Sophocles’ famous play “Antigone” highlights a problem in what was then the prevalent worldview for most pious Greeks, that of Divine Command Theory. Divine Command Theory is a philosophical paradigm, or worldview, which essentially states that an action is good if and only if it has been commanded by a divine entity, which, to quote St. Thomas Aquinas, “all men know as God.” The problem arises in what happens when there exist multiple deities, such as is the case with the Greek and Roman pantheons. Socrates himself argues about this in the famous work Euthyphro, underscoring the fact that this is a problem which has been around for a very long time. It would seem that the existence of multiple deities destroys the possibility of there being a coherent system of morality. What, for example, would be the course of action if one god were to prefer one action which is opposed to another action preferred by a different god? In the Greek mythology which serves as something of a backdrop for Antigone, it was not at all uncommon for the Olympian deities to be at odds with each other about this or that thing, or even outright conflict. Another problem raised by a polytheistic Divine Command Theory is the question “Do the gods command an action because it’s morally right, or is it morally right because the gods command it?” The polytheists must by necessity choose the first option, for reasons that will be explained later in the paper. This paper will take the position that the
The Greek society believed in polytheism. They believed that their were many gods and that each god has the power to control different aspects of nature. In this paper I will be explaining why this has come to be. I will also tell you about the fact that no matter what the Greek Gods do it will affect the Greek Society, and no matter what the Greek Society does it will affect themselves or the Greek Gods.
“If God does not exist, then everything is permitted,” in other words, if there turns out to be no God then nothing is morally wrong.
In ancient Greek culture the gods were seen as taking a very active role in the development and course of human history. The entire Olympian pantheon, as well as many other less important divinities, meddles in human affairs to no end. The people of the many city-states that composed Greece firmly believed that every aberration from normalcy was due to an act of the gods. Homer, the author of The Iliad, coined the prevalent religious beliefs of the time in his epic poems, showing the gods as temperamental and willful, meddlesome and dynamic. Homer’s entire poem is replete with instances of divine intervention in mortal lives, and no single major occurrence comes to pass unless it is the will of one of the many Olympian gods. Few major decisions are made without consulting the gods first, and the handful of instances in which one leader or another takes initiative almost always fails miserably. Life, according to the Greeks, is almost entirely rooted in their religion, as there is a god or goddess governing every aspect of the universe, and also because the gods so actively involve themselves in the everyday lives of mortals.
Divine Command Theory theorizes that God it is the author of moral law and the right actions are those willed by God and that God clearly defines right and wrong. This allows the concept that sometimes situations are only right or good because God deems it so. In the simplest terms, God can determine right and wrong since he is omnipotent. Since God is all powerful, he can establish moral norms. Critics of Divine Command Theory believe that if a specific action is only right because God wills it so then evil acts would also be right since God willed them into existence. For example, if God wills murder or torture than these actions would be considered morally right.
I believe that God commands it because it is already right or wrong. This could possibly mean that whether or not God exist, those right or wrong actions were already right or wrong instinctively. The only difference is that, some people believe that they need a creator or God to tell them what is morally correct or wrong to believe it is.
The divine command theory states that “An act is morally required just because it is commanded by God and immoral just because God forbids it” (Shafer-Landau, The Fundamentals of Ethics, p.67). In interviewing an Elder of a local Jehovah’s Witness congregation on the ethics involved in religion, he agreed that the divine command theory is correct, and that there are many commands and things that are forbidden in the bible that are considered to be God’s standards for the way we live our lives. But, when asked the modified version of the Euthyphro Question: is an action morally right because God commands it, or does God command an action because it is morally right, (Shafer-Landau, The Ethical Life, p.57) he picked the latter. Despite agreeing with the statement that the divine command theory makes, picking the latter is not uncommon even if the first affirms the theory. The statement that God commands an action because it is morally right, “implies that God did not invent morality, but rather recognized an existing moral law and then commanded us to obey it” (Shafer-Landau, The Fundamentals of Ethics, p.67-68). This does not make the Elder’s message wrong, in fact most theists don’t follow the divine command theory. This is based on the fact that if the theory were true, whatever God says is a command, and therefore morally right, but God could have said that rape, murder, and stealing is morally right if that was the line of thinking.
Divine Command Theory: (When employing the DCT in an argument, you must always cite a specific source ie. scripture, doctrine etc. to validate your claim.)
Many authors have employed the religious beliefs of their cultures in literature. The deities contained in Homer’s Odyssey and in the Biblical book of Exodus reflect the nature of the gods in their respective societies. Upon examination of these two works, there are three major areas where the gods of the Greek epic seem to directly contrast the nature of the God of the Israelites: the way problems are solved, the prestige and status that separates the divine from the masses, and the extent of power among the immortal beings.
The Divine Command Theory is the assertion in ethics that an action is morally right if, and only if, it conforms to God’s will. This premise ties together morality and religion in a manner that seems expected, since it provides a solution to arguments about moral relativism and the objectivity of ethics. On the other hand, in Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates questions whether something is right because God commands it, or whether God commands it because it is right. The ethical implications of the Euthyphro problem suggest that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as straightforward as suggested by the Divine Command Theory.
The conflict between the Divine Command Theory and the Euthyphro objection come with questions about who sets the rules of morality, and how it can be assumed that these rules are justifiable. On one hand, the Divine Command Theory defends the idea that an act is morally right because God commands it and wrong because He commands against it. This sets God’s will as the foundation of ethics, making morally good actions those that comply with His commandments. This religion-based concept becomes problematic when it runs into the Euthyphro dilemma, founded from Plato’s Euthyphro dating back to 395 BC. The argument centralizes on why it is that God commands rightful actions, bringing in the question of, “Are moral acts commanded by God because they are morally good, or does God command things to be right because He has good reasons for them?” The Euthyphro argument creates its foundation on the idea that either God has reasons for His commands, or that He lacks reasons for them. This divides up the Divine Command Theory in two ways, either making the theory wrong or portraying God as an imperfect being. If God does have reasons for His commands, then these reasons are what would make the actions right or wrong. God’s reasons would stand as the basis of morality, instead of God’s commandment itself. God having reasons would insinuate that goodness existed before any direction from God because otherwise, there wouldn’t be any commandment. Morality would have to stand independent
The Works and Days is a Greek myth containing an appropriated version of the Israelites Ten Commandments from The Bible. Throughout Works and Days, the myth constructs a virtually identical set of rules pertaining to moral conduct; all which, if disobey, are punishable by Zeus. Both the Israelites and the Greeks believe that their Lord (for the Greeks, specifically all powerful Zeus) distributes retribution to those who disobey these moral rules of conduct. In both texts, these guidelines for judgment are crucial because they give formal validity to the punishments that each god distributes. The similarities found are as a result of the Greek appropriation of the Israelites mythology, however, the differences and variations within the
“Gods can be evil sometimes.” In the play “Oedipus the King”, Sophocles defamed the gods’ reputation, and lowered their status by making them look harmful and evil. It is known that all gods should be perfect and infallible, and should represent justice and equity, but with Oedipus, the gods decided to destroy him and his family for no reason. It might be hard to believe that gods can have humanistic traits, but in fact they do. The gods, especially Apollo, are considered evil by the reader because they destroyed an innocent man’s life and his family. They destroyed Oedipus by controlling his fate, granting people the power of prophecy, telling Oedipus about his fate through the oracle of Apollo, and finally afflicting the people of
In this paper, I will discuss about the Divine Command Theory and Euthyphro Problem and show how the Euthyphro Problem makes the Divine Command Theory morality arbitrary. Also, I will discuss why one does not have to reject the belief in God due to the Divine Command Theory cannot give a satisfactory answer to the Euthyphro Problem. First, I will define what the Divine Command Theory is and discuss its attractive features that answer the problem about the objectivity of ethnics. Second, I will define the Euthyphro Problem. Also, I will discuss how the Euthyphro Problem makes the Divine Command Theory morality arbitrary and show how it makes the doctrine of God’s goodness meaningless. Finally, I will discuss why one does not have to reject the belief in God just because one rejects the Divine Command Theory.
The concept of fate and the influence of gods on mortals’ lives are prominent aspects of Greek mythology. While the gods of Olympus are commonly presented as the primary manipulators of human lives, the Fates are the true creators of destiny. Gods may be able to affect human lives in monumental ways, but predetermined destiny and the Fates’ intentions ultimately reign. The gods have respect for this authority, as well, as they’re aware that a limit on their ability to intervene is necessary to maintain the order of the universe. This leaves one to question the amount of knowledge that the gods themselves have of fate, and whether they have their own free will to refrain from intervening or if they truly must submit to the authority of the Fates and their plans. The gods do have some knowledge of the Fates’ plan, but they are also wise enough to avoid too much interference and therefore don’t necessarily need to be commanded; they sometimes help guide mortals by sending them messages and symbols—and sometimes even influencing them for their own advantage—but ultimate fate cannot be avoided.
In his work Euthyphro, Plato introduces a religiously based moral code. This code, the divine command theory, stresses the pleasing of god in one’s moral actions. Plato’s characters, Euthyphro and Socrates, take turns in a debate defending and criticizing this theory. Its flawed nature is uncovered and we as readers are able to notice its advantages and disadvantages. Using these criticisms, revisions to the divine command theory have been made. After analyzing the divine command theory and noting both its advantages and its critiques, I largely agree with the criticisms that are made about it. However, with certain revisions, it can be transformed into a reliable and successful philosophy.