[split] Theistic VS Naturalistic morality

[theVOID]

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.

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.

Agreed.

Potentially we're all rapists,

No, only those with a desire to rape are potentially rapists. If you lack a desire to rape you cannot perform the action of rape as desires are the only things that exist that inform action.

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.

The conclusions are trivially different, not substantively, and that is because of some of your God's commands or attitudes, like no premarital sex, that have no basis in any 'morality' outside of divine command or attitude.

"Christians that rape" are people going against their claimed rational framework and adopting a view that justice won't be served.

You don't know that their rape dictates that they believe they will get away with it. All that it demonstrates is that their desire to rape was stronger than their fear of justice, both in this life and the next. This is the point bot I and Kant made explicit, there is no perceivable difference in the moral actions of those who do and do not believe in ultimate justice given the same moral conclusions.

The moral conclusions are essentially the same (minus trivialities) therefore it is incorrect to place weight on the fear of ultimate justice, it seems not to factor into the likelihood of being moral or immoral. So one who commits immoral acts is just as likely to do so given belief in ultimate justice.

This again is the thing that kant explicitly stated.

They're adopting a world view sans God. This illustrates the point here... that our world view is what informs our choices.

Yes, and the difference in moral choices between our frameworks are trivial. Are you going to attempt the challenge set out at some point?

To act morally is to rationally justify what all humans regard as moral.

It would be better to say 'to act morally is to act in accordance with moral standards' and moral standards can vary according to your moral theory (albeit trivially). The moral sense we have is for the most part the same, these moral intuitions hardly vary at all regarding one's chosen moral theory.

Essentially, all moral theories try and account for the same moral intuitions, and since the moral intuitions are very much the same, the moral theories have very much the same conclusions.

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'.

I have already refuted that by providing a moral theory that can allow one to form objective moral propositions that are agreed upon (with the exception of the trivialities) unanimously by all objective moral theories (rape is wrong, murder is wrong, giving to charity is good) as well as providing a reason why one ought to act. This means we have an objective moral standard and a rational reason to act according to this standard. The fear of PJ does not influence what makes a decision moral or the reasons why we ought to act morally.

Regardless of PJ, an immoral action is irrational. Rationality is boolean, you are either rational or you are not. If rationality is achieved without PJ then PJ is not necessary for establishing either rational morality or reasons for action.

In other words, I am no more likely to act morally if i accept PJ than if i reject it.

Also, Acting in accordance to one's own standard is moral irrealism or moral subjectivism, and that is not the position i am defending. You are once again arguing a strawman and committing the fallacy of equivocation by suggesting that all moral theories that do not contain PJ are the same as subjectivism.

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.

That is not at all what i said, i was talking about the fear pf PJ. As i pointed out, the belief in PJ does not have any demonstrable effects on one's ability to form rational moral standards or to act upon them.

You cannot claim that all who believe in PJ and commit immoral acts do so because their belief in PJ subsides, you can ask people if their belief in PJ subsided during the immoral action and i guarantee you the vast majority will say no, for instance religious priests who raped children have made no indication that they lacked belief in God during the action and even if some did others certainly did not. Concerning your argument the temporary absence of belief is 'gratuitous convenience' and doesn't in any way substantiate your argument, so you're pissing into the wind here.

The only thing we have substantiated reason to say is 'fear of PJ has no demonstrable impact on rational moral content or the ability to act morally'. Until you can establish this your argument is fallacious, specifically a 'bare assertion'.

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.

And i have shown that it is possible to both form a rational morality and have moral oughts without the need for PJ, as well as pointing out that there is absolutely no reason to assume that belief in PJ is necessary (or even advantageous) in forming 1) rational morality or 2) reasons for action.

Your insistence that PJ is advantageous is false, as is any notion that PJ is necessary.