until now all morals have been harmful to my psyche

[Alurmo]

and it sucks, kantianism, too dogmatic, christianity, too dogmatic, any other moral system, too dogmatic

 

[metrosexual muslim]

why is it different now

 

[New Water]

and it sucks, kantianism, too dogmatic, christianity, too dogmatic, any other moral system, too dogmatic

Kantianism at its heart isn’t dogmatic at all. Actually there isn’t really any moral oughts in kantianism because as Kant explains what’s wrong with Humian epistemology. That an a priori’s (transcendentals like moral oughts) cannot be derived from a posteriori’s (the world we observe and experience) so there isn’t really any basis for moral oughts (without theism but kantianism by itself isn’t really theistic, it’s just a line of logical often epistemological reasoning and Kant was a theist).
But since you made a distinction between Christianity and Kantianism I’d believe you were atheist when adopting Kantian ethics. Which without a transcendental God like the Christian God to appeal to you can’t really have a basis for moral oughts so there’s zero “dogmatic” principles to follow. It’s more of just a justification for your reasoning that moral oughts don’t exist (without a transcendental God) in which case you’d be right..

 

[New Water]

an a priori’s (transcendentals like moral oughts) cannot be derived from a posteriori’s (the world we observe and experience) so there isn’t really any basis for moral oughts.

And if you’re confused about what I’m referring to it’s the is-ought problem..
that moral “oughts” (what would be a priori’s) cannot be derived from what “is” (what would be a posteriori) because it needs a mediator between the two that requires a value based and unstated premise. If you do just end up pre supping it it’s a naturalistic fallacy