Divine Command Theory Of Religion

The Divine and Command Theory states that an action is right or wrong if God commands it. Divine Command Theorists would say that anything God commands is morally correct, but do not like the fact that cruelty or suffering could be morally right. They believe that any command God gives, He is commanding it because it is morally correct. Meaning that this is the better option for us, but this is where I

Someone who would believe a statement such as this one would most likely be in agreement with the Divine Command Theory---the reason being that the main claim in this theory is, all that is morally right, is right because God commands it so. Therefore in order to believe in the Divine Command Theory, one would need to be a strong believer in God---and would truly believe that if there were no God, morality would be absent. With this in mind, if God is the creator of all that is morally right, and there turns out to be no god at all, then nothing is morally wrong or can be capable of being morally wrong---would be a statement that non-believers of the Divine Command Theory would believe, and believe that morality can exist on its own, with or without a God. In this paper I will focus on the Divine Command Theory in relation to the statement above, and those who would oppose this statement. In doing so, I will attempt to show why I believe that those opposing this statement have a more plausible view.

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 “Divine Command” theory is the interpretation that morality is suggested to be dependent upon God, and that we are obedient to God’s commands. However, John Arthur claims that the theory is not right because he does not believe that God commands are right if not commanded by God. This theory states that religion is necessary for morality because without God there would be no wrong or right. If moral laws are not factually correct or provable, then they are either man-made or authorized by God. John Arthur debates that the Divine Command should not be accepted by anyone especially those who are religious. He implies that the theory is irrational mainly because God can change the moral rules and obligations. One must first be sure

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.

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 biggest difference between Cultural Relativism and the Divine Command Theory is that Divine Command Theory believes that rightness and morality is defined by and from God, Cultural Relativism believes that rightness and morality is defined by cultures themselves.

Ethics can be defined as ‘Human moral conduct according to principles of what is good or right to do’. In Christianity there are certain ethical teachings, mainly The Ten Commandments, Beatitudes, and Jesus’ commandments of love. The Ten Commandments are derived from the Old Testament which defines what people must do in order to serve God faithfully and gives direction on how to live a life according to the covenant and in essence to be a good Christian person. In the New Testament the Beatitudes and Jesus’ commandments of love are found. With love being the main concept of these teachings, they and the Ten Commandments can be seen as alike as they

The Divine Command theory of ethics is a theory that states that an act is right or wrong and good or bad based on whether or not God commands or prohibits us from doing it. This means that the only thing that makes an action morally wrong is because God says it is. There are two sides to this theory; the restricted and the unrestricted. The restricted theory basically says that an action is obligatory if and only if it is good and God commanded it; the unrestricted theory states that an act is only obligatory if it is commanded by God, it is not obligatory if it is prohibited by God and it is optional if and only if God has not commanded nor prohibited it.

The world is made of all types of people and all types of actions. Conservative, liberal, empathetic, apathetic, introverted extroverted, etc, etc, etc. In a world where there is no shortage of choices and options, the thought ‘how do I decide’ is a frequent one. While some of these traits may not be choices, they influence the choices we do make. When playing with decision making the concept that arises most is that of right and wrong. This concept is introduced to most people at a very young age, it’s intent to teach you the proper way to behave. But what would happen if right and wrong didn’t exist? Moral Nihilism would happen. Moral nihilism is the theory that there is no ethical truth, and that right and wrong do not inherently exist. This theory addresses the fact that no ethical theory can be proven in certainty, it is unbiased, and it is universal while still remaining flexible to the individuals morals. While it does have its faults- It is the most rational theory.

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.

Revelational Christian Ethics is the discovery and the study of God’s manifestation of Himself to humanity by His divine historical acts and His inspired word. Existing outside our material world, God progressively unveils Himself to us by both general and special revelation. Through general

Thomas Aquinas was an Italian philosopher who lived during the time of 1225-1274 AD. Aquinas was most known for his studies in faith and reason. Aquinas’ ethics relies on the idea that there is a God and that God is a perfect and loving being who is cares for his creation. But, Aquinas does not believe that God has a set of commands that distinguishes right from wrong for each individual to follow. A way to explain these rules is by the Divine Command Theory. To further explain, these rules are better defined as the moral status of an action determined by the will or commands of God. It seems that God created the distinction of right from wrong in order to aid human beings to act in a way that is morally correct according to his commands so that they could achieve perfect happiness. Aquinas’ tells us that perfect happiness is a perfect relationship with God. The Divine Command Theory is completely independent of whether or not anyone believes it and is applicable to anyone at any time. God has also wired all human beings in a certain way in which we have the ability to perform virtues in order to fulfill functions and acting in ways that are against virtues and functions would not be beneficial to the human as that is not how God has created us and commanded us to act. By understanding Thomas Aquinas’ ethical views, we are able to better understand the idea of the Divine Command Theory and why these two ideas go well together in discussing ethical decisions.

In the bible it says that God made heaven and earth which include stones and rocks. God is the omnipotent one so then he must be able to lift a rock, therefore if God is unable to lift a rock then that signifies that he is not omnipotent. Either way it shows that God cannot be the most powerful if he is not able to lift a rock. It wouldn’t make sense for God to make a rock that he himself cannot lift, it doesn’t make sense because it would be a contradiction. His omnipotence is not something independent of God’s nature. It is part of his nature. God has a nature and his attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.

The divine command theory states that an action is only moral if commanded by God. A utilitarian believes an action is moral if it benefits everyone associated with the action, whether it is being done for or to them. The Egoism theory says that something is done so that it may benefit the person’s self-interest. Robin would be immoral in the divine command theory, and theory of utilitarianism and does not fall under egoism.