Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Strengths of a divine command theory
Strengths and weaknesses of Divine command theory
Strengths of a divine command theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Strengths of a divine command theory
Ethics plays a huge role in many philosophical theories. While ethics itself may be quite convoluted and complex in its entirety, it’s the critical key in determining weather these philosophical theories can be concluded as morally right or wrong throughout any given situation and time¬—both logically and reasonably. While some validity behind these theories may be known, one cannot assume it concludes to be ethical.
The universal divine command theory specifically provides an example of the above statement. The theory holds a variety of valid statements and conclusions in regards to religion and times once seen, however fails to use logic and reason to back up the ethical moral code behind it.
The divine command theory states that everyone
…show more content…
Not knowing what god commands of us at any given moment. How are we supposed to know what God commands verses having control over our own thoughts? Is it God commanding us to do something either good or bad or is it us wanting to do something good or bad without relation to God? This unfortunately allows people to easily place blame on God for their wrongdoings when it may have been other forms of suffering and mental illness in which caused something terrible to take place 4) God is only a moral compass. This theory suggests that God is and should be our only moral compass. However in fact for most he is just the middleman or “base” if you will. We know most of our morals come from our family and mothers and fathers who raised us, who walked us along the journey of life helping us learn what was right and wrong. God is in this as well; it is not practical to believe he is the only source that has taught us morality. 5) Not realistic and practical to live by. While many dedicate their lives to God, we cannot always abide by his laws and commands. We are human, we tend to make mistakes and poor decisions in our lives, but it’s neither realistic nor practical to always track every step of our life in accordance to God’s
The basis of this paper is centered around two somewhat conflicting moral theories that aim to outline two ways of ethical thinking. The theory behind both rule consequentialism and Kantian ethics will be compared and evaluated. These theories can then be applied to a relatively complex moral case known as the “Jim and the Indians” example.
Ethical theories may be usefully divided into two main types, deontological or eudaimonist, on the basis of whether they take one or the other of these kinds of judgments as primary. (1) In the main, ancient ethical theories were eudaimonist in both form and content (in the kinds of judgments and terms they took as primary, and in the questions they spent the most time investigating). Most modern ethical theories have been deontological, again in both form and content. (2) Aristotle’s central question is: What is the good life for a human being? Kant and Mill’s central question is: What are our duties to our fellow human beings? My second main contention, which I cannot fully argue for here, is that neither type of theory trumps the other, nor should we attempt to subsume both types under some higher ethical synthesis.
Cahn, Steven M. and Peter Markie, Ethics: History, Theory and Contemporary Issues. 4th Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
The divine command theory is an ethical theory relating to God and how his commandments should guide the morality of humankind. Objections to this theory include objections to the nature or existence of God or to the nature of his character or commands. For the purposes of this paper, I will present the divine command theory, introduce a serious objection evident in Genesis 22, propose and explain an alternative to the divine command theory that is the divine will theory, explain why this theory avoids the objection, and critique and respond from the perspective of a divine will theorist.
Normative ethics have received much praise and criticism from well-respected philosophers for many years. Structured by Immanuel Kant, arguably one of the greatest minds in history, Kantian ethics have changed the way people look at what truly makes an action “right.” Kant believed that developing a moral system that was consistent and based entirely on reason was achievable. He urged ethics that are knowable without reference to sense experience, or as he calls “a priori” claims, because they are universal and binding. Kant argued that it is impossible to ground ethics on religion. Instead, he turned to a vague sense of natural law and states that rules exist to rational beings, whether on this universe or any other, simply because they are rational beings.
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.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
evaluate these psychological theories while using the truth of the bible as a guide. Doing
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
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 first formulation of the Categorical Imperative “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” seems at face value viable. Nevertheless the lack of guidelines to determine which maxim should be used to describe an action causes problems with the consistency of the Universal Law formulation. Moreover, the abundance of false positives and false negatives suggests a deep problem with the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative that may not be fixable.
What determines whether an action undertaken by any agent is right or wrong? Lon L. Fuller's 1949 article, The Case of the Speluncean Explorers, provides a situation whereby the ethical definitions of right action are evaluated. The ethical study of right action consists of two major moral theories being de-ontological (backward looking/origin) and teleological (forward looking/ends). Both also have religious and non-religious strands. The de-ontological theory consists of the divine-command theory (religious) and Kantianism (non-religious), while the teleological theory is composed of natural-law theory (religious) and utilitarianism (non-religious). In this paper, all four strands of moral theory will be used to evaluate the Fuller article and decipher which moral theory best serves the argument whether the actions of the four defendants were ethically permissible given the situation. At the end of this paper, sufficient proof will be given to prove that the application of Kantian ethical theory regarding right action—the categorical imperative—with Christine Korsgaard's double-level theories is pertinent in bringing about a moral conclusion to the case involved.
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.
...eality therapy and the fact that it holds the client responsible for their own actions that brought about the consequences. Quite often God allows us to suffer the consequences of our own choices in order to draw us closer to him!
Many of us have wondered about the role of a Deity, in defining our moral code, and this has been a subject of discourse among scholars and philosophers since centuries. Many define morality as the innate ability of the human conscience to draw input for decisions which they believe is present there by itself. While some say that the (belief on the) presence of God gives them strength and inspiration to overcome their inability to follow moral standards (which are already defined) especially when they conflict with their self-interests. Although, some people argue that social stimulus imposes limits to one’s actions even if God does not exist. However, a person is at absolute liberty to perform, whatsoever one wants to in the non-existence of God because one does not regard anything as right or wrong in absence of objective moral principles and does not fear any Divine judgement.