Religion and State have historically battled over value of importance. For centuries, laws have been set forth to further the separation between the two. While good intentions were utilized in the creation of these statutes, it is challenging to shift the mindset of civilians who have worshiped religion above the state their entire lives. In the play, Antigone, Sophocles dramatizes the division between divine law and human law. Antigone personifies religion and the law of the gods, while Creon exemplifies human law. Inevitably, the disputes between the two ultimately result in the characters’ tragic fates. Sophocles uses a variety of literary techniques to strengthen the theme and central conflict of religion versus law.
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 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.
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.” (Lecture Notes pg. 42, slide #2.) This theory says that since God has said that it is something we must do to be good, that we must do it. Many religions believe and live by this saying that “it is the will of God or the Gods”. I truly believe that God has done his work and is still at work and since He did create us, He does know what good and evil is and does have authority to tell us what is good.
The divine command theory states morality is dependent on God’s commands (Boss 136). Like ethical subjectivists, divine command theorists also do not believe in universal moral standards (Boss 136). Additionally they state God has the ability to change moral rules at any time (Boss 138). For instance, although the ten commandments state thou shalt not kill, a divine command theorist would claim the radical islamic terrorists responsible for 9/11 were morally correct in killing thousands of people because God commanded it then. However, a divine command theorist would also have to believe president George Bush was morally correct by sending over troops to Iraq to kill the terrorists responsible. These conflicting commands bring up one of many
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
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 divine law was an idea, which is believed since the middle Ages in Europe.
After announcing the birth Dolly the sheep seven months after her birth the scientist at The Rochester Institute were met with heavy criticism not only by others in the science community but religious groups as well. The religious group argued that scientists are taking upon themselves to act on the role of God. The ethical debate presented by these religious group derives from the Natural Law and dine Law of Command. The Natural law of ethics derives from the belief that everything in nature has a purpose complementing the belief of derived from the Divine law of command that centers around God’s commands. These two ethical theories support the claims made by the religious group. Humans where ultimately created from God's imagination,
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.
Divine command theory is a theory that believes that what is willed by God is morally right. Another portion of this is that in order for a belief to be morally right a knowledge of God is required. This knowledge of God being required can be seen as a weakness due to atheists and agnostics not being able to be morally right. Some of the more notable philosophers that brought about various forms of divine commandment Theory have been Saint Augustine, John Calvin, and William of ockham. A prime example of divine command theory in modern practice is The Ten Commandments among Christians. The Ten Commandments are from the Old Testament in the Bible and are a basic set of rules to follow. This basic set of rules that was set forth by the divine is commonly what this theory is based on.
Is the churches moral teaching of value only to Catholics or to everyone, and either way, why?
6:18). We should not lie because the God don't lie. “God is love” (1 John 4:16), so we should “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:39). Furthermore, Ten Commandments are the Bible law that to prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, deception and adultery (Wikipedia, 2013). Taylor (1993), a naturalism, mentions that people know what is right and wrong "there are reasons for not stealing, there are reasons for not assaulting, and there are reasons for not lying. These things hurt people" is convention (formed by nature), it is not from God. William Craig (1993) argues that naturalist such as Taylor does not provide a basis for morality. "If naturalism is true, objective right and wrong does not exist." (William & Taylor, 1993). Craig believes that without God, there is no true right and wrong. If naturalism (Taylor) is right, then people cannot condemn crime or something immoral. “The decision to become a Mother Teresa rather than an Adolph Hitler is rather like the decision to go to McDonald’s rather than Burger King.” (Craig & Taylor, 1993) it is all your decision if there is no true right and wrong. Geisler (1999) stated “The principle of causality. Only being can cause being. Nothing does not exist, and only what exists can cause existence, since the very concept of “cause” implies an existing thing that has the power to effect another. From absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing.” Therefore, most of objectivist argues
Basically, divine law is the kind of law that is not forced by any punishment or rewards in order to follow them. Knowing divine law means acting good and behaving in a way that follows the nature and how thing are; as an example, serving in the interest of nature which is understanding that all and every human are free and every person should have their own freedom and choice and not abusing others and doing your best to follow everything in nature in its own way. Following the divine law automatically is following the law of God because law of nature is exactly the law of God and how he made everything. Therefore, people who follow the divine law do not need any force to act and behave correctly because they truly believe in their heart and mind to the law of nature and law of God and they would not do anything but all the stuff that are correct in nature/God law.
The alternative to Divine Command Theory is the statement that the basis for morality lies outside of God and His commands, rather than at the mercy of His whim. This is the approach that is referred to as the Euthyphro Dilemma. This Euthyphro Dilemma can be stated best as a question: “Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command an action because it is morally good?” This question may cause someone to be tempted to abandon Divine Command Theory and instead see morality as something external to God. By saying that God commands something because it is morally good threatens the authority and independence of God. If an external principle, in this case the objective view of morality, is outside of God, then God is therefore