The Pros And Cons Of Divine Laws

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.

In examining the relationship between religion and morality, there are many equally important topics that should be considered. One topic, nonetheless, that I think is essential in beginning to discuss the philosophy of morality in the context of religion is that which is concerned with whether religion has a significant role in the definition of morality. Religion does have a significant role in the defining and understanding of morality, and this is important for ethics. The aim of this paper is not to argue whether it is possible for one to be moral without being religious, for this I assume is more or less evidently possible, but rather whether a general concept of religion and God is needed in the proper interpretation of morality. I will refer to Plato’s Euthyphro and its focus on piety and the dilemma it generates, in guiding this discussion.

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 belief that morality requires God remains a widely held moral maxim. In particular, it serves as the basic assumption of the Christian fundamentalist's social theory. Fundamentalists claim that all of society's troubles - everything from AIDS to out-of-wedlock pregnancies - are the result of a breakdown in morality and that this breakdown is due to a decline in the belief of God. This paper will look at different examples of how a god could be a bad thing and show that humans can create rules and morals all on their own. It will also touch upon the fact that doing good for the wrong reasons can also be a bad thing for the person.

In August 2015, the case Miller V Davis brought to light the complicated relationship between law and morality. Indeed, Mrs Davis a county clerk in Rowan county (Kentucky), is being sued for not delivering marriage licences to same sex couples as she believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Thus, despite the fact that same-sex marriage has been made legal by the U.S Supreme Court since June 2015. Ought individuals to apply the law though it is in inadequacy with their moral beliefs? Do the law should be totally free from any moral influence? Many legal scholars have argued on these questions, as well as trying to define the terms “law” and “morality”. While no one has agreed to a universal definition, law can be defined as a “body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects”. On the other hand, morality is referred to as an “ethical wisdom” , the set of common values unifying a society. This essay will discuss the role of morality in the law, while analysing different legal school of thoughts arguing on the topic. First of all, positivists such as Bentham, Austin and Hart, argued that morality should not interfere with the law as it is created by a legitimate authority. On the other hand, naturalist theorists, such as Aristotle, Fuller and Dworkin, believed in the existence of a “higher law”, highly influenced by morals, has to be integrated in a legal system

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

A few thousand years ago, three sets of laws were composed that show remarkable similarities in their instructions on how to live a moral and righteous life. Although they were written hundreds of miles apart from each other, and in totally different cultures and civilizations, the Edicts of Ashoka, the Bible, and Hammurabi’s Code all elucidate the moral principles of self-control, justice, and abstention from harming living beings.

St. Thomas Aquinas argues that an “an unjust law is no law at all.” (Aquinas in Dimock, ed., 2002, p.19) However, Aquinas also acknowledges that a human lawgiver may promulgate a command that has the form of law, and is enforced like a law, yet is unjust. This observation leads to the realization that these are two inconsistent claims. Yet Aquinas believes that these inconstancies can be reconciled. In Aquinas’ view an unjust law is not a law but yet is also able to be issued as law and imposed as law.

Are we naturally moral creatures? Do we always act towards the common good of others? I am positive that we do not, and in fact, as much as society wants to, we go against our morals and lead with our ‘feelings’. These feelings may feel right, but it doesn’t mean they will lead you in the right path to fulfil your ultimate end, true happiness. Hitler was a passionate man driven by feelings, but what he felt and did during the World War Two era was not for the sake of the common good, and was not morally right. In today’s society we often struggle between what is legally right and what is

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

As we look at verses (7:7-12) we see what the law is and how we can define it whether it is sin or not. In looking at verses (7:13-14) we see the cause of death, in many cases people have said that the law is the cause of death but in the text we will see that sin is the true cause of death. As we look at the following passage we see a turn of events in verses (7:14-24), As we see the author change directions in his writings we see him talk about the inner struggle that comes through sin and how as a unbeliever he struggled with the temptations that sin brings forth. The next passage that we will discuss is verses (7:24-25), without a doubt we see that the answer to the inner struggle is a Savior that comes through Jesus Christ our lord. This last part of the paper talks about the remedy of the inner struggle that comes to all people that struggle with sin in an unconverted state. This paper investigates a passage that has been used throughout the ages as evidence to take the law away and yet it has also been used as a passage to enforce strict guidelines to the law. After reading this paper hopefully you will have a good perspective on how the law works in your faith today.

Christian initially accepts this suggestion, for he is told by Mr. Worldly-Wiseman that Legality is a man who is known for his good works (Bunyan, 19). Christian them embarks on the trip to the Village of Morality, but in transit he encounters a hill that proved an insurmountable obstacle, along with the reappearance of Evangelist who shames him for trusting in the earthly qualities of morality and legality (Bunyan, 20-22). Therein we see confirmation of the notion that justification is by faith alone. For Christian, via the instruction and teachings of Evangelist, discards the knowledge and virtues of the concepts of morality and legality as nothing more than a fruitless diversion in comparison to seeking the Celestial City (Bunyan, 22).

This paper will demonstrate how Hart’s account of the relationship between law and morality shows an understanding of how they both work together yet can also work as separate entities. It will take a specific look into the internal point of view to aid the understanding of why

It is the laws that humans create to maintain a day to day life with restrictions. He said that not everyone fully participates in Divine reason, meaning that we cannot understand each and every single truth that it holds. In short terms, it is to do good and avoid evil. An example of human law is doing something to help others rather than going out of your way to do wrong to someone else. Volunteering for an organization you agree with is a way to do good and avoid evil. Even something simple as to help someone cross the road when they are unable to do it themselves is a form of doing something good and avoiding evil. It is commonly not rewarded but it can make someone feel good on the inside, knowing they were able to