Divine command theory has many weaknesses. The weaknesses of this theory are best shown by Plato’s dialogue, Euthyphro, which poses a question. Are actions morally good because they are approved by God or the gods, or whether God or the gods approve of action because they are morally good? If someone believes that morally good acts are good because they are willed by God, then God could command us to do anything, and it would be right for us to do it. Whatever God commands becomes the principle of moral rightness.
What is sin? ” is addressed (5). Euthyphro’s dilemma is explained by Panos Dimas in his article when he says that if something is “loved by the gods….Socrates characterizes it as something that happens to it and therefore presupposes that the pious has already been constituted” (2). What this means is that we cannot be sure of what is good or bad because we do not know the real essence of what piety is. The basic question of the dilemma is: are morals considered ethical because the gods says so or do the gods say morals are ethical because they actually are?
If proven false, it is the duty the intellectually conscience to refute. Dawkins does not hesitate to put forth his roaring arguments. He has set his mind on prying open the arguments of the existence of a God, sarcastically dismissing them as “quite funny”. He blatantly disagrees that sucking up to God is a very odd rationale for doing good things. He is also, unsurprisingly stunned by the inconsistent description of the “All loving, yet rage-filled God”.
He particularly suffers when he an ought-in the normal order of things-to have share in this good and does not have it. Thus in a Christian view, the reality of suffering is explained through evil, which always, in some way refer to good. Suffering is the process of undergoing a painful experience and also we can say that it is the result of evil. The problem of evil and suffering always creates objections for God’s goodness and His omnipotence. Yet, from Christian point of view, these questions lead man to see suffering in a positive way rather than negative.
Louise M. Antony argues an important ethical concern in her article, “Good minus God”. Can a person do good deeds without God? Arguing from an atheistic point of view, Antony believes that a person does not need to depend on God in order to complete good deeds. I agree, whether Christian or Atheist, all can perform good deeds, but who ultimately defines good versus evil? Antony subjectively defines morality and uses nature as her source.
According to the lecture, piety is a term that refers to what it means to be good or holy in the eyes of the gods. In the reading, Euthyphro gives several different definitions of the term piety. The definition that stood out to me the most was the one in which Euthyrphro says, “…what is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious” (Euthyphro, 8). This seems like a simple definition. However, Socrates objects this definition on the grounds that the gods disagree among themselves as to what is 'pleasing'.
Socrates is treating Euthyphro as the teacher, when in fact Socrates is teaching Euthyphro. It seems like Euthyphro is not thinking along the right line at all. Let’s take into account the Divine command theory, which says that the moral action is the one of God says is moral and if God prohibits it then it’s not moral. This theory is widely held to be refuted by Euthyphro argument. Euthyphro, the argument, gives two alternatives to the divine command theory that either morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
While I agree with certain aspects of both theories, I have to dispute both outlooks on the ultimate power of God. John Hick believes that there is no way you can deny the existence of evil, but he believes all evil exists because the all powerful God allows it to. How could a God who is all good allow evil to be present, you ask? Hick’s answer to your question would be; In order to draw us closer to him(GOD). If there were no sorrows, pains, or woes, mankind would not see the need for God’s forgiveness and love.
Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil. Mackie’s argument highlights the inconsistency that arises between the premises of God’s existence. Mackie proposes the problem of evil to be that “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; [God exists]; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, 1955, p.200). Mackie states these four propositions cannot coexist, therefore, if evil exists, God cannot and conversely, if God is real evil must be
There is no reason for it, so many people turn to God, saying that evil was a form of punishment for sin. This brings up the questions; “What constitutes evil or the punishment of sin?” In addition to, “What is evil exactly?”. Evil is a phenomenon experienced as a result of society’s teachings; what behavior is okay or, in a religious sense, approved by God; people experience evil when they fail to meet the conventional definition of evil. People look for justification as to why evil exists in the world and often struggle to comprehend why innocent people suffer. People desire things to be explainable and the ability to see cause and effect.