On the other hand, if God come from a less perfect being, it would mean that the idea of perfection precedes imperfection does not follow through. 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
Thus, a divine command theorist such as Quinn could state that actions are obligatory because God command them and God’s commands could not be arbitrary because God is constrained by God’s goodness and God’s commands do not have to conform to what humans believe is goodness. 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
Mark Jones analyzes Antinomianism with comparing to Reformed Theology. The main theological error of Antinomian’s thinking is that they put too much stress upon the doctrine of justification; furthermore, they interpret the rest of doctrines in Christianity from a biased perspective of justification. They even argue that good works are not significant for Christians because God does not see the sins of His children and does not anger to His children; therefore, the law is not important for Antinomians after the first coming of Christ. Regarding these problematic understanding, Jones suggests a solution for Antinomianism, that is concentrating on the real meaning of Christology; in other words, to rediscover and redefine the person and work
The theory of Deontology has its flaws as well and this essay will present three criticisms of deontology namely that deontology relies on moral absolutes, allows acts that make the world a worse place, two permissible duties that are right can conflict with each other and will demonstrate these flaws with relevant case studies and dilemmas. To begin with, this theory relies on moral absolutes which can be defined as actions that are entirely right or entirely wrong. Deontologists cannot consider the consequences of their actions, even if the consequences of a particular action bring about more harm than the act itself. Deontology theory says that certain types of actions are either absolutely right or wrong, but provides no way in which to distinguish which action may be right or wrong and thus duties and principles can conflict (Preston, 2007). For instance,
This is in contrast to ‘moral evil’, which refers to evil stemming from human action or inaction. As summarized by Plantinga (1977, p. 58), his defense suggests that God must create free beings capable of moral evil in order to create free beings capable of moral good. These beings cannot be prevented from doing evil
However, there are many qualifications the good will depends on, and not just the inclination to do your duty because it is your duty. The good will may not be the only thing good without limitation, as it must be acted on by something. For example, If Kant’s theory were true, it would mean that it would be very difficult to be a good person because utilitarianism does not allow for acts that go above duty. First, there must be a distinction between what is right and what is good. Doing what is right means more about in conformity with fact, correct in judgement, or truth.
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.
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,
This theory also asserts that an act is immoral if it is prohibited or outlawed by the Creator. For an act to be moral is simple to follow God’s commandments. This theory could be a good standard of determining things whether it is right or wrong, the same as determining and guiding our actions towards goodness. But in the educational