[split] Theistic VS Naturalistic morality

[theVOID]

Your reality is morality based on injustice, which isn't really worth much. "Life is unfair... live with it".
It's rational to you to be unjust and your world is a poor place. Morality worth a bean is only rational should justice be meted. This life is worth so much more assuming God (or something the same as God ...dur) and this is solid, undeniable proof of that.

That's bullshit fr0d0, my morality is not based on injustice at all, it is based on the relationships between desires and as such a moral action is one that promotes more desires than it thwarts. There is nothing unjust about this in any way. Morality is not about attaining ultimate justice for all action, it is about promoting good actions and condemning bad actions in order to create a better life.

Life is unfair, so what? This is a reality that needs to be accounted for. There is nothing admirable about ignoring it or passing it off to some imaginary entity.

Life becomes no more valuable 'assuming' anything, the values that exist are independent of our assumptions about life and the events that take place in it. We experience the same reality and have the same applied morality regardless of what assumptions we make, Kant was quick to acknowledge that, as are most theistic ethicists.

You're clutching at straws in trying to move to different aspects of morality. I'm not fooled. "Where does morality come from"? Our rationalisation for our actions.

You've just demonstrated once again that you don't have the fuzziest clue about the debates in ethics. Nobody defends the idea that morality is a simple rationalisation for action, morality is a standard by which our actions are judged.

Prove to me how morality and justice aren't connected.

Easy. It is immoral to rape a child even if justice will never be done. What does justice add to it? Absolutely nothing. We would all like justice to be done in all circumstances, but that simply isn't the case. We have our ideals of justice and use this justice and the punishment it will bring as a deterrent, but justice being done is not necessary for a decision to be considered moral or immoral.

"Moral behaviour, Kant is adamant, is rational behaviour; we have good reason to be moral. This is a fundamental principle of morality: if you ought to do something then you have a reason to do it. It makes no sense to say “I see that I ought to give money to charity, but I have no reason to.” If we ought to do something then that is a reason to do it. What is more, a moral reason is always a stronger reason for doing something than any other reason. If we have a moral reason to do a thing, and another reason not to do it, then rationally speaking we ought to do it. Moral behaviour is always rational."

I agree with that part entirely, what I disagree with is the idea that morality can only be rational if justice is done. Morality is a standard by which action is assessed, an action is deemed to be moral or immoral based on a moral theory. If morality is divine command then whatever god commands is whatever morality is, if morality is the relationship between desires and a state of affairs then morality is the assessment of action based on this standard. Justice is desired in both but only absolute in the former.

This isn't rational if you assume no God and no justice, I agree. But that isn't the point here. The point here is how this morality works being based on justice. Yeah to you it's nonsense, purely because you lose before you start.

Morality is NOT contingent upon justice. Justice is DESIRED not REQUIRED.

How does it help someone without a faith in justice in an afterlife? Not at all. You deny how a person's decisions would be altered. I've got to tell you... a person of faith looks at decisions completely differently. It's quite straightforwardly laid out here and I can't see how you can't see that. I know you don't want to, and it proves to be a tangible loss for your world view, but it's a clear fact.

Yes, you fear the judgement of one more entity than i do, that doesn't in any way change the content of moral decisions. I may conclude differently than you upon certain issues, though i don't know of anything that you would consider immoral that i would not (except for blasphemy perhaps), and vice verse, but in any other case our moral conclusions remain the same.

You may think that rape is wrong because God would condemn it, or because it's not in his nature where i consider it wrong because it thwarts more and stronger desires than it promotes, but the conclusion is the same.

For me, divinely inspired morality actually is rational and quite superior to naturalistic morality. The whole thrust of my faith is for a reason which is superior to the reasoning without it. That's why I do it. It makes sense. In the real world, here, now, my actual moral system is the best it can be.

You have yet to demonstrate that you are more moral in practice. Kant would slap you in the face for the assertion, it was something he was very explicit about. His objection was not at all to the moral standards of the non-believer, but the idea that these moral standards could arise without the divine. Yet we have non-theistic objective morality that is fully consistent with our moral feelings and conclusions none the less. God is not required to establish the truth of moral propositions.

You really need to do some basic reading on meta-ethics, you seem to have no understanding of all what the debate actually is.