The Doctrine Of The Divine Command Theory

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.

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

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 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

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.

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 my opinion, I think that the Euthyphro dilemma only proposes two options when there is clearly three. As stated earlier there is the restricted theory, unrestricted, and also the option that is the fact that good is based on Gods nature. Since God is good, just, and righteous and since we are made in his image it would only make sense that he o appeals to his own character for the standard of what is good and bad. Therefor he reveals what is good to us. He shows us what is right and wrong through his actions. God does not command that lying is wrong. It is wrong because God is incapable of lying, not because he had to discover that lying was wrong, and not

I agree. Aquinas explanation of the natural law theory actually supports the divine command theory by acknowledging God as the creator of the universe, nature, reason, and morality. Since it is God’s logic behind the natural law theory and an “action is right only if it in agreement with the natural law,” I fail to see how the theory could in any way discredit the divine command

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

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 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

Christian morality is centered on assessing the ethical implications of us as people. Who we ought and be, and what actions we ought to take or avoid based on an understanding of the scripture and relevant human experiences. I do not subscribe to the divine command theory (DCT) of ethics, as I believe you can have ethics without God. The DCT proposes that what is morally right is what God has commanded (for example, love thy neighbor), and what is forbidden by God is morally wrong (i.e. murder), yet there are many who agree that murder is wrong without reading the bible to recognize this. As such, I argue that the churches moral teachings are of

There are going to be times in our lives when we disagree with what someone says or another person’s opinions on a particular matter. It’s unlikely that we will agree and be content with everything that happens in our lives as we do not live in a utopian world. It is also inevitable at one time or another that we will disagree with what the Church is teaching us especially when it comes to moral issues such as divorce, birth control, and abortion. This is called non-reception. When non-reception ensues in the Church, the teaching in question is ineffectively expressed or judged to be unbelievable by a large population of good, faithful Catholics (Kennedy).