The Theory Of Divine Right

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.

He encouraged that subjects do not listen to the voice of God, and only their ruler. Bossuet, however, believed that God possesses all power and rulers were anointed by Him. Bossuet states, “But kings, although their power comes from on high, as has been said, should not regard themselves as masters of that power to use it at their pleasure; . . . they must employ it with fear and self-restraint, as a thing coming from God and of which God will demand and account” (Bousset). Although his views are similar to those of Hobbes, Bossuet 's theory of absolutism is favorable because God is the head of government. Nonetheless, this still leaves civilians in the hands of their rulers, who can falsely say they have a divine right to the throne.

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.

It claims all monarchs are despots, cut off from their people and craving for absolute power.  “Male and female are the distinctions of nature,” Paine wrote, “good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest . . . is worth enquiring into” (Paine 9).  Government is a necessary evil, a “badge of lost innocence,” that tends to get in the way of civilized society.  Modern civilizations should organize themselves into local, self-governing societies with only representational government, suggested Paine, not an all-powerful monarch. “Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived” (Paine 17).

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.

In 17th-18th century Europe, the age of absolutism, absolute monarchs ruled most of Europe. Absolute monarchs are rulers that have complete control over the government and its people. They claimed to rule by “divine right,” where their authority comes from God and they were above the law. The views of being a proper role as an absolute monarch differed very much between rulers and their subjects. Certain rulers had ideas that both the people and ruler should be united, some abused their power with no sympathy towards the people they rule, and the subjects that suffered from the rulings of the monarch had a completely different perspective than the rulers that were in power.

This absolutist leader is portrayed by both King James I of England and King Louis XIV of France. King James I of England provided his people with a religious affiliation of himself and God. Through the divine right of kings, King James I believed he granted himself power from the authority of God. By means of this given right, King James I convinced his people was equal in power to God. Although this statement is false, many people, specifically the poor and illiterate, believed him. King James I used people’s relationships with God to create his own relationship amongst the people. In England there needed to be order when religious affiliation was breaking between the people and God. So rather than people looking up to God, they would look up to King James I. “The state of monarchy is the supreme thing upon earth; for kings are not only God’s lieutenants on earth and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God Himself they are called gods.”- Document B. Since King James was believed to be in connection and as powerful as God, no one could disobey or disagree with him. King James I granted himself the power to create and destroy, give life or sentence death and to determine the status of people. By making himself known as a god, King James I was able to fulfill several religious aspects in people’s lives and rule under a well-organized secure state of monarchy. Additionally,

In “Social Order and Absolute Monarchy, written by Jean Domat, Domat argues that the absolute monarchy portrayed by King Louis XIV of France was created in the best interest of France. Domat’s audience in this document seems to be the middle class as well as the lower classes of France since Domat’s main goal of this paper is to justify the actions and amount of power held by the upper class and the king in an absolute monarchy.

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

To start off with, Jean Domat was a French jurist who ideas stem from the kings practice of royal absolutism. In addition, Domat also established a large presence of the law of God within her work. Domat viewed ‘man’ as each person is a member of society and must obey God faithfully. In addition, there is emphasis on the obedience of ‘man’ to God. While God has many rights, ‘man’ has little to none except to acknowledge the truth and what God requires of them. God is the dominant power and ‘man’ has little say. Domat states that there are two types of government. The first is the relationship between children and parents. Children respect their parents the head of the family. The second government is formed through variety within employments, which leads to a necessary head to unite society. For those who govern society, power is given to them. “For since God is the only natural sovereign of men, their judge, their

King James I, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes strongly believed in the idea of Absolute government. They believed that King's were "God's Lieutenant's" and they were in power simply because God sent them there. These men believed in divine power upon earth, and that "God hath power to create or destroy, make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or sent death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none, to raise low things, and to make high things low at his pleasure…and the like power have Kings…" as quoted from doc. 2 of King James I. Being how King James I was a King, it is a conventional belief that Kings had divine rights. In one of Machiavelli's works "The Prince" Machiavelli writes "Men have less hesitation in offending a man who is loved than one who is feared."(Doc.1) Consequently Machiavelli believes in having a fear in your ruler, because if you fear your ruler, you will not hesitate to obey him, for you are afraid of the punishment. Where as, if you love your ruler, you are more lenient to challenge your ruler's authority.

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.

hapter three of Malise Ruthven’s book, Islam: A Very Short Introduction, is dedicated to the subject of divine unicity and the fact that, although it is a very important belief in Islam, the Muslim world is characterised by disunity. The word tawhid means unicity, and there is an “insistence that it is unicity above all that defines divinity,” which is not directly mentioned in the Quran, but is implied. The idea can be traced back to 657, when Mu‘āwiya’s soldiers placed pages of the Quran on their lances, symbolizing that they are also Muslims like ‘Alī’s supporters, calling upon this sacred unicity to reach arbitration. Throughout the history of Islam, similarly to Christianity, there have been countless breaks and divisions, ultimately leading