[split] Theistic VS Naturalistic morality

[fr0d0]

That's bullshit fr0d0, my morality is not based on injustice at all

Yes your morality is based on injustice, because you accept that justice rarely happens. Of course your morality on the micro level has a solely positive purpose, there is, on the macro level, a huge limitation to that positivity, that would prevent your morality from being effective, and the point of the premise here, is that macro morality (as you seem confused about how to apply it) is only based on justice, and without the supernatural justice enforcer is illogical.

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.

No one is passing off responsibility, that's a red herring. The only reason posthumous justice could be required is if one accepts it as fact. Under or over addressing justice in the now would be equally wrong. This is supplementary to the topic in hand, and something which I hope we'd both agree upon.

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.

If we accept that our ideals will never be met, then what informs our morality is that injustice. Our conclusions have to be based on the reality of that shortfall. When our conclusions are based on perfect morality, then we are motivated to realise that moral standard.

"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.

You always come back to this "command", which externalises God. To you that may be the case, but for Christians God inspires to love and never forces it.

Morality is made perfect factoring in the posthumous supernatural judge. Take away that and morality is flawed because it isn't always the rationally correct solution. I think you're stumbling with the definition of morality Kant is using.

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

If justice isn't given then morality isn't rational.

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.

Your moral conclusions are dogged by injustice. How do you cope with the fact that justice isn't done? ...You accept the realism of life being unjust.. that's how. Therefore your moral conclusions are different. They're jaded. Mine are not jaded, because I believe justice is being done. My morality is based on a firm understanding where yours is baseless. How can the two be similar?

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.

That's a flippant comment. Again you raise God as an external enforcer rather than a loving inspirer. What we would be saying by God condemning it would be that in true justice... it's wrong. We see that injustice, but we can't easily affect justice. With our limited knowledge we can try to correct the balance, but in actual fact, we don't know where that balance lies. We're inspired by our ideals of justice, and try to enact them. Factoring in God is the same thing, except we believe he is the ultimate judge. This takes away none of our responsibility to be just.

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.

I would hope Kant would slap me in the face should I ever state such a thing. I don't have to demonstrate that I am more moral, that has nothing to do with it. The inclusion of a posthumously supernatural judge just makes me ABLE to be rationally moral, where the lack of the same makes you unable to.

God (or same) is not required to establish the truth of moral propositions, he is required to make them happen.