A morality that requires theological guarantees of ultimate self-benefit fails on its own terms, since genuine moral action must be motivationally independent of consequences to the agent.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Consequences to the agent(what genuine moral motivation must not depend on): The personal results or rewards that happen to you because of your actions.
Genuine: Something is genuine when it is real, authentic, and exactly what it claims to be—not fake, counterfeit, or pretending to be something else. For example, genuine leather is actual leather rather than synthetic material, or a genuine apology comes from sincere feeling rather than obligation. The word describes anything that is honestly and truly itself without deception or imitation.
Guarantees (in this context)(what theology supposedly provides for moral behavior): Promises or assurances that something will definitely happen, especially that you'll benefit from your actions.
Moral action(as the other half of what the statement says are unified): Actually doing what is right and virtuous in your behavior.
Motivationally independent(describing the requirement for genuine moral action): Not driven or caused by a particular reason or benefit—you do it for its own sake, not for what you'll get out of it.
Theological(describing Cantor's view of the absolute infinite): Relating to God or religion, and questions about the nature of God and the divine.
morality(Hartmann's ethics, contrasted with rule-following or purely theoretical approaches): A creative enterprise that demands a discerning sense for values and creative efforts at synthesis, engaging the whole person

2 topics