The question of this is why? While a religious viewpoint may convince another religious individual, its effectiveness is drastically reduced when used on irreligious individuals, especially as seen in the last set of citations. One may be convinced by“ thou shalt not be killed,” but be less impressed by crying out to heaven for vengeance. However, the reason it is so effective against Kant’ s argument is that religious doctrine constitutes a universal set of moral codes and ethics that is not based on tangible outcomes, but rather on intangible concepts such as sin, just like the concept of ought. The consequences of sinning cannot be felt in mortal life. Hell or heaven is only something that our immortal souls will contend with in the future, not something that will impact us in day-to-day moral calls. Thus, we can accept that there are two competing universal moral doctrines that reject teleological thinking, and one opposes, or at least casts doubt on Kant’ s moral hypothesis. Which set of morality is‘ more correct’ is ultimately up to the reader, but the fact remains that there exist philosophies that contradict Kant while still remaining universal and intangible. Morality remains an enduring question, but we will not be moral only when the single immaculate philosophy is discovered; it is the path to perfection that makes us good.
B i b l i o g r a p h y- Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997.- Miller, Ed L., and Jon Jensen. Questions That Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2008.- Varden, Helga.“ Kant and Lying to the Murderer at the Door— One More Time: Kant’ s LegalPhilosophy and Lies to Murderers and Nazis.” Journal
of Social Philosophy 41, no. 4( 2010): 403 – 421. https:// doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1467-9833.2010.01507. x.
Travesía • revista estudiantil | 43