[split] Theistic VS Naturalistic morality

[theVOID]

I don't believe justice is really attainable.

Of course it is, just not always, or even most of the time really.

We have to make do with the lesser of many evils and that's about the best we can get the way I see it. Since I consider even punishment to the commiter of a horrible crime as a 'lesser evil', but a necessary one usually. Because: I don't believe in 'desert' (as in 'just deserts') in philosophy, since I do not believe in free will so it makes no sense whatsoever to me. No one ever really 'deserves' anything good or bad. It's just nicer to experience pleasure and not so nice to suffer. And those who cause suffering to others may need to be dealt with (preferably humanely) so they don't do so in future - desert shouldn't come into it at all in my view.

As someone who believes in caused will (deterministic or not) should you not acknowledge that knowledge of a deterrent is a real causal factor and is highly effective, the deterrent (in this case punishment) must be real and substantial in order to work as a significant deterrent when make decisions later.

Since the deterrent can be taken into account during the decision making process along with all of the other causal factors, the outcome is more likely to be law abiding.

So the deterrent (punishment) becomes not a lesser of two evils, but one of the most useful tools in creating moral states to begin with.