More handpicked essays just for you.
Two strenghts and weaknesses of divine command theory
Divine command theory essays
Modified Divine Command Theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In this essay, I will examine and assess the Divine Command Theory. The theory will first be summarized. Then I will state the theory’s strengths and what makes it worth examining. Lastly, I will cover the flaws and weaknesses of the theory.
The Divine Command Theory is the idea that what makes an action wrong or right is the command of God. Therefore, an action is morally obligatory if God commands it is right. An action is morally wrong if God commands it is wrong. Lastly, an action is only optional if God doesn’t command it or forbid it. Morality is commanded by God independently of what we think is right or wrong. For instance, if God commands that murder is wrong, than it is wrong only because God commands it is wrong. If he commands that donating to charity is right, it is only right because of his will.
The Divine Command Theory has more arguments against it than for it. However, it is strongly favored by the religious, while also being opposed by many religious people. The argument from divine supremacy is the main argument that is used to promote this theory. It states that everything is dependent on the will of God. Therefore, morality in turn is dependent on God’s will.
The argument from objectivity of morality also advocates the Divine Command Theory. It states that moral standards are objective, separate from all culture’s judgment. It also states that they’re universal. Thus, morality can only be objective and universal if it depends on the commands of God. In response, morality is solely dependent on God’s commands.
While both these theories have something of value, they both hold flaws. The theory from divine supremacy, while being agreed upon within many religions, makes several significant assumptions. For i...
... middle of paper ...
...there are moral standards that stand separate from the will of God. However, with the second choice, the commands of God are actually worthless. In response, the only conclusions are that the commands of God are actually meaningless or there is a standard of morality that exists separately from God. This would offend many religions and the religious perspectives of the people in them. However, in this case, they would have to accept a standard of morality that was separate from God’s will.
We have examined the arguments for and against the Divine Command Theory. It has an interesting framework to it, especially the existence of God. However, that framework is rather fragile in the presence of the mammoth objections. The Euthyphro Dilemma specifically shatters this theory more than any other. In conclusion, I have found that the Divine Command Theory is implausible.
or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
Religion motivates people to not stray from the path of virtue, but in return, their fear of God keeps those who believe from deviating from the morals set in place by the bible. This can be problematic. You see, people following God’s rules would not be doing so for the right reasons, instead they do it because they fear God’s wrath. This person would be unreliable in terms of morality, and would probably stray from God’s morals if they believed God would not offer a reward for their ‘good’ behavior.
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;
The divine command theory is an ethical theory relating to God and how his commandments should guide the morality of humankind. Objections to this theory include objections to the nature or existence of God or to the nature of his character or commands. For the purposes of this paper, I will present the divine command theory, introduce a serious objection evident in Genesis 22, propose and explain an alternative to the divine command theory that is the divine will theory, explain why this theory avoids the objection, and critique and respond from the perspective of a divine will theorist.
There are several aspects to consider when exploring the Christian worldview. There are many facets or denominations and they each have their own distinct beliefs and practices, but they all share the same fundamental beliefs. In this Paper we will explore the character of God, His creation, humanity and its nature, Jesus’ significance to the world, and the restoration of humanity, as well as my beliefs and the way that I interact with Christianity and my personal worldview.
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.
In the construction of the Large Hardon Collider, physicists seek and hope to unlock the mysteries of the universe by analyzing the attributes of the most miniscule particles known to man. In the same way, theologians have argued back and forth over the course of human history with regards to the divine attributes of God, seeking and hoping to unlock the mysteries of the metaphysical universe. Although these many attributes, for example omnipresence, could be debated and dissected ad nauseum, it is within the scope of this research paper to focus but on one of them. Of these many divine attributes of God, nothing strikes me as more intriguing than that of God’s omnipotence. It is intriguing to me because the exploration of this subject not only promises an exhilarating exercise in the human faculties of logic, it also offers an explanation into the practical, such as that of the existence of evil, which we live amidst every day. So with both of these elements in hand, I am going to take on the task of digging deeper into the divine attribute of omnipotence in hopes of revealing more of the glory of God, and simultaneously bringing greater humility to the human thinker. In order to gain a better understanding on the subject of divine omnipotence, I am going to analyze four aspects of it. First, I am going to build a working definition of what we mean when we say that God is omnipotent. Second, I am going to discuss the relationship between divine omnipotence and logic. Third, I am going to discuss the relationship between God’s omnipotence and God’s timelessness. Last, I am going to analyze God’s omnipotence in relation to the existence of evil in the world. Through the analysis of these four topics in relation to om...
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
A foundational belief in Christianity is the idea that God is perfectly good. God is unable to do anything evil and all his actions are motives are completely pure. This principle, however, leads to many questions concerning the apparent suffering and wrong-doing that is prevalent in the world that this perfect being created. Where did evil come from? Also, how can evil exist when the only eternal entity is the perfect, sinless, ultimately good God? This question with the principle of God's sovereignty leads to even more difficult problems, including human responsibility and free will. These problems are not limited to our setting, as church fathers and Christian philosophers are the ones who proposed some of the solutions people believe today. As Christianity begins to spread and establish itself across Europe in the centuries after Jesus' resurrection, Augustine and Boethius provide answers, although wordy and complex, to this problem of evil and exactly how humans are responsible in the midst of God's sovereignty and Providence.
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 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.
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.
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.