Philosophy 2200
Siara Rosario
Paper #3
Topic: The Divine Theory and the Euthypro Problem
In this paper I will discuss the Divine Command Theory (DCT) and its attracted features. I will also discuss the problems proposed by Plato’s writing known as “The Euthypro Problem” (EP). Using the Euthypro Problem I plan to show how Divine Command Theory makes morality arbitrary and God’s goodness meaningless. First I will begin by clearly defining the Divine Command Theory. I will then proceed to discuss the attractive features of the Divine Command Theory. After I will discus “The Euthypro Problem” and its argument against the Divine Command Theory. Lastly I will discuss the results of Divine Command Theory and its effects on believers of God.
Divine Command Theory is a religious approach to morality. The basis of this theory is that God is the lawmaker and as devout free agents, we choose to follow His commands. Morality is determined by the commandments of God. Morally right is considered as that which is commanded by God and morally wrong is that which is forbidden by God (Rachels, p.50). God does not compel us to obey His commands and therefore this theory contains some attractive features.
One of the attractive features is that it solves the problem of objectivity in morality (Rachels, p. 50). Previously morality was a matter of opinions, feelings, cultures and values. Because Divine Command Theory states God, is the lawmaker, right and wrong is objectively perfect (Rachels, p. 50). According to the Divine Command Theory, objectivity is based on a divine spirit. Secondly, the Divine Command Theory helps answer the question, “why should one be bothered with ethics at all?” (Rachels, p. 50). Believers believe there will be a day when ...
... middle of paper ...
...God due to this skeptical theory. In the next section of the text, Rachels defines the Theory of Natural Law as solution to morality that is independent of religion.
In closing, The Divine Command theory is a religious approach to morality. By this approach morality is determined by the commands of God and free from objectivity.
However, the theory cannot apply to atheist and possess some skeptical results. In “the Euthypro Problem,” Socrates asks, “Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?” Due Socrates’ question, God’s commands conclude to be arbitrary and His goodness as meaningless. The Euthypro problem also causes believers of this theological conception to choose between the goodness of God and a standard independent of God. To avoid this dilemma, Rachels suggests the Theory of Natural Law in the next section.
...objects and gods differ only in degree and not in kind''. From a Logical Point of View (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953), p. 44.
or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or
In the dialogue Euthyphro (Cahn and Markie), Plato presents an argument against the divine command meta-ethical theory. While the argument is presented against the predominantly pantheistic Greek religions, the argument can be easily applied to the monotheistic Abrahamic religions.
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
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.
Paley, William. “Natural Theology,” in Introduction to Philosophy. 6th edition. Perry, Bratman, and Fischer. Oxford University Press. 2013, pp. 47-51.
The problem of reconciling an omnipotent, perfectly just, perfectly benevolent god with a world full of evil and suffering has plagued believers since the beginning of religious thought. Atheists often site this paradox in order to demonstrate that such a god cannot exist and, therefore, that theism is an invalid position. Theodicy is a branch of philosophy that seeks to defend religion by reconciling the supposed existence of an omnipotent, perfectly just God with the presence of evil and suffering in the world. In fact, the word “theodicy” consists of the Greek words “theos,” or God, and “dike,” or justice (Knox 1981, 1). Thus, theodicy seeks to find a sense of divine justice in a world filled with suffering.
The unrestricted divine command theory is committed to morality being completely and solely dependent of the commands of God. This basically explains the reason any action is good or bad, and the reason an action can be called good is because God is good, just, and righteous. The question posed by Socrates proposes a thought that maybe instead of good and bad being determined by God that God’s commands are right because they were first good.
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
Divine command states that what is moral is determined by what God commands, and that to be moral is to follow his commands. For example, Jehovah’s witnesses do not allow blood fusions because their scriptures say humans are not allowed to drink blood; although blood transfusions are allowed for children. Even though modern society does not condemn blood transfusions many Jehovah’s witnesses do not allow blood transfusions because they believe God does not allow blood transfusions. God is the almighty, and what he commands is morally right. Another concrete application of divine command theory is the five pillars of Islam. One must devote his life to following the five pillars; the pillars are correct because God insists upon it. Every Muslim is obliged to believe that there is no other God than Allah, ritual prayer must be done five times a day facing the holy city Mecca, fasting must be done during the month of Ramadan, give at least 2.5% savings to the poor, and make a visit to Mecca at least once in a person’s life time. People follow divine command to the fullest because it is moral to follow God’s commands.
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.
In conclusion, while both the Natural Law Theory and the Divine Command Theory have aspects that I don’t agree on, both brought interesting ways to look at the world and the
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.