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. In understanding if this theory holds ground we must question what God commands. Instead of uncritically accepting a theory we must put it to question and eliminate any flaws.
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
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,
He especially reacted against the sacraments of penance and purgatory. Luther built his case based on his studies of Paul’s letters to the Romans and the Galatians. For him, saving grace comes not from the righteousness we perform, but is entirely an alien (foreign) righteousness from Christ credited to our account. He called this the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone. While Luther understood faith as the means of justification, he also understood the ground of justification to be nothing more than the grace and mercy of God shown to sinners because of the perfect life and work of Christ.
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).
The voice of conscience acts as a moral sensor, which is triggered whenever we face an ethical behaviour and fires the alarm once the morality is breached. Utterly, It is up to our will whether to listen irresistibly to the voice that is what Kant calls it “moral predisposition” or mute it which consequently leading to immoral behaviour. The previous argument explains the moral law imposed by Kant. Furthermore, he emphasised that people are rational beings act according to their morals, he considers people as a moral agent and ought to act morally and willingly motivated by the
Either possibilities defeats Descartes’s God’s argument because it contradicts with the two ideas thereby undermining Descartes’s use of reason. This is because Descartes heavily emphasizes on reasoning and evidently use reasoning to formulate his two ideas of “something must come from something” (Bennet 2004, 12) and perfection precedes imperfection. Ultimately, if Descartes way of reasoning is unable to reconcile the two ideas that he has formulated, then it would be difficult for him to prove God’s
And yet, it escapes him that perhaps religious doctrines exist to serve subtle moral purposes, and that scientific fact is not their major concern. His opinions about religion epitomize all the myopia common to materialism and atheism. He forgets the profoundly inspirational qualities of faith; he ignores religion’s storehouse of literature, myth, and consoling rituals; and he entirely forgets the critical importance of religion in passing on a culture’s moral values. Had he understood the nature of man more deeply, he would have understood that only philosophers and saints can be induced to do good by appeals to reason alone; for the average man, only the fears of eternal damnation will keep his baser instincts in check.
If a monotheists believed that God should conform to what we perceive as goodness that would mean that our ideas rather than what they are a reflection of are an absolute or perfect and this would be wrong because it would be idolatry of our ideas and not
Along those same lines Reagan provides that “And as morality 's foundation is religion ... We need religion as a guide; we need it because we are imperfect” (Reagan 10). Opposing these ideas, Nietzsche describes that “the practice of the church is hostile to life” (Nietzsche 348). Both Broom and Reagan’s
These beliefs depend on a fear of God rather than sole worship, as He is portrayed to be a spiteful, all-powerful being. In my teaching, the fear of God was not placed within me. Instead, a deeper trust in God’s saving powers was instilled upon my beliefs, which attempted to draw belief from love rather than fear. God was portrayed as an all-loving being attempting to free us from the control of sin, which quite evidently contradicts the image of a vengeful God. Religion has shaped the way the
The ontological argument is one of the three main arguments for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. This argument is designed to appeal to rational rather than non-rational reasons for the existence of God. Rational reasoning can be identified through the use of reason, logic, argumentation, and our shared observations of the world, whereas non-rational reasoning is characterized by subjective religious experience. However, the ontological argument does not appeal to the logic consisting of our shared observations of the world because it focuses on the reflection of our own idea of God, therefore validating the cosmological argument to be a priori since none of it’s premises require empirical support. St. Anselm of Canterbury provided a renowned version of the cosmological argument around 1080 AD that establishes the existence of God by reflecting on our idea of Him.
Hello Sir I have a question about the connection between God’s existence and morality. The Euthyphro dilemma summarizes Kant’s argument. Our motivation to obey God’s commands are either moral or not. If moral then the moral motivation to obey God precedes God’s command.
Another ethical principle that can be applied to the case is the deontological theory of categorical imperative. Under this ethical principle Cathy could argue that he had a moral duty to state and follow the laws that are given from God asserting that we are bringing God’s judgement on ourselves when we try to redefine the definition of marriage. Also under this principle it is the responsibility of the business to do the greatest good for its stakeholders in general. When Cathy stated his stance against same-sex marriage he was not thinking of his customers or the employees of the organization. As the owner of Chick-fil-A he did not respect people and
Section 1: question 3 Euthyphro’s Dilemma is a modernized version of the question that Socrates askes in Euthyphro: “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?” This dilemma or argument proves or contradicts that the Divine command theory is wrong. The following argument order was also discussed in class, but this sequence by Jonathan Pearce seemed like a better explanation. (1) 1.