The Doctrine Of The Divine Command Theory

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 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.

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.

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

The Divine Command Theory is the assertion in ethics that an action is morally right if, and only if, it conforms to God’s will. This premise ties together morality and religion in a manner that seems expected, since it provides a solution to arguments about moral relativism and the objectivity of ethics. On the other hand, in Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates questions whether something is right because God commands it, or whether God commands it because it is right. The ethical implications of the Euthyphro problem suggest that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as straightforward as suggested by the Divine Command Theory.

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.

Socrates was a moral philosopher who was accused of impiety and was about to be tried for a crime, the nature of which no one seemed to understand. The trial and death of Socrates has four dialogs known as the Euthyphro, the Apology, the Crito, and the Phaedo which describes the process of Socrates’ controversial and insightful trial that raises the questions about human morality. Within the story we learned that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as clear-cut as some might think, Socrates forces the witnesses of his trial as well as ourselves to come to conclusions which result in a paradox that conflicts with the individual beliefs of his audience. In the event in which, Socrates poses a question to himself and Euthyphro, an attempt to answer the question "What is piety?" It has a specific tie to the events in “The Trial and Death of Socrates”, for Socrates had been accused of impiety and was about to be tried for the crime of heresy. The Euthyphro dialogue was written twenty-four centuries ago, and its conclusion is devastating for the whole idea that holiness and morality are very well connected. The idea that, “if God does not make something good by commanding it, but rather instead identifies that which is good, what measurement of morality does he use to make this judgment?” If something is right because god commands it, then it follows that something would be just as right if God instructed differently. If god declares that it is right to

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.

If you believe that moral actions are good or bad because they are commanded or forbidden by God, then every moral good or bad action must have been commanded or forbidden by God. If the action was not commanded or forbidden, then they would not be considered good nor bad. If God had commanded to “hate thy neighbour”, then Christians and Jewish people would behave in that fashion. Plato’s question of “Is x good because God loves it or does God love x because x is good?” address this point by showing that moral code is somewhat arbitrary.

One important aspect to morality is the distinctive rational authority of moral commands, how morality seems to command and favour us doing certain things that we are strongly compelled to oblige, regardless of our own beliefs. Many metaethical theories try to explain how and why morality works like this. One of these theories is the Divine Command Theory (DCT); that morality comes from the commands of some type of god. DCT provides some compelling arguments to explain the distinctive rational authority though but the drawbacks keep it from being a definitive answer.

Should the United States dedicate 1 percent of its gross national product annually toward the alleviation of world hunger? This is a very good question and is one that I feel uncertain about. This topic really drew my attention, as it approaches many great arguments that support either side. Each side gives great reasons why the U.S. should or should not support this topic of interest. In this essay, I want to directly talk about three different Ethical Theories that we have learned about throughout class. I’ll explain their particular values and how they would see this issue. Is it right or is it wrong? Do we have an obligation to send support for the less fortunate to alleviate hunger? Each theory has its own position on this matter

In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro had a conversation about piety. During the conversation, Socrates raised a question which was a challenge to the Euthyphro’s definition of piety. Also, this question is a challenge to the theists’ view of divine command theory. I agree with the arbitrariness objection which succeeds giving a good reason to theists to reject the divine command theory. This objection indicates that the arbitrariness of God’s commands contradicts to the fundamental attribute of God, and God’s commands are unable to make an act morally good or bad.