This experience Kant says comes from questions raised by our inner moral life, what we usually call a conscience. Moral behaviour, Kant is adamant, is rational behaviour and that we have a good reason to be moral and that this is a fundamental principle of morality; that if you have a reason to do something then you have a reason to do it. A moral reason is al... ... middle of paper ... ...jective moral laws suggest that there is a divine-law giver who wrote these laws. He later says that since commands and laws do not write themselves, they must be either brute facts requiring no explanation or put there by God. This argument is also supported by Don Trethowan who said objective laws are ‘far from being self explanatory’.
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).
Since God's nature itself can serve as the standard of goodness, one can simply say that God’s nature is then unchangeable and entirely good, His will is not arbitrary and that His declaration... ... middle of paper ... ...ts of the Bible and do not believe in others. By doing so, one is lead to an entirely different interpretation that strays away from the truth of God’s words. As you can see, the way to approach the Euthyphro Dilemma is to show that it is false and that there is ultimately a better option: God’s nature is the standard of goodness. There are not two options, but three. In all, one should reject both that it is right because God commands it and God commands it because it is right.
The spirit, in turn, gives us the happiness and freedom at which the law aims…" Additionally, it is important to understand Luther’s distinction between the Law and the Gospel in order to further explore Luther’s understanding of human freedom. The Law is God’s commands; it allows humans to coexist, limits chaos and condemns sinfulness, though it is not God’s road... ... middle of paper ... ...must refer everything to God. For Luther, everything in relation to salvation is determined through the will of God, therefore leaving no room for individual will, leaving Kant and Luther’s views irreconcilable. Kant attributes freedom as a presupposition of human action, he attributes a higher status to human freedom, to far from simply being determined by God or even Satan, rather freedom can achieve to the level of self-determination. Freedom according to Kant is will independent from foreign will and therefore reason should guide to individual principles independent of outside influences.
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.
God does not dictate evil on man; however, man is the author of his own evil deeds. God is necessary in the modern world as a representation of good deeds. He directs people to follow a proper and fruitful path that leads people to their freedom. Freedom of a human being should not infringe other people’s rights. God provides a guideline on how to operate without infringing other people’s rights.
It therefore appears evident that God must be the root of all evil, as He created all things. However, Augustine delves deeper in search for a true answer. This paper will follow ... ... middle of paper ... ... divine law and letting reason govern one’s actions, they can achieve complete happiness. One must not totally disregard temporal goods, but their actions should be based on their goods of the will, not temporal goods. God is the source of evil.
In the book The Ten Commandments, Eileen P. Flynn states that morality is “knowledge based on human experience, reason, and God’s revelation that discovers what we ought to be and what we ought to do to live fully human lives” (Flynn, 2010, p. 1). To me, values are the things I hold in high regard, like honesty, kindness, friendship, integrity, nature. Humans may value different things, and these are not necessarily right or wrong, good or bad. However morality is concerned with right and wrong behavior, and is based on laws of God. A person may not be morally wrong for not appreciating the beauties of nature, but to willfully destroy it and abuse it through wasting resources might be morally wrong.
It is our ability to make our own choices and be rational with the intention of creating good will. A person’s moral worth cannot determined by other people and their thoughts. It is our own rational thinking that determines our own result. Above all, it is the recognition of duty itself that must drive our actions. Our own reasons give us our own duties so that we can live up to the Kantian standards and fulfill our duty as being a rational, successful human
It would always be reasonable to maintain the typical conception of an omnibenevolent God who would never intend for moral wrongs to be done. The divine command theorist’s presumed critique of the divine will theory is twofold: first, what would happen in an instance in which the command and the will of God are not expressing the same thing? If God’s commands are his only way of communicating intent, but his commands are not perfect reflections of his intention, then how can human beings possibly know what actions are morally mandatory or prohibited? Second, in such an instance, what is the point of a command if not to communicate God’s will? The divine command theorist would charge that the point of a command under the divine will theory becomes arbitrary, and theists altogether reject the notion that God ever acts arbitrarily.