In a world of diverse cultures and beliefs, it’s very problematic to distinguish weather something is morally right or wrong based on one’s specific teachings or beliefs. Furthermore, we were asked that before we began this course; what principles, factors, or beliefs have you relied on in deciding whether something is, morally right or, morally wrong or, neither right nor wrong in itself? Also we were also asked, what rules or procedures do you follow in applying these principles, factors, and/or beliefs? In this paper I will aim to relate my beliefs to how I made decisions. The Divine Command Theory is one on the world renowned theories that assists me in making ethical decisions. In an article written by Michael W. Austin, he states that
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.
First, I will explain what Divine Command Theory is in more detail, and why someone would believe this theory because of its claims to morality. Robert Mortimer is the creator of this theory and he makes many claims as to why God is the sole reason that morality exists. First, it must be known that people reject the idea
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
Divine Command Theory is defined as “ethical principles are simple the commands of God” (Pojman p.356). Basically, this theory states that “morally right” means “commanded by God” and “morally wrong” means “forbidden by God” (Rachels p.53). The positive feature of the Divine Command Theory is that it solves the old problem about the objectivity of ethics by providing an answer as to why anyone should bother with morality (Rachels p.53). According to this theory, if nature of what is right and what is wrong depends on God’s command, then we have to wait until judgment day to deal with the consequences of our actions due to them begin immortal (Rachels p.53). But there is
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.
When we make a decision, we determine whether something is morally or immoral based on our personal VABES. There may be nothing ethically wrong with the situation but a person may feel that it is goes against their personal morally values based on their personal VABES. Ethics are established based on acceptable behaviors for groups and individuals (Clawson, 2012). People base what they consider to be ethical off of their VABES and understanding of what is right and wrong. A person determines whether an act is ethical based off their values and beliefs that they have developed a for a lifetime. When making any decision the person must have a clear understanding of whether not it is an ethical or non-ethical decision and if it goes against their beliefs. Legality is another important part of decision-making any concerns individuals abiding by laws put in place by society (Clawson, 2012). Whether something is legal or illegal is very important when making a decision. When a person finds it unethical or morally wrong to commit an illegal act is based off their VABES. In any decision, a person must consider whether an act or decision will go against their ethical beliefs. They must also consider whether it is important and matches their personal
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.
All around the world, every minute of everyday someone encounters a moral dilemma whether it is minuscule or monumental. Going against ones religious or moral beliefs can be problematic; it may in fact be so moving that it causes one to reexamine their entire thought process.
The last step in making a moral decision is simply making the decision. How one arranges the issues and arrives at this decision depends on one's particular set of values and cultural perspectives, but regardless the values and cultural perspectives of the decision maker, the rights and duties remain the same for any situation. One must learn to look for and identify the appropriate deontological factors. Once these factors are identified, one may use his/her own values in order to determine which factors are the most important. By applying these unique values, one is able to develop the final decision.
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.
Many things can contribute to what you think is morally right or wrong. Religion, for example, may create a barrier on to what extent you do something. Some religions set rules, or guidelines on which they limit what people do. Cultures, as well, contribute to people’s decisions. Many times our values and ethics disagree with different people who hold different
Initially, it may seem as though right and wrong are starkly divided, such as the colors black and white are starkly opposite. Despite this conviction, I’ve grown to understand that strictly categorizing these entities are of inept and inconsiderate nature. Similar to how most articles in the world are neither black, nor white, most ideas, motives, and tangible and intangible objects fall in between the classifications of right and wrong. Appropriately labeled “the grey zone”, actions that challenge the implemented structure of morality conflict the subjective judgement. When the situations of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons and doing the right thing for the wrong reasons arise, I must elect that there are circumstances in which the former is acceptable and justifiable.
The Divine Command Theory is a theory that says an action or behavior is considered right or wrong if it is commanded or condemned by God. Anything that God commands must be good, and anything that he denounces must be evil. According to DCT, a person is not moral without believing in God (Pojman 188-9). The DCT can be applied to Sir Thomas More’s reasoning and actions in his life.
Philosophers base the idea of objective morality on the assumption that some moral ideals are universal and should be the moral responsibility of everyone. Subjective moralists counter this argument by explaining that each moral decision is independent because each moral situation is unique to its own conditions. Ultimately, these two views shape the nature of moral philosophy and theology, each describing the different natures of morality (Hammond). These two theories have a large impact on the thinking process of humans on an everyday basis. This process then leads up to a person valuing different things more than others. The separation of objective and subjective theories all boil down to whether or not a theory is universal or not. A subjective theory has an absence of universal truths, and an objective theory has universal truths. Two vary popular theories that will take part in my research were the Divine Command Theory, and Natural law theory. Two theories that may seem similar, but in fact are very different.
The Doctrine of the Mean. (Written by a disciple and includes religious aspects of Confucius’ views.)