What I actually understand towards Niebuhr, is the division between facilitated righteousness and facilitated nomes, the source of the justice seems to be not only laid on the facilitated righteousness but rather ethics developed in individual and collective manner, standing as the law, in that manner it transcendence either the religious righteousness facilitated as well as the ethics towards the prescriptive conduct in the self interest' threat towards the groups. as insight between the collective and individual interest, it has been reconciled with the utilitarianism formed the middle bridge called the facilitated measurement towards happiness as Utilise, but in another way, reconciled Hegelian universal spirit as the transfer of the nature formed the transcendence of the ethics . Currently I still think Niebuhr would be much transcendence idealist view than neo Kantiancism for those place that the reason and nature has been least in rule