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). This point is also a response to the objection of the divine command theory, in making morality and God independent we ignore the greatness of God, who as the creator has the right to command and we are obligated to obey His commands (Rachels,
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
If violence will impeded the man in fulfilling his purpose, then violence is contrary to natural law. Since peace assists this fulfillment, man should honour promises, since to dishonour a promise can lead to disharmony or even violence. This should be the constant value that is embodied within the principle of natural law. It is a characteristic of natural law that the truths it embodies are not made known to man by some Great Architect beyond the skies. We do not find the heavens open and a hand comes through clouds, passing down to mankind a tablet of stone on which the truths of natural law are inscribed: the truth of natural law are not revealed truths.
Utilitarianism can be further broken down into two distinct branches: act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Act-Utilitarianism, also known as classic utilitarianism, holds that we ought to do the act with the best consequences in terms of the most people. For classic utilitarians, the value that is to be maximized is pleasure-that is what has intrinsic value. On the other hand, pain is dis-valued and is considered a basic bad. The greatest happiness principle says that actions are right in proportion that they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the opposite of happiness.
According to Thomas, since man was created to attain the goal of eternal happiness, in addition to worldly happiness, there must be a law that can lead them to this ultimate supernatural end. First of all, Thomas argues that in man, the will and the power of reason control human behavior and human direction toward the fulfillment of good according to the natural law: "to do good is evil. "That is, all human desires are satisfied, and the satisfying process requires choices between different objects." The choice must be made by the will with guidance. If you choose the right one, the person is happy, but not all choices are right, so the will can not always act right.
Immanuel Kant, the creator of Kantianism, was an absolutist, meaning that he believed rules were not to be broken, no matter what. Also, the Kantian theory differs from utilitarianism and Aristotle’s virtue ethics because it does not believe happiness is the chief good. In Kantianism, the chief good is good will, which can be defined as a human will that a person commits out of respect for moral law. An action has moral worth when it is done out of good will. Kant believed that the actions that are done out of good will are not only moral, but are also our duty (Kant,
How one perceives things is different, how one deals with the situation is different because of our different ethics. “In law, a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics, he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so... Act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world.”As somebody who believes in god and with Kant’s ideas, I agree with this quote because Kantian ethics are usually spoken of in terms of duty and doing the right thing, Kant himself thought that what was good was an essential part of ethics. Immanuel Kant is considered the central figure of modern philosophy. He was greatly influenced by Aristotle, David Hume, and Plato.
Whatever God commands becomes the principle of moral rightness. Therefore, if God told one person to rape someone else, Divine Command Theory implies that the rape would be okay because doing what God commands is doing the right thing. On the contrary, if God forbids rape because it is morally wrong, then it is wrong prior to God ordering it to be wrong. This would imply that actions are morally good or morally bad independent of God’s will. Therefore, we
Therefore, Lord Devlin based on consensual morality has focused more on the enforcement of morality according to the general concept of society. To understand the relationship between law and morality, Lord Devlin has proposed a set of rules. Firstly, the requirement of general sense of right and wrong in a society which is known as common morality as it is a right-minded value that should be maintained by the law. Secondly, there may be bad laws, bad morals or bad societies due to the reason that the law might not serve the society but destroy it even though it is a valid law and provides profit to some people in the
Final Draft Article--Torture Let’s first take a look at an overview about how ethics relate to both Mill and Kant when discussing torture, both having two completely different views. Kant uses moral reasoning, “categorical imperative”, which says that a person’s behavior should live up to moral laws. He states that moral laws are the truth of reason and that all rational people should oblige to the same moral law. He focuses on moral verses immoral actions, allowing us to make easier decisions that involve only bad and good. Kant does not however talk about decisions when faced with the opposite, for example, when faced with bad vs bad or good vs good.