The Scholar's Think Tank Summary

It is important to look at ethical dilemmas in a systematic way, thus increasing the chance of achieving a solution that gives the best possible outcome. An ethical problem solving model taken from American sources (Paradise and Siegelwaks, 1982; Austin et al., 1990) was used to develop a six-step process to follow, in order to achieve this (Bond 2010, pg. 227). This process informs this paper, and I am in the role of counsellor.

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.

Even though codes of ethics are written down, they are not known as rules, but it is given to set the boundaries of what is and is not an acceptable way to conduct research

“In saying that things are not good by virtue of any rule of goodness but solely by virtue of the will of God, it seems to me that we unknowingly destroy all of God 's love and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing the exact contrary?”(1)Therefore there must be some moral standards independent of God that would be right or wrong regardless of his being. This conclusion creates another problem, it could mean that God has no freewill as he can not then act outside of the presupposed good morals and therefore can not make his own decisions. If there are moral standards independent of God and his will then that would limit God 's sovereignty. It binds God to something that makes him not independent. Instead of the good being established by him he is established by what is good and in essence a new “god” is created. This is used as a common argument for atheism, For if morality can exist without God there is no need to answer for the inherent sense of morale that humanity has in some context no matter what culture they are raised in.

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.

According to this theory, there are no moral standards that exist without God's will, and without his commands, nothing would be right or wrong. God is omnipotent, and therefore, morality itself is derived from God's nature. Without God, there is no basis for our moral structure and under this, what is moral is so because God has decreed it as such.

no one to please, why would there be a reason to morality at all? The question can then be raised if one

Contemporary issues involving scientific findings are a never ending issue for the Lord’s people to contend with. In the first century, philosophy was a major problem for the primitive church. Paul the apostle constantly defended the truth against the false ideas contrived by men; it shouldn’t be any different in the present-day. Attending the sessions of the Scholar’s Think Tank track grants the listeners an excellent opportunity to learn more about issues surrounding various sciences and modern skepticism so that they might effectively combat them.

Different standards might likewise be pertinent. These three are far reaching, nonetheless, and are expressed at a level of speculation that ought to help researchers, subjects, analysts and intrigued residents to comprehend the moral issues characteristic in examination including human subjects. These standards can't generally be connected in order to determine past debate specific moral issues. The goal is to give a diagnostic structure that will manage the determination of moral issues emerging from exploration including human subjects. This announcement comprises of a refinement in the middle of examination and practice, a dialog of the three essential moral standards, and comments about the use of these

(Thiroux, 2012). Humans tend to believe that we should obey a supernatural being and commandments relayed to us regardless of the consequences that might ensue. For a person to be moral they must live by and follow the Ten Commandments nothing else, they must not stray for these commandments. Some people may argue the fact that no one has been able to show any proof that a supernatural being really do

Biblical ethics are, first of all, personal; second, the ethics of the Bible are emphatically theistic. They focus on God. Third, most significantly, biblical ethics are deeply concerned with the internal response to morality rather than mere outwards. Fourth, Scripture’s ethical motivation was found in a future orientation. The belief in a future resurrection. The fifth and finally characteristic of biblical ethics is that they are universal. They embrace the same standard of righteousness for every nation and person (Butler 442).” The Books of th Bible, Proverbs and the Ten Commandments speaks volumes on biblical

Obeying by the natural law theory is the only true and moral way to live life; especially a life lived in God’s image. God’s presence is a guiding factor to obtaining a moral and virtuous life, which can only be obtained by following the natural law theory. God created a set of laws as a supreme guide for humans to live life, like any law these laws were created to ensure wellbeing for everyone. The laws he created are the civil law, the natural law and the divine law God created them from a law much superior than the rest, one which only God himself has the knowledge of, the eternal law. Humans actively participate in the eternal law of God by using reason in conformity with the Natural Law to discern what is good and evil(Magee 1). Of

The question of morality without God begins with the assumption that morals were inherently created by God himself. This assumption neglects to acknowledge the possibility that God is simply a messenger for morality, rather than a creator. While a Theist may believe everything God commands to be good, are his commands good because he proclaims them to be good, or does he proclaim them because they are good? If the latter is true then that opens up the possibility for the existence of morals before God, or without God. Religion was once thought to be the cause of everything in existence and the root of life itself. We have progressed to have an understanding of life that opens up the possibility of forces other than God as an explanation for creation. Similar to this, God is no longer requisite for understanding moral beliefs, allowing us to explore alternative explanations. Looking past religion into the very depths of what makes an individual human, that is where the basis of morality is found.

The Divine Command Theory is of the view that morality is somehow independent upon God, and that the moral obligation consists of obedience to God’s commands. The divine Command Theory also includes the claims that morality is based on the commands or how God is, and that the right thing to do is what God commands of one to do. The specific content of these divine commands alternates according to the particular religion and the particular views of the individual divine command theorist. However, all versions of this theory hold in common the claim that morality and moral obligations ultimately depend on God.

Consider the question of why one obeys the law? Morality in its defining sense can be different from each other, depending on the foundations of the society that claim their morality. Different societies have a different sense of what their moral priority would be like. Their morality can be based on purity and honesty when others concerned with practices. Many philosophers encourage morality, because generally it prevents and avoids harm to any society that is formed into certain groups. The most interesting notion of the morality comes out in a question whether it is informed through different sources of knowledge. If posed with this question, most people will say they follow to avoid the punishment that accompanies the disobedience of such law. Most religious people will argue that without God there is no valid justification for morality. Such people will argue that without a God to answer to, there will be no reason to act right, after all most of our belief in right and wrong is greatly influenced by