More handpicked essays just for you.
The relationship between morality and religion
The relationship between morality and religion
The relationship between morality and religion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The relationship between religion and morality is one which has been, and continues to be, exhaustively discussed and debated by philosophers. One argument which seeks to provide a solution to this matter of contention is the Divine Command Theory. In this paper, I will argue that the reasoning provided by the Divine Command Theory is an inadequate defence of the dependence of morality on religion and religious deities because it fails to provide logical justification for God's moral dictates. First, I will begin by providing a closer examination of the Divine Command Theory and its implications, and offer explanation for its widespread appeal. Next, I will introduce Plato's The Euthyphro, which critiques the Divine Command Theory's definition of morality, and its famous dilemma, which poses two possible explanations for the correlation between God's command and morality. Subsequently, I will explore Rachels' argument in Elements of Moral Philosophy, which posits that neither alternatives proposed by the Euthyphro dilemma are acceptable because the first fails to provide reason for God's moral judgments, implying that they are arbitrary, while the second is inconsistent with religous ideology. Next, I will examine and refute a counterargument made by many atheists... Finally, I will conclude that due to the failure of the Divine Command Theory to prove the dependence of morality upon God's will, independent moral standards do in fact exist.
In order to critique the Divine Command Theory, it is important to first understand it. According to the theory, morality is defined solely by the will of God and no moral standards exist independent of His will. It is simple and unambiguous; once accepted, issues such as moral relati...
... middle of paper ...
...tion, and therefore the Divine Command Theory has proved inadequate in this instance. In addition, accepting this alternative necessitates blind obedience, a condition which cannot be accepted by a critically thinking mind.
In The Euthyphro, Socrates makes a distinction between two kinds of love; theophiles, which “is of a kind to be loved because it is loved”, and osion, which is “loved because it is of a kind to be loved.” (The Euthyphro) The former is representative of his first, unsatisfactory alternative, and the latter is his second; however, this too is problematic. It avoids the fatal flaw of the original alternative through proposing that accepting God's definition of morality is acceptable because God is omniscient, observes that certain actions are more desirable than others and subsequently commands us to follow these standards for our own benefit.
Most situations regarding moral rightness, such as those for preserving life and dignity, are very human and easily agreed upon within the environment in which they are born. Greg Koukl’s idea morality and evil is disguised by the sentiment that his ideas are also humanistic and easily agreed upon, but if one were to disagree, he claims it would do nothing more than “put a rock in [the] shoe” of the one who was in disagreement. Seeming to have no idea of sociological deviance, he presents that any deviant behavior away from his personal moral code, and those like it, is “evil” and in “aversion to God”. Even Koukl’s use of usually weak circular logic arguments are weakened by the constant contradictions to his own statements.
Socrates and Euthyphro sought after the definition of piety and impiety. In Euthyphro’s attempt to explain the terms, he gave examples of the gods and what they believed was pious or impious. Still determined to hear the definition rather than examples, Socrates realized to define piety and impiety, we have to first answer the question of “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” – Known as the Euthyphro dilemma. It is termed “dilemma” because the question makes you choose between two options, both of which are unfavorable to theism. Either God is not good or God is not sovereign. I will discuss in more detail what the first and second horns of the dilemma mean. Then I will discuss the weaknesses of each. Finally I will explain why the first horn is the better of the two options.
The first objection that Socrates stated was that Euthyphro’s first definition of piety was not a definition because it did not express a general idea of the word piety. Soon after the first try at defining the word piety, Euthyphro said that “what is dear to all the gods.” In disagreement, Socrates let out his second objection, which was that some gods could disagree. Then, Euthyphro said that piety was “what is dear to all the gods.” As his final objection, Socrates states “should something be pious just because it is dear to the gods or is it dear to the gods because it is pious?” In short, is an action considered morally right by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because God orders it? Even though this important point impacts the Divine Command Theory mainly, it also works against the theory of Cultural Relativism. The theory’s problems start arising when you start to think “why do our actions become moral if society or our culture approves of them?” There is also nothing in the theory of Cultural Relativism that explains why normal behavior in a society is considered the moral behavior instead of the other way around. Thus, morality is decided on a random basis there is nothing that says what makes normal behavior moral. The Divine Command Theory and Cultural Relativism both share this weakness that discredits
There is a significant difference between government and religious morals even though both are ethical authorities. These two moral authorities conflict with one another while both are to help people make sou...
As you can see, the way to approach the Euthyphro Dilemma is to show that it is false and that there is ultimately a better option: God’s nature is the standard of goodness. There are not two options, but three. In all, one should reject both that it is right because God commands it and God commands it because it is right. Whatever is “right” is good to the degree that it fulfills its purpose. Based upon God’s standard of goodness, this is true because He is the ultimate creator of everything. The Euthyphro Dilemma is not an atheistic view on religion or the existence of God by any means, but rather an issue for deeper thought. Overall, this leads us closer to believing in Christianity and more so, God Himself.
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...
Morality and ethics have always been a large source of debate and contention between different factions of various interests, beliefs, and ideals due to its centrality and foundational role in society and civilization and incredible importance to everyday life and decision making. In many of these disputes religious belief, or a lack thereof, serves as an important driving force behind one or both sides of the argument. In the modern world, one of the bigger instances of this can be seen in the many debates between Atheistic and religious individuals about the implications of religious belief on morality. One of the most famous Atheists, Christopher Hitchens, asserts that religion is not only unnecessary for morality, but actually impedes it. In his work God is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything, Christopher Hitchens challenges religious believers to “name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer”, and proudly states afterwards that many have made the attempt but no one has given him a satisfactory answer. However, the best response to this challenge is to point out the inherent flaws in his logic, the unfairness of his challenge, and the fact that Hitchens is asking the wrong question in the first place.
The Divine Command theory of ethics is a theory that states that an act is right or wrong and good or bad based on whether or not God commands or prohibits us from doing it. This means that the only thing that makes an action morally wrong is because God says it is. There are two sides to this theory; the restricted and the unrestricted. The restricted theory basically says that an action is obligatory if and only if it is good and God commanded it; the unrestricted theory states that an act is only obligatory if it is commanded by God, it is not obligatory if it is prohibited by God and it is optional if and only if God has not commanded nor prohibited it.
middle of paper ... ... Then Diotima summed up the object of Love as “the permanent possession of goodness for oneself”. 48. In another aspect, Love’s purpose is to attain immortality.
"that moral laws are the heteronomous commands of a transcendent deity who demands obedience." [p.219f]
As an interpreter of religion who claims to be pious, Euthyphro justifies the morality of his decision claiming that the guilty must be prosecuted for justice to be obtained, despite their relation to the prosecutor. For Euthyphro, neglecting this civil duty would be unholy (4c). Displaying curiosity for the subject of piety, Socrates asks Euthyphro how to define holiness. Essentially, Euthyphro states, “the holy is what I am doing now” (5d). Socrates responds by reminding Euthyphro that he wanted to know what the essential form of holiness was, not simply attributes of it.
In order to understand divine command theory we must first understand the nature of God and Morality. So we will start by taking a look at what makes an action moral. Once we understand what makes an action moral, we can then try to understand the author's’ viewpoint on the divine command theory of ethics. Understanding the viewpoint will allow us to dissect the author’s viewpoints and come up with counter-arguments that the author must then contend with.
On page 39 of MP, Barcalow states “It is right to obey God’s commands and wrong to disobey.” In the eyes of a Divine Command theorist, God’s commands, as scribed in the holy texts or sacred writings, are to be obeyed absolutely. The aforementioned quote from MP (Baracalow) demonstrates this belief. Believers of DCT are more inclined towards accepting whatever they have been taught as Divine Commands and allow it to dictate morality. Since none can be allowed to challenge sacred writing, which claims to be God’s command by itself, people submit to what they deem is a higher being.
In God and Objective morality: A debate, Craig interprets the objective morality and states that the existence of God is the only foundation of objective morality. My purpose of this paper is to argue against Craig’s argument. My thesis is objective morality does exist in society to both theists and atheist, and the foundation of the moral value to individuals does not have to be God. For an atheist, God is also an abstract and not reliable foundation. Social harmony is the general foundation of moral value in modern society, and it is objective without the existence of God. In §1, I present the Craig’s argument and explain the motivation of each premise. §2, I present my critique and show that Craig’s argument fails. In §3, I defend against possible rebuttal.
When considering morality, worthy to note first is that similar to Christian ethics, morality also embodies a specifically Christian distinction. Studying a master theologian such as St. Thomas Aquinas and gathering modern perspectives from James Keenan, S. J. and David Cloutier serve to build a foundation of the high goal of Christian morality. Morality is a primary goal of the faith community, because it is the vehicle for reaching human fulfillment and happiness. Therefore, great value can be placed on foundations of Christian morality such as the breakdown of law from Aquinas, the cultivation of virtues, the role of conscience in achieving morality, and the subject of sin described by Keenan.