The Divine Command Theory

Divine command theory is the idea that certain actions are morally good or morally bad because they are what God wills for us. God’s demands determine what is right or wrong. What he tells us to do is right, and what he tells us not to do is wrong. This theory states that the only thing that makes an

He believes that not only does eternal law that provide guidance regarding what men should do or avoid if they wish to be happy or good, but it also issues commands and prohibitions of actions that are not legitimate (Strass & Cropsey 1987, p. 186). Revealed Law, according to Augustine, finds its origin in God's revelation through the Bible. He believes that, to resist such law "is to defy God's own ordinance, inasmuch as civil society is intended by God Himself as a remedy for evil and is used by Him as an instrument of mercy in the midst of a sinful world" (Strauss & Cropsey 1987, p. 200). Chapter 13 of Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans starts out with these words: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established"(Romans 13:1, NIV). Augustine often refers to this particular passage in the Bible when talking about Revealed Law.

Hume and Kierkegaard are responding to philosophical mindset which held belief in the existence of God as something that can be rationally proven. In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments, both philosophers take issue with the a posteriori and a priori proof that have been used by philosophers to prove God’s existence. While their critiques of these arguments have much in common, the conclusions they draw from their analysis could not be more different— Hume ultimately denies God’s existence while Kierkegaard upholds it. While a full investigation into Hume’s argument against God’s existence and Kierkegaard’s argument for the necessity of the leap of faith, we can see how their critiques of these rational

When addressing the difference between just and unjust laws for the clergymen Martin Luther King Jr. stated, A just law is man-made code that squares with the mora law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.

This contradicts the assumption that God is the creator of all norms. (Based on Darwall 's Philosphical Ethics p. 42-44). 2) God created us, therefore we must follow his commands out of gratitude. Again, we face the problem that there appears to be a norm that exists independently from his command: that you should show gratitude, which seems inconsistent. (Darwall 's Philosophical Ethics p. 44).

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.

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.

The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.

With regards to the cosmological argument I am of the belief that Article Three of Question Two entitled “Whether God exists?” best summaries Aquinas’ opinions. Aquinas first outlines two objections of those who argue that God does not exist may raise. The first objection outlines that if God is an “infinite goodness” then there would be no evil, however evil is present in the world so God does not exist. I agree that this is a fair criticism because God is hailed as omnipotent and omnipresent, yet evil often prevails in the world.

Secondly, the lack of complete understanding of a God that is greater than any other is the basis of Anselm’s argument. In other words, one needs not understand how it is that no other greater God exists, because it is not possible to do that. It is the concept of understanding that such a being exists that is important. As long as it is possible to have such a state, then the definition given by Anselm is

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.

But he notes that this need not convince anyone that there is no reason for believing in God:the theologian can, if he wishes, accept this criticism. He can admit that no rational proof of God’s existence is possible. And he can still retain all that is essential to his position, by holding that God’s existence is known in some other, non-rational way. ”Mackie’s aim is to show that philosophy is not only capable of criticizing arguments for God’s existence, but also showing that God does not exist, thus closing off the position of the theologian

However, the problem with those two objections is that they don’t necessarily prove God’s existence. For the objections only prove that it is difficult to assume God’s non-existence. In that argument, theists are not able to refute the argument of the atheists they are merely able to evade it. For an evasion of an argument will never make for a valid argument.

He points out that a just law is a moral law or a law of God, and that an unjust law is a law that is dissonant with the moral law. Unjust laws do not have there foundations in eternal law nor natural law (par. 16). He states the that any law that brighten ups “human personality” is a just law and any law that devalues human personality is an unjust law. MLK finishes of by saying that segregation is sinful. He finds this out by breaking it in to part like so; separation is sinful, segregation laws separate, and therefore segregation laws are sinful.

McCloskey’s debates give a guard against the legitimacy of the issue of malice. To make the case, a nonbeliever or atheist must have the capacity to demonstrate that God and malice are sensibly opposing. Mackie claims that it is sensibly conceivable that God could and would decide to make free creatures that would be