[split] Theistic VS Naturalistic morality

[fr0d0]

1. We already covered the proposition VOID.

And I reject the presupposition. Morality can be rational and unjust, the utilitarian moral theories all have a rational morality that is not contingent upon ultimate justice.

Of course you reject real morality... you can't embrace it for the reason demonstrated here... ie: that there cannot be one without God.

I was referring to Kant's own comments on his argument, it only requires that there is justice bought to the universe in a life after this one, it does not necessitate that a God is the being who brings the justice.

That's splitting hairs. Yeah sure other supernatural executors of justice produce the same effect. So what?

4. This in no way removes responsibility in this life. That's a bare accusation with no link here.

Sorry, I meant to be more clear. It removes the necessity for justice in this life. That being, if one wants justice then justice must necessarily be dealt in this life and any justice that is not issued is justice failed.

Justice is failed mostly. We don't have the knowledge to be absolutely just as a supernatural entity would, and therefore justice is rarely served. And for the purpose of Kant's model, we have no rational purpose to be moral in the highest form of morality. We're moral to a limited extent where humans profit over justice.