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.
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. Despite this I feel the fact that Aquinas acknowledges this objection strengthens his later argument when he outlines “The Five Ways.” The second objection outlines there is no need to believe in a God because “the world can be accounted for by
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.
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.
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?
According to Kant, the categorical imperative is a golden rule that states that any moral action must be a part of the universal law. In other words, Kant believes that you should do an action only if it is recognized to be good in all circumstances. Kant would believe assisted suicide is not ethical and nobody
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).
He says that you would gain much more by betting that God does exist. If someone believed that God does exist they would obtain Heaven, but if they believed God exists but God doesn’t then they lose nothing. If a person did not believe in God and God does exists then they would obtain Hell and severe misery. If a person did not believe God exists and God does not exist, they would lose nothing. Pascal’s wager states that a person cannot come to know God by reason alone so it is best that a person lives as if God does exist, because a person would not lose anything if God did not exist.
Ahuramazda was not opposed, but he was supreme. He believes that right is opposed by the lie, truth is opposed by falsehood and life is opposed by death. According to the textbook, "At the beginning of the world, the good spirit of Ahuramazda was opposed by the evil spirit (50)." They believed that humans played a role in this cosmic struggle between good and evil, and that the God gives them the power to choose between right
There are people that believe, there are absolute moral rule that everyone should follow, no matter what the situation is. Immanuel Kant a philosopher pushed this concept and believed that no one should break moral rules, even if it is to save people. He believed that we will never know the true outcome of anything, so we should always follow moral rules and late fate play its role. But most people don’t believe in this because it seems obvious that breaking some moral rules can have some real benefits from it. Furthermore, it would be impossible to follow every single rule because some rules can contradict to themselves.
Mackie point is if Holy Being subsists as well as is a presence that is completely good, all-powerful, all-knowing, then there shouldn’t be reality of evil, and theists would not discard that Holy Being is completely good, omnipotent, and omniscient and along with that they believe in the existence of some evil. I as a theist would reason that immoral occurs because of the free will; Deity sustains some evil since one way or another, these harms are present essential or are ethically reasonable. There could be ethically mitigating motives for God to allow evil that people cannot comprehend or perhaps people can comprehend and just don’t know. The virtuous that is attained would be great significant that the sinful. Supernatural Being knowledge has not any limit, He knows all.
Cathy’s may believe that his actions was virtuous, however; his comments and actions are in contrast to this ethical principle. 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.
Hick, however, might relate higher morality back to the hedonistic world mentioned in the argument above. There is a reason for our world to have suffering since it is built into the structure of the world. That reason, Hick argues, is for “soul-making”, or character building (129). Without having some suffering, then there would be no characters, such as courage. The higher morality of God relates back to that because He has a legitimacy for that suffering.