The Divine Command Theory and Relativism make strong claims on the source of morality. Robert C. Mortimer describes in Morality Is Based on God’s Commands that morality itself is derived from the act of God deeming things as either right or wrong. The following claim “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted,” is believable when following Divine Command Theory as compared to other theistic views. I shall display two theist claims which respectively accept and reject the previous statement, as well as arguing the the plausibility of each claim. First, Divine Command Theory derives morality from the word of God. This is because God is considered an all knowing omnipotent being. According to Divine Command Theory, God created us and …show more content…
As Mortimer puts it, things are right “because God commands it”(Mortimer 3). The value of right and wrong come from the words of God, not because they are intrinsically good themselves. If morals were intrinsically good or bad without God, then they would have had to exist before God. This would not hold up with the Divine Command Theory because in paragraph 3, Mortimer conveys that God was to exist first and is the source and creator of all. Creation of everything would include both moral truths and their morality. Moral truths would have to exist before God in order for there to be intrinsic morals. In the case where morals were intrinsically good or bad, God would simply be a messenger to what is good or bad, not creating the goodness in morals but simply deciphering them. Divine Command Theory can be isolated to two significant claims: (i) If God exists, then his commands determine morality. (ii) God exists.
The conclusion is that since God exists (due to the theistic nature of Divine Command Theory), then morality is determined by his word. By applying Divine Command Theory to the statement “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted,” we can establish that DCT is a theory that could follow the statement. As stated above, Divine Command Theory puts morality in the word of God. In the simplest sense, God’s commands make things right or wrong. By denying the consequent to the claims above, we can form a conclusion that shows “everything is permitted”: (i) If God exists, then his commands determine
Finally, in Beckwith’s fourth point, he evaluates the absurd consequences that follow moral relativist’s arguments. In his final critique, Beckwith uses typical philosophical examples that Mother Teresa was morally better than Adolf Hitler, rape is always wrong, and it is wrong to torture babies. Beckwith argues that for anyone to deny these universal claims is seen as absurd, yet it concludes with moral objectivism that there are in fact universally valid moral positions no matter the culture from which those individuals
In Truth Matters, Köstenberger asks “If there’s no God, if there’s no Word, no truth, then what makes someone who busts out your windshield any more wrong than if they wash your car or buy you a tank of gas?” (Köstenberger 22) In God’s Not Dead, Wheaton also brings up this argument by stating that morality leads directly back to God. If God did not exist, then human by nature would not be able to tell the difference between right or wrong, unless that ability was given to them by an intelligent designer. Nonetheless, in both cases, the existence of morality is used as an argument to prove the existence of
The Divine command theory states that morally right actions are those commanded by God, and any action going against it is morally wrong. People that accept this theory can only consider an act to be right or wrong if God commanded it to be so. Therefore, supporters of this theory have a moral obligation to do and obey whatever God considered to be right without questioning his judgment. Those in favor of this theory should fulfill his will without any hesitation, regardless of its consequences to society. So if God had claimed abortion to be morally right, everyone supporting this theory were to happily accept it. Moreover, this theory suggests that those who act on a moral sense God desires will be rewarded at the end, perhaps in the afterlife;
Broadly, the divine command theory is a religious moral code in which God’s commands determine what human beings should or should not do. As such, it is expected for theists to subscribe to the divine command theory of morality. The deontological interpretation of the divine command theory separates actions into one of the following categories: mandatory for human beings to perform, prohibited for human beings to perform, or optional for human beings to perform. Those actions that are mandatory to perform are ones which have been expressly commanded by God. Failing to commit a mandatory action would be defying God’s commands, and thus, according to the divine command theory of morality, immoral. Actions that are prohibited are ones that God expressly commands human beings do not perform. Consequently, to perform a prohibited action would be immoral. Finally, those actions that God does not expressly command that human beings should perform or should avoid performing are optional; there are no moral implications to performing or not performing such acts. The rightness or wrongness of an action is inherently and wholly dependent upon th...
Dating all the way back to ancient Greece, Plato raised a challenge by merely asking, “Is it right because God commands it, or does God command it because it’s right?” Nowadays, this simple yet complex question poses a problem to modern day Christians. When understanding this question, you are forced to believe you only have one of two choices to accept. Those being either it is right because God commands it or God commands it because it is right. If it is right because God commands it then anything, specifically evil, could be right. On the other hand, if God commands it because it is right then the standard of goodness is no longer. Both options are hostile to Christianity. However, after further investigation, there is a third option: God’s very nature is the standard of goodness. By closely examining Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma, it’s clear that a theist should undoubtedly accept the third option, being that of God’s nature is the standard of goodness.
The Divine Command Theory is an ethical theory that basically proposes that God is the sole distinguisher between what is right and what is wrong. The textbook describes that under this theory, God commands what is moral and forbids what is immoral. Critics of this theory state that if God is the sole decision maker of morality, immoral actions could be acceptable if He willed it, and thus, God’s authority would be subjective and arbitrary. However, proponents contend that God would not allow immoral actions because he is omnipotent and all good. To follow the Divine Command Theory, one must believe and trust that it is in God’s nature to do good, and He will not act against his nature. By believing in this, one would dispute the critics’ argument by proving that God his not making
"that moral laws are the heteronomous commands of a transcendent deity who demands obedience." [p.219f]
Mere Christianity is divided into four books or sections that build and expand off of the prior. The first book is entitled “Right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe” and he examines the common understanding among all men of a universal moral law hardwired in the minds of men. He begins this examination with a presentation of man’s concept of right and wrong. The simplest understanding among all men is the concept of fairness. This fair play points to a law and can be seen in the reactions of mankind to justice and injustice. He contrasts this moral law, the Law of Human Nature, with the law of nature found in the world. The mind of the moral relativist denies such standards yet fail to recognize their call for fairness as a fatal flaw in their reasoning.
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.
For many years now, people have always wondered what ethical principle is the right one to follow. These individuals are all seeking the answer to the question that the ethical principles are trying to clarify: What defines moral behavior? The Divine Command Theory and the theories of cultural relativism are two principles of many out there that provide us with explanations on what our ethical decisions are based on and what we consider to be our moral compass in life. Even though these two theories make well-supported arguments on why they are the right principle to follow, it is hard to pinpoint which one should guide our choices because of the wide array of ethical systems. Therefore, what is morally right or wrong differs greatly depending
In order to understand divine command theory we must first understand the nature of God and Morality. So we will start by taking a look at what makes an action moral. Once we understand what makes an action moral, we can then try to understand the author's’ viewpoint on the divine command theory of ethics. Understanding the viewpoint will allow us to dissect the author’s viewpoints and come up with counter-arguments that the author must then contend with.
The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” seems at face value viable. Nevertheless the lack of guidelines to determine which maxim should be used to describe an action causes problems with the consistency of the Universal Law formulation. Moreover, the abundance of false positives and false negatives suggests a deep problem with the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative that may not be fixable.
Harman, G. (2000). Is there a single true morality?. Explaining value and other essays in moral philosophy (pp. 77-99). Oxford: Clarendon Press ;.
The Theory of Natural Law, defined in three aspects, there being a natural order in the world, everything having a purpose and how things are and how things ought to be. This theory also states that humans can distinguish between what is right or wrong through human reason/moral knowledge. On the other hand, the Divine Command Theory is a view of morality and believes that what’s right or wrong is set by God’s moral commands. God’s commands tell us what is morally obligatory, permitted and wrong.
When considering morality, worthy to note first is that similar to Christian ethics, morality also embodies a specifically Christian distinction. Studying a master theologian such as St. Thomas Aquinas and gathering modern perspectives from James Keenan, S. J. and David Cloutier serve to build a foundation of the high goal of Christian morality. Morality is a primary goal of the faith community, because it is the vehicle for reaching human fulfillment and happiness. Therefore, great value can be placed on foundations of Christian morality such as the breakdown of law from Aquinas, the cultivation of virtues, the role of conscience in achieving morality, and the subject of sin described by Keenan.