Instead of uncritically accepting a theory we must put it to question and eliminate any flaws. By using Euthyphro’s Dilemma as an argument against the authority of the Divine Command Theory we can begin to question whether or not it is an acceptable account for morality. Euthyphro’s dilemma questions God’s view on piety and its overall goodness. It questions this through asking if God loves piety because it is good or is piety good because the God loves it. By this we are trying to figure out if certain acts such as loving thy neighbor are only
The Divine Command Theory The Divine Command Theory is an ethical theory that states that God decides what is morally right and what is morally wrong. The theory argues that to be morally good one must do what God says and abstain from doing what God forbids. The question that is going to be discussed in this essay is if The Divine Command Theory provides an acceptable account of what makes an action morally right and others morally wrong. In this essay I will argue against the previously mentioned statement using the following arguments: The inconsistency between theists, the dependence of morality on religion and finally, Euthyphro’s dilemma. One problem with the Divine Command Theory is that it assumes that all its followers agree on what
could also be morally right if He commands it (Wainright, 2005). That is, how do we govern the interpretation of sacred text and which sacred text is the correct one. When He states that an action is immoral is it always as such or is there any specific context that make it immoral, it is in this method of interpretation that we begin to exercise our own intuition of morality (Wierenga, 2009). This part of divine command theory goes beyond the intuition of what may or may not be morally right. In terms of the second part God commands these actions because they are right, this statement places morality separate from God, there is an independent standard of moral right and wrong that undermine the omnipotence and Omni benevolence of God (Leibniz, 1951).
If modern day teachings on science, philosophy, or even church councils teach something contrary to Scripture, Scripture has ultimate authority. Many people view Scripture and its role differently, but the underline reason why is based on authority. If someone denies the authority of Scripture, he or she is prone to add or take away whatever he or she pleases. This allows them to become the ultimate authority over Scripture, and their interpretations are based more off of personal preference or cultural norms. However, Scripture should have the last word because it is God’s word.
Furthermore, defenders of the divine command theory like Alston have faced the Euthyphro dilemma by says that although God’s commands make right actions right, God is morally perfect and hence would never issue unjust or immoral commandments. On their eyes, God’s nature is the standard of moral goodness, and God’s commands or words are the origin of all obligation and kindness. (Jeremy Koons, n.d.) One well-known objection to divine will/divine command moral theories is that they commit us to the view that God’s will is arbitrary, and the arbitrary will of God is not a plausible basis for morality. (Thomas,
In my religion Chukwu is a loving father and need not be feared by those who do his will” (Achebe 110). The ideas on how the people look up to their gods differ greatly. Christians believe that he is loving and merciful. The Igbo people believe that they should fear the gods. Although they both share the same basic concepts of their god, they differ in the idea of multiple gods and how they should feel about their primary
If God does not exist, then Pascals beliefs in the "Word of God" can be refuted, but his main conclusion (that it is the rational choice to believe in God) still stands valid. As a result, Blackburn cannot disregard the argument that the more rational choice is to believe in God. Blackburn also raises the case of false options, which has to do with a problem in Pascal's statement. Unfortunately for Pascal, he did not mention the case where you choose not to believe. But because Pascal's arguments are formed on the basis on the "word of God" it can be assumed (because the "word of God" says so) that those who do not form beliefs in God shall be punished as
In this essay, I will show that Immanuel Kant is wrong to think that the only good without limitation is the good will. My first step in defending this thesis will be to review Kant’s argument about how the good will is intrinsically good. I will then try to undermine his view by showing it supports implausible claims. For example, the premise of Kant’s claim is that good will is unconditioned. However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person.
When faced with an ethical dilemma, many people, look to their faith in God for guidance. It is quite understandable that the defined moral characteristics that religion provides helps individuals see through the uncertainty of life. The great philosopher, Baruch Spinoza, was a fervent believer of the almighty, and even argued that God predestined everything that happens to you. However, he encouraged his readers to not blindly worship the text. Instead, he advocated for the use of philosophical thinking to decipher God’s meaning.
I think that religion is everything in life and any decision you make in life should be based on your religious beliefs and how you think that this decision will affect you in the future. I think that we as humans don’t always know what is right for us; therefore, it is necessary that we follow what god tells us and not what we think is right. After all, God is the one who gave us brains to think with so we should follow what he tells us to