The Divine Command Theories

The first premise reiterates the similar question Socrates had brought up in the Original Euthyphro Question by demonstrating the two alternatives of the Divine Command Theory. “Either an action A is right because God makes it the case” is essentially saying that action A is the right thing to do because God commanded it. Studying for a test would be the right thing to do because it is what is commanded by God and what God expects you to do. Studying for a test in this case is not necessarily the right thing to do because it help you prepare for what questions might be asked which will increase your chances of receiving a good grade, which is what one may assume, but solely God said so according to this of the Divine Command Theory. Similarly,

Euthyphro’s Dilemma is when Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Does God love goodness because it is good, or is it good because God loves it?” Euthyphro’s Dilemma is that God determines what is good and evil, right and wrong. This dilemma challenges the Divine Command theory because according to Euthyphro’s Dilemma we would be obligated to do something wrong because God commanded it. This conflicts with the Divine Command theory because it would imply that cruelty could be morally right if God told us to do so. The idea that cruelty can be morally right goes up against the belief in the Divine Command Theory because it proposes that an action's status that is morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God

What is the Divine Command Theory? The Divine Command Theory is described as “certain actions are right because they are what God wills us to do”. There are many people in this world who believe their ethical and moral decisions are made because of the religion they follow. Although most religion have their own interpretations of the Word of God one of the basic beliefs is the God wills us to do good things and stay away from evil things. However for many centuries many philosophers, one in particular, Plato, has questioned the Divine Command Theory.

There are many influential leader in this world that make excellent decisions and laws for their countries. But would you listen to a god or just another human? There are 7 billion people on Earth and there are different religions that believe in different gods but there are still only a few gods or lords. Why would you follow a law created by your fellow human beings when a god wants you to do something else?

As evident in the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, whatever the gods justify as virtuous is unquestionable because holiness is dependent on God (Indiana University 18). Euthyphro states, the holy is that which is loved by gods (Indiana University 18). Something is moral if it pleases God. God being good, He loves only that which is good thus He wills to be moral only that which is good. The understanding of the goodness of God should be done metaphysically and not morally. God being good, His deeds are perfect. He acts according to His standards, which are beyond human understanding. The will of God should be the cornerstone upon which all actions are

Human beings have been always taught that in life is important to live according to moral principles and ethics. But why be moral is important,to answer this question many people across the entire universe rely upon religion. This is what philosophers called the Divine Command Theory meaning that actions should be considered morally good if they were commanded by God. This theory is still very controversial because some criticize the theory but others defend it by making connections between religion and ethics. This topic let us think the nature of moral deliberation for example what one religion can see an action as to be morally good but a different religion might see it different. So, which of the religions should be take it as base to considers actions to be morally good or wrong. Therefore, the Divine Command Theory of Morality can have advantages, for example if you obey God’s commands you will be rewarded but if you disobey you will be punished, but it also have disadvantages starting from Euthyphro’s dilemma leading this theory

In a place where equality doesn’t exist, women become objects that men trade around for their own benefit. Women are valued according to the wealth they inherit from their “ previous owners,” their fathers. They are disrespected and treated mercilessly, with their beauty and their personality simply being the auxiliaries that profit their owners. In the play, The Taming of the Shrew, marriages are arranged like trading possessions, where women are married off with no rights and are supposed to remain loyal to their owners. Unfortunately, due to the discrimination against women, they are forced to become men’s property.

I say this because there are many situations in which one can say something is definitely wrong or right, however, another person's perspective can see something being wrong as it being right and vice versa. I believe it is important that one distinguishes the difference between morality and opinion, however, it is also important to understand that one's moral can be heavily influence the opinions they have formed through their personal experience. I believe my small group was being honest with their answers. Whenever there was a disagreement, we as a group would discuss why we believe what we believe to try to get a better understanding of the decision to answer something a certain way. During our discussion I noticed a lot of the group members answered differently because the way we were all raised was differently and we come from a different religion. Therefore, since our different experiences shaped the way we think we tended to have different answers for each

In the article “God and Morality” by Caroline Wilkerson, Wilkerson questions whether or not one’s ethics are independent of religion, pondering if it is just a man man-made concept focused on goals like survival and reproduction. Wilkerson attempts to explain that the moral codes that a particular religious god encourages others to follow may be in fact “arbitrary” based on her reading of Plato’s dialog Euthyphro. In the end, she concludes by saying that even though a god’s moral code may be “erratic,” it is better to follow their moral code rather than following what society considers to be

The Euthyphro dilemma consists of a question asked by Socrates in the Euthyphro text, “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are will by God?” The problem of these two mindsets create is a running and leading to an unwanted answer, or nothing at all. What may the philosopher may choose or answer with, it may result with their answer proven wrong. The argument of either the action that a human on earth makes, whether it be morally good or evil, can also be preceded by or not by a permission of god. If is god watching, listening and wanting to connect to us, why is he waiting to see the result of our actions? The people do believe he is all knowing,

America is a free county where individuals can make their own decision according to their believes. Gay marriage or same sex marriage in America is considered legal for people who do it. Every human is created different, also have different believes, considerations and prospective in everything that we do. In this case of Jack Phillips who refused to bake cake for same sex marriage, I think Phillips shouldn’t be in court because he didn’t break any laws nor did illegal crime. Jack refused make a cake because he stands against it .According to Jack Phillips “For me to violate that would be for me to rebel against God, to take what he 's designed and say it doesn 't matter." I agree with Jack as a Christian the bible doesn’t tell us to

1. “To want to go on calling him the father of faith, to talk of this to those who are only concerned with words, is thoughtless. A tragic hero can become a human being by his own strength, but not the knight of faith” p. 78.

Recall: In the “Why Should We Be Moral,” Rachels states several points: 1) The Ring of Gyges shows how acting immorally can occasionally be to one’s advantage. Glaucon argues that all of us would behave like Gyges. 2) Rachels points out that it is a good thing if other people live morally, but it becomes another matter if you are bound by your own morals. 3) Rachels talks about a well-known idea that right living consists in respect to God’s commands. 4) Rachels argues that we should be as good as we can be to escalate our chances of eternal. 5) Rachels talks about the Divine Command Theory, which is an action is morally correct if it is directed by God. 6) Socrates’ argues against the Divine Command Theory also he concludes that right or wrong of one’s actions cannot be understood in terms of their compliance to divine commands. 8) Kant states that if Gods doesn’t exist, then the universe is incomplete immoral, due to that virtue will be unrewarded and wickedness will not be punished. 9) Hobbes argues that ethics is a result from when people come to realize what they must do to live as best as they are able to. 10) Rachels continues to state that a supportive society can only exist if we come to adopt certain aspects

Kant’s first formulation of the CI is also named universalizability, all moral maxims must be universalizable. According to Kant, it is not rational to choose a world in which you cannot will the maxim of your action to be a universal law. This is where CI (moral maxims apply to everyone, for example, if you expect other people to keep their promises, then you are obligated to keep your own promises) are different from merely hypothetical ones which command conditionally on your having a relevant desire, the example would be an ‘ought’ statement of the form, ‘if you want A, then you ought to do B’. This is a hypothetical imperative, such as ‘Jack sees a cake, Jack ought not to eat it, as it is a means to keep healthy’. Such thinking appeals to our rationality and can be found in every major world religion most typically summarized in ‘The Golden Rule’ – treat other people as you want to be treated. Since the golden rule does not actually specify what we should do, this vagueness of the golden rule points to the reciprocity of considering people. For example, it would also not make sense for me to criticize someone else for, say, breaking the speed limit if I then went and broke it myself, for Kant, it is a sure sign of its subjectivism, it does not indicate the essence or the content of morality, therefore its inadequacy as a foundation of moral philosophy. In this thesis, I will explicate CI2 expresses Kant’s genuinely universal moral system requires that I do not break speed limit, not because of the psychological concerning or consequences, but I treat others as humanity or ends, not merely means. (See my further discussion in

We sometimes hear this or something like this quite often. We experience, witness, hear or come across commands, instructions, directions and orders daily at our workplaces, homes and schools. What are the factors that forces us or obey (or disobey) them? During the Nazi Germany concentration camps millions of people were killed. However, Hitler and a few others couldn't have been the ones who did it all. Why did everyone considered following the orders that were given? Was it the people who gave the order or were the people afraid? Was it the personality of the individual giving the orders? “In order to obey authority, the obeying person has to accept that it is legitimate for the command to be made of them.”