Categorical Imperatives

Every day we as citizens of this country make decisions either consciously or unconsciously on how we go about our daily lives. We make all of our decisions based on our own personal moral behavior and what we believe in. Moral rules are defined in the book as things along the lines of people should not drink in excess or children should come before self (pg. 26). One’s moral behavior is primarily based on how they were brought up and what they were raised to believe. To test ones moral behavior ask yourself whether you perceive stealing, whether it be a candy bar from a gas station or stealing someone’s purse as wrong or right. Whatever the answer you just picked, you picked it because of your very own personal moral behavior.

The conclusion of the Euthyphro dilemma is that divine command theory is false. The dilemma got its name from Euthyphro, one of Plato’s early dialogues. In Euthyphro, Socrates and the eponymous Euthyphro, a priest, discuss the essence of goodness. While the work reaches no definitive conclusions about the nature of goodness, it raises many challenges to divine command theory. In what follows, I will highlight some important and/or interesting problems raised by the Euthyphro dilemma and try to show how it refutes divine command theory.

Humans encounter moral dilemmas throughout their life. They exist in order to strengthen or weaken our relationships, our pride, and our understanding of the world. People find it much easier to learn from moral dilemmas when they are not actually the ones going through them. That is why so many people turn to books, films, and plays to give them answers and knowledge about the things that trouble us. These mediums create characters that are often polar opposites, establishing conflict that must be resolved. These dichotomous characters, help convey the different outcomes of various moral queries. Using these mediums for such purpose is not a new discovery. It is however, a skill that is not often mastered. The 2004 play Doubt, A Parable, the

In Louis Pojman’s “Argument Against Moral Relativism”, he classifies the three premises for ethical relativism. Those of which include the diversity thesis, the dependency thesis and the final result of ethical relativism. Following his explanation of these three ideals, he goes onto explain as to why each one of them are invalid.

In this paper I am going to explain what Divine Command Theory is. Then I will explain an objection to it called the Euthyphro Objection. Lastly I will explain Quinn’s response to the Euthyphro Objection and raise an objection to his treatment of the objection.

Kant states the Categorical Imperative as: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law." When proceeding

The discourse between Socrates and Euthyphro clearly depicts a dilemma when it comes to the question on holiness, moral goodness and the will of God. While Euthyphro is of the opinion that what is dear to the gods is holy, and what is not dear to them is unholy, (Indiana University 6) Socrates seems to be of a different opinion. This discourse occurs at a time when there is a belief in many gods in Greece, each god having different duties. The gods are also known to disagree on a number of issues. Socrates, in trying to counter Euthyphro’s idea he opines that since the gods disagree, they must have different concepts of what is ethical and what is not. Socrates clearly states, in support of this opinion that that according to Euthyphro’s account,

The divine command theory is a theory of an act is morally right because it is commanded by God and an act is immoral because God forbids it. The divine command theory has faced significant arguments that arose from Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma. In Euthyphro, the dialogue started with Socrates questioning Euthyphro what is the state of nature, of being pious, in response, Euthyphro declares that being pious is the good with whatever the God or superior commands. This arose the following question, “Are acts pious because the gods love them, or do the gods love actions because they are pious?” (Landau pg67). Specifically, does God command us to do whatever because it is morally right, or is whatever we do morally right because God commands us to

The divine command theory, utilitarianism, Kant’s duty defined morality, natural law theory, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics are the five types of ethical theories. The divine command theory states that what is morally right and wrong will be decided by God. Utilitarianism states that “Action “A” is morally right if and only if it produces the greatest amount of overall happiness. Kant’s duty defined morality states that what is important is acting for the sake of producing good consequences, no matter what the act is. Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil. The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories.

Morality is a difficult idea to explain because you’re going to hear different opinions based on who you ask.To some, the individual is the most important concern, but to others it is the collective who are the most important factor to creating a greater world. We are told from early childhood that stories have a moral, and that they give us advice on how to do what’s right, but who gets to decide what’s right?

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines the different scenarios in which one is responsible for her actions.  There is, however, a possible objection which raises the possibility that nobody is responsible for their actions.  Are we responsible for some of our actions after all?  If so, under what circumstances?  Based on an evaluation of Aristotle’s arguments and the objection that stands against it, people are responsible for voluntary actions and involuntary actions whose circumstances or particulars they themselves have caused.

The hypothetical imperative relies on a desired outcome: "If you want ____, you must do ____". Duty is removed from the hypothetical imperative. Categorical imperative carries far more nuance in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, it takes on three different formulations in the text as moral law. Although these formulations are perhaps simply restating, individually, they provide unique insights into Kant's thinking. In the first formulation, Kant says "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law" (Kant 421). The implication of this being that in order for an action to be moral why it is done must be able to be why it is done by anyone, anywhere, at any time. A clear example of this imperative comes when one considers lying. If one lies and presumes that lie to be moral, that lie must then be able to be made the universal law. If lying were the universal law one could not lie as lying relies on truth-telling as universal law to serve its function. In his second formulation, Kant states "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means." (Kant 429) The third formulation, referenced in the footnotes as the "formula of autonomy", is as follows: "... the idea of the will

The Divine Command Theory (DCT) explains which actions are moral based on whether or not God commands it. The theory is difficult to support due to its flaws, arbitration, and even due to the essence of God. While Divine Command Theorists may completely support this theory, I will argue why the theory is impractical and cannot dictate what is morally right or wrong.

Singer’s argument states that if you can prevent suffering without sacrificing “too much” then it is wrong not to do so. You can prevent suffering without sacrificing “too much”. Therefore, it is wrong to keep your luxuries while others are starving, suffering etc. An objection to this argument is that “too much” is too general. The argument does not define too much and can differ from person to person. The same goes for suffering. The way a person’s suffering differs from person to person.

In our lives we have the choice to tell the truth or tell a lie. Sometimes the truth can hurt people and sometimes a lie can make people feel better. I saw an example of a lie that made someone feel better. I read a news article a few days ago about a toddler was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor. The father of the little girl vowed to give her the wedding of her dreams one day. He made this promise prior to receiving the news about his child’s condition. She was his only daughter and he made a vow to give is first daughter the wedding of her dreams. After numerous doctors’ visits the parents received the news that their baby girl only had a few days to live. In haste, the father threw is daughter a wedding of her dreams. Her older brother walked her down the aisle to her father. The entire family was there and all of them were crying uncontrollably, so much so that they couldn’t finish the ceremony. The lie here was giving the daughter a dream wedding and not treating her like a terminally ill patient.