Unfulfilled Debate on Ethicotheology

Abstract

This paper, conceived in the genre of an anti-critique, tries to evaluate the solidity of A.G.Myasnikov's critical remarks concerning my suggestion of contradictions in the structure of Kant's philosophical proof for his «postulate of God's existence», in connection with the philosopher's doctrine  of virtue and happiness/beatitude. In this regard, by dwelling on the nature of the highest derived good in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, as well as on the essence of Kantian ethical universalization, the article points out, that the Kantian debate did not take place, as long as the opponent's reasons do not touch the topic really problematized in the paper which he has been criticizing. A review of objections in concern with the «ethical incoherences» in the argumentative structure of the moral argument leads to the very same conclusion: My opponent's criticism does not intend to analyze my essay in reconstructing Kant's philosophical justification of the «postulate of God», but merely to protest against my remarks concerning this justification, and therefore my opponent conceives the said remarks as a partial search for «incoherences» – in Kant’s ethical doctrine in general, but not in his ethico-theology in particular. Protestations against reflections which are motivated by Kant's ethico-theology refuse to enter the field of ethico-theology proper, because my opponent regards any theology as extra-scientific. In conclusion the paper articulates a well-argued objection to my opponent's opinion, according to which Jesus Christ of the Gospels promises to his disciples, and grants to the people whose affections He heals, happiness/beatitude in this world. If the highest good of the evangelical ethics can be proved to be «mononuclear», then the point of interrelation between Kantian and Christian morals appears in quite a different lighting.