Firstly, I didn’t ask you to read my bible, the fathers of the Church, or ancient and modern catholic theologians so I don’t see what reciprocation I owe you. Secondly, I am not choosing to remain willfully ignorant - I asked you a few questions none of which you have answered. All you’ve said is that Kantian theory says that for something to be moral it has to be “universally beneficial” - a phrase which you have not clarified, and which means nothing to me.
If I am curious about the foundation of Christian morality, I go to the bible and Christian theologians. If you are, as you claim, curious about foundations of morality which do not require the existence of God, I have recommended Kant to you as a starting point, as well as Hobbes. Are you curious enough to actually do some research? You don’t owe it to me, you owe it to yourself.
There have already been several threads on this topic as well.
And since you asked so politely, the idea of ‘universally beneficial’ is a quantifier of the problem. If a particular action is being considered, in order to be deemed morally right in the particular case it must be able to be considered morally right in all cases.
This is the rule:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
If you would not want this action done in even one single, solitary instance, it is not morally right to perform it in your specific instance (it may be
neutral, but why focus on evil when you can focus on good?). Nor can you get by through asking poorly formed questions; that just defeats the purpose. But then, this is left up to us to do, much as avoiding loopholes and hemming and hawing over the finer points of the divine moral law is left to you. This is the Categorical Imperative. I have discussed it at quite some length, to the point where I eventually reformulated it in haiku.
