Again, you arent. Kant explicitly derived the categorical imperative from pure rational autonomy, independent of god. Are you blind?
Claiming duty needs a divine enforcer turns moral law into heteronomous self interest. The exact opposite of kantian ethics
Ik actually sticking to the point or arguing rationally is too hard for you. But this is the strength of having a universal, demonstrable standard! Unlike your "morals" which you *objectively* have to suck your daddy off for. Its why you have to SPRINT once its questioned at all
Grounding rights in rational nature doesnt mean dignity scales w IQ it marks the threshold of conscious agency lmao
Imago Dei just asserts dignity by decree without explaining why a fertilized zygote has full moral personhood before it even develops a brain or nervous system
More strawmen? Now youre conflating the temporary *exercise* of reason with the intrinsic *capacity* of the human species. BORN infants/ dementia patients belong to community of rational agents w established capacity for personhood
prospective life≠actualized rational agency
Equating kants personal pietism with the validity of his ethical system is a GENETIC FALLACY. The validity of a logical framework rests on its internal consistency, not its creators theological beliefs
Kant used modal logic to ground *autonomous reason*, not divine command. He explicitly argued that moral duties are binding on all rational beings prior to any theological assumptions. Stripping his personal theology away doesnt invalidate the system. You dont have a point
A triangles 3 sides are a logical necessity of its definition, not an ontology derived from a conscious mind😂 Youre confusing analytic necessity with a metaphysical deity. Reason doesnt need a "necessary being" to validate logic. Non contradiction is authoritative on its own
Yeah bowling is a far less destructive, harmful, misogynistic, homophobic, slavery justifying community or collective Unlike the church which encourages lack of critical thinking and thought terminating cliches to reinforce dogma
Morality isnt measured by whether a nation can temporarily wield power w/o collapsing or suck off the US. Its measured by logical non contradiction. Power can enforce a hypocrisy, but it can never turn a universalized self contradiction into a coherent moral law
Youre confusing practical political survival w universalizability. A maxim that permits genocide fails logically bc if universalized, it destroys the very concept of rights and mutual trust required for any moral order to exist, making it inherently self contradictory
Youre conflating the objective moral rule (personhood carries intrinsic dignity) w the factual data used to apply it. Adjusting laws as science advances ensures we apply an objective, universal principle w empirical accuracy
No, updating an empirical boundary based on biology isn't subjectivism. Intrinsic value belongs to personhood. A rational, conscious agent. Determining when personhood scientifically emerges is an epistemological question, not a subjectivist recalculation of moral worth
Kant explicitly separates *moral obligation* from moral outcomes. Duty is strictly from REASON. Moral law is grounded in rational autonomy. Id point out the countless other philosophies youre still running from but god youre unequiped for this. Is this google ai?
Confusing Kants conditions for moral duty w his hope for the summum bonum. Kant explicitly proves duty is derived entirely from autonomous reason, independent of god. A neo-kantian simply rejects his divine postulate while retaining logical necessity of the categorical imperative
Reason doesnt require a divine reward to bind us to duty. Morality is authoritative in its own right through rational autonomy. This is why its neo. Were stripping the 200 yr old theological baggage to make the framework more consistent, not less