(October 6, 2010 at 12:56 am)theVOID Wrote:Let me just address this bit for now, as I don't have much time and the rest seems to be a repetition of what's already been said as I've skimmed over it.fr0d0 Wrote:I would agree that rape is immoral. A moral framework that rationalised a chance of injustice would cause the rapist to consider if rape was really worth it. The odds are better for the rapist without the posthumous judge, therefore his moral 'standards' can be lower. It works the other way for praiseworthy acts too.
*Facepalm*
The rapist already thinks rape is worth it, irrespective of whether they acknowledge right and wrong. That is evinced by the rape it's self. Let me remind you that there are plenty of Christian rapists (proportionally more than non-religious) that have raped people, especially children. If ultimate justice were really as an effective deterrent as you think then the number of theistic rapists should be lower than those of a non-believer in ultimate justice.
You are making the very argument that you have said multiple times already was bullshit, the same argument that Kant himself shot down time and time again, you even said you'd hoped Kant would slap you in the face for making it! There is no correlation between the belief in ultimate justice and one's reasons for being moral, nor their ability to be moral. You have said before you agreed with Kant and now you have completely contradicted yourself!
You have a long way to go in hashing out this argument mate.
Potentially we're all rapists, and at given any moment we could choose to break the law. What informs our choice is our rationalisation of the outcome. Now without PJ (posthumous judge) our rational outcome is different. "Christians that rape" are people going against their claimed rational framework and adopting a view that justice won't be served. They're adopting a world view sans God. This illustrates the point here... that our world view is what informs our choices. To act morally is to rationally justify what all humans regard as moral. Those without PJ cannot rationalise what they would see as moral, and would therefore act in accordance with their own standard. That doesn't match up to what all humans consider to be 'moral'.
No I'm not making the argument I said I wouldn't. Yet again you ASSUME that's what I'm saying. You ASSUME Christianity is some magic transformation that changes people into non humans that can't revert at any moment to their natural state. That's not the case. Christians are human and susceptible to failure at every moment. Just because a person adopts a world view doesn't mean they will always follow it.
So I have shown a correlation there between the belief in ultimate justice and one's reasons for being moral. It seems quite simple to me and I can't see any clear reasoning from you opposing it.
