More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on moral vs cultural relativism
Strengths and weakness of divine command theory
Strengths and weaknesses to divine command theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on moral vs cultural relativism
Divine Command Theory and Culture Relativism
Divine Command Theory and Culture Relativism are two important theories trying to explain what is morality. Divine Command Theory defines morality as the command of god (), while the Culture Relativism defines morality as different moral codes of different societies (). In this essay, both theories will be first discussed separately to show their benefits and invalidity. This essay then compares both theories and explains why I prefer the Culture Relativism.
The main idea of Divine Command Theory is that god gives the standard of morality. The theory sounds good because it makes morality simpler. It gives a clear explanation of morality, “‘Morally right’ means ‘commanded by God’ and ‘morally wrong’ means ‘forbidden by God’.” (Rachel 2). Therefore, all moral claims are “perfectly objective” (Rachel 2) and have definite answers. Also if the theory is true, it would be easy to judge a moral claim. People can get the answer simply by asking god. In addition, it gives a good reason for people to follow the moral standard (Rachel 2). God doesn’t only give the standard, but also execute justice. People who break the morality standard will get punished by God.
…show more content…
Firstly, according to the theory, the atheists do not believe in god so that they are not supposed to care about morality. However, atheists also make moral claims. For example, a person does not believe in the existence of god, he never asks god what is wrong, but he believes that murder is morally wrong. This is contradict to the idea that god gives the standard of
Mere Christianity is divided into four books or sections that build and expand off of the prior. The first book is entitled “Right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe” and he examines the common understanding among all men of a universal moral law hardwired in the minds of men. He begins this examination with a presentation of man’s concept of right and wrong. The simplest understanding among all men is the concept of fairness. This fair play points to a law and can be seen in the reactions of mankind to justice and injustice. He contrasts this moral law, the Law of Human Nature, with the law of nature found in the world. The mind of the moral relativist denies such standards yet fail to recognize their call for fairness as a fatal flaw in their reasoning.
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.
Cultural Relativism is a moral theory which states that due to the vastly differing cultural norms held by people across the globe, morality cannot be judged objectively, and must instead be judged subjectively through the lense of an individuals own cultural norms. Because it is obvious that there are many different beliefs that are held by people around the world, cultural relativism can easily be seen as answer to the question of how to accurately and fairly judge the cultural morality of others, by not doing so at all. However Cultural Relativism is a lazy way to avoid the difficult task of evaluating one’s own values and weighing them against the values of other cultures. Many Cultural Relativist might abstain from making moral judgments about other cultures based on an assumed lack of understanding of other cultures, but I would argue that they do no favors to the cultures of others by assuming them to be so firmly ‘other’ that they would be unable to comprehend their moral decisions. Cultural Relativism as a moral theory fails to allow for critical thoughts on the nature of morality and encourages the stagnation
Cultural Relativism and the Divine Command Theory both had a tough time explaining why culture and God had the rights to state what is considered moral behavior. Especially when you lay your trust on God to guide you on what is moral or not, you face dangerous risks because there is a possibility that God is just a make-believe person up in the sky. Hence, humans who follow God’s words can misinterpret his meanings and cause immoral behavior in society. On the other hand, Ethical Relativism appeals to an authority that is present on this in this world, society and cultures. Nevertheless, society and cultures should not be relied on to indicate moral and immoral behavior because it is questionable to believe that our actions become moral just for the reason that our culture or society accepts them as normal. Despite the differences between The Divine Command Theory and Cultural Relativism, they both are theories that just fall short of their
middle of paper ... ... However, including God in the discussion of morality is difficult due to God not being a naturally occurring sentiment that would affect judgment. Both stances on the subject of morality are very valid as well as very different, but I believe both feelings and reason are necessary to find an accurate moral philosophy model.
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...
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
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.
Typically many religious people claim that ethics and morality relies on what God rules them to be and fail to see that morality can still be just as significant to a person that doesn't believe in God. Theists, followers of God presume religion to be a substantial reason for our moral conduct. Nonbelievers such as atheists are still capable of understanding the difference between what is right and wrong without religion. John, believes that if there wasn't a higher power to give us the set rules and reasons of how to behave then anything we do would be measured equally. Whereas Andrea, who is against this theory points out that God is not the key for having moral values. Her argument seems to be more convincing because an atheist can still to do the right thing based on their own interest if it has a rational explanation for moral values. The only difference is that non-believers don't have a supreme ruler to measure the intensity of how moral their actions are. Doing the right or wrong thing should be justified on a level of whether or not your actions hurt or harm someone in any w...
For instance, not all of the Ten Commandants go along with the time we are living in. One of the Ten Commandants says we should not take the name of the Lord in vain and nowadays it’s something we do everyday. In addition, religious followers may decide to act in a harmful or negative way in society and defend themselves by saying that God had commanded them to do it; which may lead to extreme religions, where its followers may take every word of the book to heart and try to implement those views on their society. On another note, our society can have this as our moral system because of different religions and of atheist because, since they believe in other values. With the Divine Command it makes us question on whether who came first, God or right. When comparing the Divine Command with the Minimum Conception, it can be deduced that both are very differing from each other. One of the reasons being that with the Divine Command God chose for us what it’s right or wrong and if it became a moral system, atheists will feel out of place because they have a different set of believe just like other religions.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.
The argument from objectivity of morality also advocates the Divine Command Theory. It states that moral standards are objective, separate from all culture’s judgment. It also states that they’re universal. Thus, morality can only be objective and universal if it depends on the commands of God. In response, morality is solely dependent on God’s commands.
In the field of ethics, there are many theories that explain how individuals can reach an ethical conclusion through a logical argument. In the following essay, one of the most ancient theories of ethics, the Divine Command Theory, will be described, analyzed accordingly with its strengths and weakness and logically evaluated. According to Rachels (2015a), a recognized American philosopher, the Divine Command Theory argues that anything that God orders is ethical and anything that God outlaws is unethical. This theory is based on the belief that only through God’s commands, individuals can define morality. Nonetheless, as any ethical theory, there needs to be further analysis to determine its strengths and weaknesses and if this theory is based on a sound, and cogent argument.
The practices of many cultures are varied from one another, considering we live in a diverse environment. For example, some cultures may be viewed as similar in comparison while others may have significant differences. The concept of Cultural Relativism can be best viewed as our ideas, morals, and decisions being dependent on the individual itself and how we have been culturally influenced. This leads to many conflict in where it prompts us to believe there is no objectivity when it comes to morality. Some questions pertaining to Cultural Relativism may consists of, “Are there universal truths of morality?” “Can we judge
God (it does not matter whether it exists in different forms or in different numbers because the basic concept of existence is same), is a source of moral strength, but it would seem ignorant to claim that those who do not have faith in God do not often live moral lives. There are, of course many atheists (believers of non-existence of God) who do not refute the principles of morality and are ethical because they realize their importance (either by having credence on any of the other ethical systems such as Kantian ethics, Social Contract theory and Utilitarianism). With the advent of modern liberalism, people have become rational (or at least they believe so). Although they condemn the acts of murder, child abuse, rape and ethnic cleansing but this does not make them more ethical than a believer of God because realization of good or bad is already progr...