The Divine Command Theorist Approach

God has given many commands as we know. In the Bible, God gives His people the Ten Commandments. These are a set of rules to which the People of Israel must live by. One of the questions is, Did God tell them they should do this because he said so or because it is right? One of the examples would be if God comes down and says to go and rage war against every unbeliever and kill everyone who does not believe, we will have to do so and you have no right to say it is wrong because God commanded us to do so and anything that God commands is Law and Good. We’ve seen this real life example in Isis. The radical Islamic group did just that and claimed they were doing everything for Allah. The rest of the world, we saw it as an act of terrorism but In the Koran, they are commanded to kill non-believers. We did not only disagree with it but we knew it was wrong.

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.

Decisions are what direct a average person's life. Some decisions are easy some are hard. But that’s the way of life and how it works.

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

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 is put forth for people who believe in God. The theory implies that good actions are morally worthy as a result of their being commanded by God. God, for these individuals, include people from the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faith. Individuals, because of these propositions, believe that it is their moral obligation to abide to God 's commands; which is, what is morally right is what God desires. This theory states the idea of objectivity between what’s right and wrong. If God makes

The Divine Command Theory states that morality is based on God’s commands and thus human actions should follow this law. I find it confusing when Rachels goes on to say that humans possess an understanding of right and wrong. If this is the case, then they do not need God to make those moral distinctions for them. This chapter seems very unclear to me about the role of God and humans. So, you make a good point about Rachels’ work being contradicting when he makes a point about humans are only concerned with their self-interest, but yet know the difference between right and wrong despite God’s command.

make many decisions and if they choose wrong, it may cost them their lives or someone else’s in

James Rachel’s claim that right and wrong should not defined in terms of God’s will, and morality ought not be a matter of religious faith but rather reason and conscience is interesting. I take this quote to mean that, according to Rachel’s, morality (the extent to which an action is right or wrong) can exist without God. This claim is supported by the analysis of Divine Command Theory we had in class. According to Divine Command Theory, what is morally right or wrong is that way solely because God willed it or spoke it to be. This theory of morality is flawed in that it does not establish temporal precedence, meaning it does not distinguish what comes first: the moral rightness of an action or God’s command to perform it. This theory leaves room to question whether God commands people to do what is morally right or what is morally right is so because God commands it. The former option implies the rightness and/or wrongness of an act exists without God, which seems futile for those who subscribe to Divine Command Theory. In the case of the latter, morality has the potential to go against our “moral intuition”. Obviously, this lack of clarity is problematic for a moral theory. In fact it seems Divine Command Theory, along with its criticisms, does more to support Rachel’s claim than to refute it. The very existence of a “moral intuition” for some undercuts the need for religious faith and/or God in morality. Those who do not subscribe to a religious faith may ask, “If

Often you run into times when a decision has to be made, but because of certain desires and obligations you can find yourself in a conflicting position. What if there was a decision that had to be made concerning the life or death of someone else? Not to mention it is a family members life. What are some of the factors that might be taken into consideration when someone’s life is on the line?

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.

An individual might be more open to take a step back from the divine command theory and look at it to be something external to God. The ethical implications of this argument

The divine command theory is composed of two maxims. First, it is right for an agent to do x. Second, God commands the agent to do x. Thus, God commands what is right for the agent to do. These statements are logically equivalent, as they together can only be either true or false. The second statement must also precede the first in order for the overall theory to make sense. For example, if God commands a man to love his neighbor as himself, then it is right for that man to do so. He cannot act on a command that is morally right if that command is not given to him. This idea of the divine command theory is presented by Plato in his Euthyphro. One of the main characters, Euthyphro, is prosecuting his father for killing a servant. Socrates, his philosophical counterpart, observes this act

To answer the question if Kierkegaard had a restricted or unrestricted view on the divine command theory I believe we need to take a close look at the divine command theory. In my opinion a great general summery of what the divine command theory is comes from the pg. 23 the first page of the chapter. The divine command theory about to be presented is what we may call an “unrestricted” view about the relation between God and morality because it proposes to explain the nature of both the right and the good terms of God’s command (Timmons, 2013).

Furthermore, if you cannot have ethics without God, which one of God’s teachings should be following. Should the teachings in the old testament championing an “eye for an eye” be tossed aside in favour of the new testament teaching of us to “turn the other cheek”. If God’s will is good, then it is both morally right to exact revenge, as well as demonstrate forgiveness to an injustice. I argue that this argument challenges the premise that God is omniscient as in the old testament, God commands and permits one act, and in the new testament contradicts and supports an entirely different act. If we follow the DCT and assume that as God’s will is good then both commands are correct, then it is up to the individual to decide which moral action to take. If such freedom is possible in making moral decisions, then divine command may not always be needed to satisfy our moral duties.