For instance, greed is a great example of a corrupted morality.

How can such an awareness be converted into full-fledged belief inGod? One way of doing this would be to help the person gain theskills needed to recognize moral laws as what they are, asdivine commands or divine laws. If moral laws are experienced,then moral experience could be viewed as a kind of religious experienceor at least a proto-religious experience. Perhaps someone who hasexperience of God in this way does not need a moral argument (or anykind of argument) to have a reasonable belief in God. This may beone instance of the kind of case that Alvin Plantinga (2000) and the“Reformed epistemologists” have in mind when they claimthat belief in God can be “properly basic.” It isworth noting then that there could be such a thing as knowledge of Godthat is rooted in moral experience without that knowledge being theresult of a moral argument.

The Moral Life of Babies - The New York Times

The concept of morality identifies what is to be done and why it is done in certain ways.

History Of Morality Play Return To Main Page

We must consider the more realistic considerations of the non-callous, beginning with Benjamin Franklin in an essay of 1766 called "The Encouragement of Idleness":

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.

Moralities of Everyday Life | Coursera

What is interesting in this example may be the belief through much of history, which has not vanished even in the present, that lending money at is immoral.

This creates questions about what types of relationships between people are moral.

Scandal | Definition of Scandal by Merriam-Webster

In any case it is not clear that practical moral arguments canalways be clearly distinguished from theoretical moral arguments. The reason this is so is that in many cases the practical situationdescribed seems itself to be or involve a kind of evidence for thetruth of the belief being justified. Take, for example,Kant's classic argument. One thing Kant's argumentdoes is call to our attention that it would be enormously odd tobelieve that human beings are moral creatures subject to an objectivemoral law, but also to believe that the universe that humans inhabit isindifferent to morality. In other words, the existence of humanpersons understood as moral beings can itself be understood as a pieceof evidence about the character of the universe humans find themselvesin. Peter Byrne (2013, 1998) has criticized practical arguments onthe grounds that they presuppose something like the followingproposition: “The world is likely to be organized so as tomeet our deepest human needs.” Byrne objects that this premise islikely to be false if there is no God and thus arguments that assume itappear circular. However, it is not clear that only those whoalready believe in God will find this premise attractive. Thereason for this is that humans are themselves part of the naturaluniverse, and it seems a desirable feature of a metaphysical view thatit explain (rather than explain away) features of human existence thatseem real and important.

Blue and Orange Morality - TV Tropes

Perhaps the right way to think of practical moral arguments is notto see them as justifying belief without evidence, but as shifting theamount of evidence seen as necessary. This is the lesson somewould draw from the phenomenon of “pragmatic encroachment”that has been much discussed in recent epistemology. Here is anexample of pragmatic encroachment:

The Moral Instinct - New York Times

This reply raises an issue that must be faced by all forms ofpractical or pragmatic arguments for belief. Many philosophersinsist that rational belief must be grounded solely in theoreticalevidence. The fact that it would be better for me to believe pdoes not in itself give me any reason to believe p. Thiscriticism is aimed not merely at Kant, but at other practical moralarguments. For example, Robert Adams argues that if humansbelieve there is no moral order to the universe, then they will becomedemoralized in their pursuit of morality, which is morally undesirable(1987, 151). The atheist might concede that atheism is (somewhat)demoralizing, but deny that this provides any reason to believe thereis a moral order to the universe. Similarly, Linda Zagzebski(1987) argues that morality will not be a rational enterprise unlessgood actions increase the amount of good in the world. However,given that moral actions often involve the sacrifice of happiness,there is no reason to believe moral action will increase the goodunless there is a power transcendent of human activity working on theside of the good. Here the atheist may claim that moral actiondoes increase the good because such actions always increase goodcharacter. However, even if that reply fails the atheist mayagain simply admit that there may be something tragic or absurd aboutthe human condition, and the fact that we may wish things weredifferent is not a reason to believe that they are. So theproblem must be faced: Are practical arguments merelyrationalized wish-fulfillment?