Where Do Our Morals Come From?

The question of God’s existence has been pondered by humans for centuries. There are an infinite number of different opinions, arguments, and ideas favoring for or against the idea of God. Personally, I strongly believe in God not only due to my religious affiliation, but also because of my own opinions, ideas, and experience. To begin with, the complexity of Earth and the life that has formed upon it cannot be based just on luck or chance. I believe that ultimately God, as a power, rather than a mystical being is the one created and controls the universe. Although the God and his authority are not entirely comprehensible by humans, it’s our faith as worshiper that eventually lead us to a greater understanding.

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

HP Owen and Cardinal Newman put forward another moral argument, morality as derived from God (via conscience and objective laws or rules). For

Since the beginning of time, our mere existence has created a number of questions we cannot seem to forget nor answer. Where did we come from? How was the universe created? What is our purpose? Are we innately good or bad? Assumptions, theories, evidence, faith, and science have all been used to try to answer these questions accurately. Specifically the question whether we are born good or bad will be addressed.

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 Plato’s dialogue, Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro discuss what the gods find pious. In the dialogue, Euthyphro claims to know what the gods enjoy, and what they find impious. Euthyphro claims that what the gods love is pious and what the gods hate is impious. The question Socrates responds with is whether the gods only love what is pious or is what is pious is what the gods have loved (Timmons, 27). This question leads to many problems for the unrestricted version of the divine command theory which is a moral theory based on God’s commands and their relation to morality. Does God command what is right or is what is right commanded by God? There exists a version of

The problem this causes for the Divine Command Theory is the fact that the gods make pious things pious by commanding them instead of something being pious on its own, otherwise the gods are simply commanding things arbitrarily. Without the power to command things into piety, then the gods become imperfect, and not supremely good. This then trivializes the gods commands causing their commands to lose their importance and

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

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

So, divine command theory puts god as the creator of morality. Euthyphro dilemma states whatever is good, is loved by the gods and the gods love whatever is good but this presents a problem for the divine command theory because Euthyphro dilemma makes it seem like morality was created before god which makes divine command theory false. Also, the dilemma makes it appear that the command god makes is right even, when to others it appears wrong. If god commanded Euthyphro’s dad to murder, the divine theory would consider this moral, so he would not be

Green’s selection has enabled me to examine the nature of morality from the point of view that is from the biblical teachings and highly negates Harris ideas religious fundamentalism and moral relativism. The J. Green’s readings demonstrate the weaknesses of Sam Harris moral scientific ideologies. Green argues that God is the source of moral values and human responsibilities. Considering that God is a superior being, if we agree with Harris stipulations that God does not exist, the objective duties and the human moral values cannot exist. Therefore, if the moral values and duties do exist it automatically shows that God lives.

Does God Exist? The concept of god is ambiguous and every person has a different take on it. “Does God Exist” is a huge question philosophers reason about and God’s existence has been an ongoing debate for centuries in the philosophical world. There are many arguments that take a stand on the existence of God but no claim can be proven one-hundred percent true.

If God is not all-powerful, is he worthy of worship? And finally, does God not exist?

Have you ever asked yourself where your conscience comes from? The feeling that takes a hold of you when you do what you feel is wrong. This feeling is almost like a consequence when you tell a lie or commit a crime. Your conscience helps you sort out the good and bad and feels your mind with sorrow when you see a sad story on the news or gives you the initiative to donate money to a contribution. But where does it come from. Is it something you are naturally born with, taught over time or given to you by a higher power? This argument leads to the existence of moral values by many philosophers including William Lane Craig. One of his excerpts argues that if there is an existence of moral values, which some people agree,

Twenty centuries later MARTINUS INTELLECTUALIZED ‘THE NEW MORALITY’, providing KEY SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS of THE CORE TEACHING. This ‘NEW MORALITY’ is, in fact, a Science in Absolute Compliance and Harmony with Eternal Cosmic Laws. Despite the fact, that ‘EVERYTHING’ is there in a ‘bookshelf’, an average Terrestrial Man, as unfinished ‘product of Evolution’, shows through uncivilized, impulse driven, unscrupulous acts its inadequacy and indisposition for True Human Conduct. Therefore, the frequency of breaching of not only Cosmic or the Highest Moral Laws, but his own moral codes is not a surprise for devote Cosmic Analyst. (Quote from ‘LOGIC’ chapter # 39)