The moral argument only 'works' in the framework of practical reason. Critically discuss the meaning and implications of this claim.
             Immanuel Kant was instrumental in demolishing the traditional philosophical arguments for God's existence. In Critique of Pure Reason (1781) ,his first major work, this is exactly what he did. Kant developed his own argument for God's existence a few years later in his second major work The Critique of Practical Reason (1788). He later published the Critique of Judgement (1790) which dealt with the problem concerning the validity and characteristics of aesthetic judgements as well as the general problem of the apparent purposiveness of nature, and the problems arising from a presumed necessity of applying teleological concepts in biology. These three texts are the major works of Kant's critical period. Kant deciphers his ethical questions by examining a person's motivation for performing an act regardless of the consequences. A person who utilizes the Kantian view believes that the only pure good is pure human reason without consequences. This pure human reason works without the influence of human emotions and desires. A truly good act as defined by Kant is performed because of an obligation to the categorical imperative. Kant argued that there exists a universal sense of moral obligation. This sense of 'ought' points towards an objective moral law, which basis can only be the supreme being or God. The categorical imperative basically states that an act is moral if, and only if, I should always act in such a way that I am able at the same time to will that the maxim of my action be a universal law of nature. Kant grounded his philosophy in the moral realm and saw God as the core of this morality. Using the moral area he proceeded to show that humans were not only sense-based creatures but also moral. Humans have an innate sense of what they 'ought' ...