The unrestricted Divine Command Theory gives us the assumption that all things morally right and wrong, are established by God. He commands us to do morally right things, and strictly forbids us from committing sinful acts. We as human beings strive to abide by His set of rules simply because He told us to. Since we cannot possibly understand God’s will, we must trust the commands he gives us without question. Therefore, we must believe that God is good and His commands are nothing but pure and that they have our best intentions in mind. The Divine Command Theory is easy to accept if you are a firm believer in God and His teachings, but can be very questionable if you doubt the existence of a greater being that created the entire universe. …show more content…
To believe the first option, you most likely believe that God is the creator of heaven and earth; so you abide by what He commands because He decides what is right and what is wrong. If you choose to believe the second option, you still can believe that God created everything, but that he created it with the previous knowledge of the standards for what is right or wrong. If God were to create these standards without any previous knowledge of certain experiences or issues, then he actually came to these conclusions without any real reason. Then again, God is the divine creator, all knowing of everything; possibly he came to these conclusions because He already knew the outcomes of every …show more content…
Most people’s opinions will come down to how they were raised and if they were raised in a religious household or not. Therefore, morality and religion are related in many ways. In a household that believes in God, you are raised to not steal, kill, or lie. But if you are not raised in a religious household, it might be okay for you to steal, kill, or lie if it helps you and your family. No matter which option you choose to believe is correct when looking at the Divine Command Theory, questions arise with both and ultimately it just comes down to one’s personal opinion. If God is the creator of all living things, then he is also the creator of our thoughts, feelings, and even our moral obligations. Therefore, it is quite easy to believe that he created and set the standards for goodness with our best intentions in mind. So, when you decide that
In order to understand the truth, people must have solid justified beliefs to prevent diminished autonomy. As humans, we are motivated to practice morally good actions since God provides love. His act of caring is compelling and promotes gratitude.
The Divine Command Theory and Relativism make strong claims on the source of morality. Robert C. Mortimer describes in Morality Is Based on God’s Commands that morality itself is derived from the act of God deeming things as either right or wrong. The following claim “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted,” is believable when following Divine Command Theory as compared to other theistic views. I shall display two theist claims which respectively accept and reject the previous statement, as well as arguing the the plausibility of each claim.
god because they are morally good?, or 2) Are morally good acts good because they are
In Western society and culture, religion and morality have often intertwined and they have reflected their values onto each other. Today it is sometimes impossible to make a distinction between the two, since their influence has transcended generations. In modern Western culture, religion and society preach conformity. In order to be a “good” person, one must conform to the values imposed by the church1 and state.
For example, in the Ten Commandments, God commands us not to murder, but before that command murder was neither right nor wrong. It was just murder. “Morality simply did not exist.” In turn, the first option implies that God did not invent the moral laws, but knew the ones already set in place. They then just commanded us to obey those laws, but, like Shafer-Landau stated, “then these reasons, and not God’s commands, [would be] what makes actions right or wrong.” I truthfully find the first option as the most reasonable, but I think that that opinion may be bias since I don 't believe that God
Broadly, the divine command theory is a religious moral code in which God’s commands determine what human beings should or should not do. As such, it is expected for theists to subscribe to the divine command theory of morality. The deontological interpretation of the divine command theory separates actions into one of the following categories: mandatory for human beings to perform, prohibited for human beings to perform, or optional for human beings to perform. Those actions that are mandatory to perform are ones which have been expressly commanded by God. Failing to commit a mandatory action would be defying God’s commands, and thus, according to the divine command theory of morality, immoral. Actions that are prohibited are ones that God expressly commands human beings do not perform. Consequently, to perform a prohibited action would be immoral. Finally, those actions that God does not expressly command that human beings should perform or should avoid performing are optional; there are no moral implications to performing or not performing such acts. The rightness or wrongness of an action is inherently and wholly dependent upon th...
My father has always reminded me that religion plays a big role in one’s morals. Of course that only applies if a person is religious and has a religious background. There are a lot of religious people in this world, and if one were to ask them where their morals came from, they would say that it is based on their religion. So what is it that makes these two things so similar and distinct? Iris Murdoch, author of “Morality and Religion,” discusses how morals and religion need each other in order to work. Morals without religion is nearly impossible because; religion influences our morals, religion allows to set better morals for one’s self, and ideally morality is essentially religious.
The Divine Command Theory is an ethical theory that basically proposes that God is the sole distinguisher between what is right and what is wrong. The textbook describes that under this theory, God commands what is moral and forbids what is immoral. Critics of this theory state that if God is the sole decision maker of morality, immoral actions could be acceptable if He willed it, and thus, God’s authority would be subjective and arbitrary. However, proponents contend that God would not allow immoral actions because he is omnipotent and all good. To follow the Divine Command Theory, one must believe and trust that it is in God’s nature to do good, and He will not act against his nature. By believing in this, one would dispute the critics’ argument by proving that God his not making
If God exists and is all-knowing, then there is no evil that God does not know about. If God exists and is morally perfect, then there is no evil that God would permit that He cannot prevent.
For many years now, people have always wondered what ethical principle is the right one to follow. These individuals are all seeking the answer to the question that the ethical principles are trying to clarify: What defines moral behavior? The Divine Command Theory and the theories of cultural relativism are two principles of many out there that provide us with explanations on what our ethical decisions are based on and what we consider to be our moral compass in life. Even though these two theories make well-supported arguments on why they are the right principle to follow, it is hard to pinpoint which one should guide our choices because of the wide array of ethical systems. Therefore, what is morally right or wrong differs greatly depending
When you read chapter one of Genesis you have the feeling that God is perfect. God holds all power and control. God turns chaos into order. "God said 'Let there be light.' And there was light, And God saw the light, that it was good" (Gen 1. 3). God's word is action, God's word is law in the universe. When God creates something, he ends it with God seeing that's its good. This is in effect giving support to the perfect nature that is God and the creations God has made. "God does not play dice" (Armstrong 9), God has order and a purpose for what he makes. An important aspect to God is seen while he is creating the world. He separates water from land. Light from Darkens, Day and Night, Male and Female. This shows that boundaries are important to God. We see examples where God put boundaries on mankind with their language by mixing the language up so confuse man and killing off the evil from the good.
The question is, can one have morals without a god? I say with a god one is more likely to be immoral. In the bible there is talk of immorality sent from god. In several different religions it is believed that the more you kill or harm others the higher and closer you will be next to god in paradise (Islamic fundamentalism). Do not mistake that there are some religions that teach helping others is the true way to happiness and eternal peace(Buddhism).
Divine command ethics is a theory that states, that an action's moral content is equivalent to if it was commanded by God. It states that if God is all powerful, then he must also be all good. It then follows that if God is all good, everything He commands must be moral. It uses God as the only basis of determining if a particular action is moral. Moreover it states that an action cannot be moral if, God did not expressly command the action to be performed, this theory also does not allow an atheist to be able to perform a moral action even by mistake. Since the morality of the action depends entirely on if God would have commande...
The universal law formula of the categorical imperative ("the CI") is an unconditional moral law stating that one should “act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” A maxim is the motivating principle or reason for one’s actions. A moral act is an act by which its maxim can become universal law that would apply to all rational creatures. As a universal law, all rational creatures must act according to this maxim. The CI requires one to imagine a world where the maxim one wishes to act by becomes a universal law, in which all people must act according to this maxim. If one wills this maxim to become universal law that all rational creatures must follow, but there is a contradiction in conception or will, than this maxim cannot become universal law, and thus, the act is not morally permissible. A contradiction in conception occurs when by willing one’s maxim to become universal law, one is imagining a logically impossible world, for there is a contradiction in the very idea of every rational creature acting on this maxim. In contrast, a contradiction in will does not yield a logically impossible world, but there is a contradiction in willing what it is one proposes to do and in wanting the maxim to become universal law.
In conclusion, while both the Natural Law Theory and the Divine Command Theory have aspects that I don’t agree on, both brought interesting ways to look at the world and the