To start with, we have through and through freedom. What are we expected to do with it if not settle on our own choices? That is one contention. Second, imagine a scenario in which the Holy Book is somewhat questionable, for sure if two researchers differ about what God really implies. Once more, we have a circumstance in which the individual needs to settle on a choice. At long last, there is a contrast between being devoted - doing what you are told - and being moral - doing what you believe is correct. On the off chance that you are basically being respectful, you can't claim to be moral. So simply doing what God says may not be as simple as it appears.
Coincidentally, in the event that you do what God says to make sure you can go to paradise, you are not being moral. You are being childish. On the off chance that you are doing what God says on the grounds that you would prefer not to go to hellfire, you are not being moral. You are being prudential. Prudential acts will be acts that are done to save the practitioner agony and enduring. There is nothing moral about this.
In synopsis, deontologists are individuals who openly acknowledge certain limitations and who choose what is ideal by taking a gander at the way of the demonstration itself. Some build up particular guidelines - stay faithful to your obligations, don't execute and so on - and some take after Kant's all out goals or God's precepts. They don't inspect outcomes