The Divine Command Theory : A Man For All Seasons

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.

“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.

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.)

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.

He believes that if he is summoned to the Court that the jury will look at the evidence and realize there is no probable content to convict him of, therefore, proving him to be an innocent man who has done no wrong. More distinctly states this belief when he tells Cromwell, “The law requires more than an assumption; the law requires a fact.” -Sir Thomas More, pg 131

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 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.

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.

In accompaniment to the symbols, Bolt utilizes distinct characters to comment on the unethical convictions of the general populous. ______The Church sent out an oath asking for the approval of King Henry and Catherine’s divorce so that he could marry his mistress and produce a male heir. More refused to sign the oath and was convicted with treason for staying true to his beliefs. While on trial for treason, More expresses his strong belief of abiding to his conscience as he proclaims, “In matters of conscience, the loyal subject is more bounden to be loyal to his conscience than to any other thing.” This scene is a pivotal confirmation that More is unwilling to succumb to the pressures placed on him by his friends and family. More did not

     But you can not write a play on the excellent character of a man alone and this is another reason why Robert Bolt had to go all the way back to the 16th century. I believe he was also thinking of the setting. This is because the setting is actually a time of political and spiritual upheaval so there is a great deal of conflict for Bolt to make use of. King Henry was a king who abused his power so people had to make sure that they were on his good side, no matter what. Another reason was that More acted differently than everyone else; he believed that you had to earn your status. And the divorce, well, the divorce can be looked at as the King and the Church meeting at a head. It was king versus the church, and for Thomas More, it was his life vs. his spirit.

                In some literature, a character’s moral stature plays an important role.  In the play, A Man for All Seasons, by Robert Bolt, no other character comes close to More’s moral reputation.  Thomas Cromwell and Richard Rich do not compare to More’s moral stature because both Rich and Cromwell lie, while Rich accepts bribes and Cromwell does anything King Henry VIII tells him to no matter what it is, and they will do whatever it takes to get what they want.  More on the other hand, would not lie no matter what the consequences would be, he would not accept a bribe under any circumstance and he would never go against his morals.

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.