it seems fair to say that religious people are motivated by religion (in regards to morality) in one of two ways: firstly, they are motivated by self-interest (going to heaven or not going to hell); secondly, they are motivated out of loyalty, meaning "god/bible said to do it so I'm going to do it."

These two are Kantianly amoral at best for these two different reasons of motivation: firstly, I don't think acting in self interest is ever a morally commendable act. Sure, what mother teresa did was great, but if the only reason she did anything was for chicks and money then that cheapens her actions from a Kantian perspective. Then she did things for chicks and money, and not for any moral imperative . Likewise, if a person lives a good life that's great, but if the only reason a person lives morally is for the physical reward of heaven then there actions are hardly commendable.

Secondly, saying you do something because x entity told you to do it isn't any more defensible if x is god or hitler. said before said again.

anywho, it seems as though atheists have actual reasons for there moral decisions, other than "it's in a book lol" or whatever. And it seems like the motivations atheists have for their moral decisions are more commendable and less terrible in general.

So who's establish Kant as the arbiter of what are appropriate moral motivations? How does your morality as an atheist reconcile with the categorical imperative?

Sorry, can't resist: Link

You need to re-read your Kant, imo.

yeah think the re- is superfluous there.

If we're going to boil Kant's "God" down to a few sentences, it would be apt to describe it as a development over many works and years on a philosophical construct and metaphysical concept (as opposed to an object or a being) - and the later criticism and rejection of many of those constructs and concepts. It should be evident then, that to bring up singular quotes from Kant regarding "God" is dubious. You will have to at least know and hopefully clarify at which "stage" of development your reference to the "Kantian God" belongs.

Kant was also in his later works critical of behavior that stemmed from a desire to please God as opposed to religion as a moral choice, in that sense OP's question is actually very apt. To discard it with "You need to re-read your Kant" seems at best misguided.

So that may have been a valid criticism of Fret's post had OP shown any interest in stating to which stage of development his allusion to Kantian morals referred. He didn't though and while I'm not interested in playing the post rather than the poster it seems reasonable to infer from OP's other threads and posts from earlier this morning that he hasn't read Kant and isn't really interested in an actual discussion about morals.

He's started from the premise that Kantianly moral, lol, is something to which we should actually aspire, he doesn't mention duty and he doesn't consider whether Kant's moral framework is applicable without God. He finds that religious people are less likely to be Kantianly moral though.

You really think

Are all religious less Kantianly moral than atheists?

is an apt question?

yeah re-read Kant is probably misguided

Perhaps try less quibbeling with my posting style. plato.stanford.edu is a respectable source, the entries are written and maintained by experts on the given topic such that I'd expect any kind of asterisk that may have been necessary due to Kant changing his mind on some concept or other to have been put in place. Given that there wasn't one, I'm justified in assuming there isn't one.

Notably, and tellingly, you're not actually voicing any concrete criticism regarding anything IN the quote. Instead, you're wrinkling your nose at me for not providing a complete c/t-dissertation on kantian Ethics. Uke pulled something similar once with regards to my offered biblical translations and the counter then is equally valid here: Show me factual errors - or shut up.

----

As to the OP, despite his loltastic (Christians have only two reasons for moral behavior) and rambly (Mother Theresa is in it for the $$ and chixx) style, he finally did deign to to put forward something like a claim, namely:

"anywho, it seems as though atheists have actual reasons for there moral decisions, other than "it's in a book lol" or whatever. And it seems like the motivations atheists have for their moral decisions are more commendable and less terrible in general."

If, however, it turns out that Kantian Ethics are ultimately grounded in what you might call the CprR-equivalents of Kants unmittelbaren Anschauungen of the CpR, in that moral reasoning is ultimately equally dependent on similar "Anschauungen" in the field of ethics (the quote I provided cites two of those), then there's nothing in the Atheists moral reasoning that is an "actual" reason anymore than it is for the theist: Both rely, ultimately, on transcendental postulates and acting morally is ultimately equally grounded in them. So yeah, re-read your Kant seems fairly accurate.

He clearly specifies that he is asking about Kantian morals, and refers to this consistently. I don't see a problem.


The headline might be a little dumb, but I was referring to what he actually wrote.

I wasn't criticizing your sources. I was criticizing how you used them. Kant's works are a lengthy topic, and his views regarding "God" changed throughout them.

Kant was indeed in his later works critical towards people who performs acts to "please god" (or rather the morality thereof), in line with what the OP wrote.

I can't see what that has to do with anything I wrote. I can't remember having made a point towards convincing OP that Kant had any substantial religious beliefs or explaining to him what Kants views about God were. It's fairly ephemeral to the point of the quote.

You don't need to be Kant to be critical of that.

He wrote the headline that refers specifically to all religious irrespective of whether their actions are moral or whether they are motivated out of duty to God. He also refers to possible motivations for Mother Theresa's actions as being chicks and money, that seems more like noise than signal to me. It's not insulting but given his previous posts it seems he's trying to be inflammatory.

He hasn't clarified what duty he thinks motivates the moral acts of atheists, it's a nonsense of a post that you're welcome to try and make sense of.

Anyway, to write something constructive and less boring:

No, I don't think so. If we bypass the entire "do we need Kant's God" and go straight to the atheist and his choices... I still think we would find just as many actions carried out for other grounds than striving towards morality.

It doesn't matter whether the motivations for the acts are moral, it matters whether the motivations for the moral acts are bound by duty.

Kant rejects, to what degree is arguable, that moral acts should be motivated by the consequences. It seems therefore entirely plausible that an atheist engaging in a moral act due the their belief in the consequences of the act rather than out of a sense of duty fails at being "Kantianly" moral.

re: Christians being motivated by self-interest or fear of punishment

I'm sure it's the case that this is true for some, just as it's true for some that the only reason they don't commit certain crimes is fear of going to jail.

But that may be considered as a fairly low level of spiritual maturity. It's better to be moral out of fear of God than it is to be immoral, but it's better to be moral because one love's God and as an expression of that love. After all, Jesus said that the whole of morality was summed up by love of God and neighbor.

So, ceteris paribus, if it is more moral to act good for the love of the good than out of self interest, then some atheists may be more moral than some Christians. But I would disagree with saying all religious are less moral, or with saying that Christianity teaches morality based on self-interest

Leaving aside all the debate about Kantian ethics and all that

Seems this is just a false dichotomy anyway... These are the ONLY two motivations for the religious to act morally? In just only one of these two ways? Superficial at best...

OP doesn't make sense from the start.

Edit: I suppose I should read a thread in full before jumping to post.

Following up from WN post...

Hector, Christians don't attain salvation by good works. Jesus died to provide salvation to sinners. Therefore Christians do "good" in thankfulness not to obtain salvation.

man that rogue apostrophe is going to haunt me

If this is a reply to me, then I was not referring to the morality of the consequences, I was referring to actions as moral choices. For example; You don't refrain from lying so the world will become a better place, you refrain from lying because you strive towards morality... thus the action becomes the moral choice, not a rational choice based on moral outcomes.

So this may all be correct but my point was more directed at OP's assertion that the motivations of atheists would be more moral on Kantian grounds.

So this is important and nek77 also refers to this it seems that the choices according to OP, put simply and leaving aside the reference to Kant, are

1) Acting morally through fear of reprisals or in anticipation of rewards
2) Acting morally because it's the right thing to do
3) Acting immorally

It seems theists by OP's definition either act morally due to 1 or act immorally,. Atheists get to either act morally because it's the right thing to do or act immorally. It's an entirely false dichotomy given for those that act immorally the fear of reprisals or anticipation of rewards is insufficient, it may also be insufficient for those that act morally but yet they act morally because it's the right thing to do.

I'm obviously leaving aside the rewards/reprisals for moral/immoral acts that don't involve God.

This is wrong. She was a despicable woman.

Romans 7:

This was written by the man most Christians believe to be the greatest believer in New Testament times. To be fair, some theologians think Paul was referring to the time before he was a Christian, but I think, in context, he's talking about himself as an apostle.

No one has pure motives, a little leaven leavens the whole lump. When someone becomes a Christian he begins to have that principle of evil transformed by God through a process of regeneration and sanctification. All the great Christians are great confessors of their own personal sin. I can't think of a single Bible character that was free from sin (except Christ).