirical knowledge and even set the limitations for pure reason, which made him awake for empiricists. But they could not forgive Kant serious speculation on any possible valid knowledge about "the freedom of the will, the immortality of the soul, and the existence of God "(A798). They loved Kant's confession that "it is humiliating for human reason that it accomplishes nothing in its pure use ... "(A795), but hated his" final aim to which in the end the speculation of reason in its transcendental use is directed ... "(A798). So they went ad hominem and claimed that Kant was " returning comfortably to that sleep".
Kant's argument for God's existence is based on the validity for reason of the ideas of happiness, worthiness, freedom, and purpose. All those are applicable to the sensual world in a certain sense, but form moral laws which transcend its causality. The moral laws command us to freely choose certain actions in the world which would make us worthy of happiness desired by us. " Do that through which you will become worthy to be happy " (A809) .
Appealing "to the moral judgment of every human being "Kant says:" Pure reason thus contains - not in its speculative use, to be sure, but yet in a certain practical use, namely the moral use - principles of a possibility of experience, namely of those actions in conformity with moral precepts ... since they command that those actions ought to happen, they must also be able to happen "(A807) He points to the history full of facts of moral behavior making his assertion stronger. "The idea of ​​moral world thus has objective reality, not if it pertained to an object of an intelligible intuition, but as pertaining to the sensible world, although as an object of pure reason in its practical use and a corpus mysticum of the rational beings in it, insofar as their free choice under moral laws has thoroughgoing systematic unity in itself as well as with the freedom of everyone else "(A808.)
The very existence of such presented morality "cannot be cognized through reason if it is grounded merely in nature, but may be hoped for only if it is at the same time grounded on a highest reason , which commands in accordance with moral laws, as at the same time the cause of nature "(A810). Kant calls that idea of ​​such intelligence the ideal of the highest good . Only in this can pure reason find the ground for the practically necessary connection of both elements of the highest derived good, ie, moral world. Thus God and the future life are two presuppositions that pure reason imposes on us in accordance with its principles.
I think that Kant fairly produces his argument for the existence of God and immortality from the observed morality. If this is dogmatic what isn't? Hence the critique of his opponents is unfair. In addition he says in A819: "So fat as practical reason has the right to lead us, we will not hold actions to be obligatory because they are God's commands, but will rather regard them as divine commands because we are internally obligated to them ". For Kant "moral theology is only of immanent use, namely for fulfilling our vocation here in the world by fitting into the system of all ends, nor for fanatically. . . abandoning the guidance of a morally legislative reason. . . . a transcendental use, like the use of mere speculation, must pervert and frustrate the ultimate ends of reason ". So reason is still the judge and its laws are valuable and should not be ignored.
В
