Normative Ethic Essay
The framework of ethic’s that has the best theoretical approach is divine command theory because of its attempt to obligate certain commands depending on the higher power’s moral status of the action. The ethic divine command theory obligates moral standards of individuals depending on the god’s commanding moral status that effects the actions of individuals. Also, an action might be theoretically righteous to an individual because of the moral status of the command of a higher power, while being morally frowned upon by another individual because of the belief of the command of a different god. Furthermore, divine command theory attempts to obligate the obedience of the command of a higher power in order for an individual
…show more content…
to be accepted morally under the religion the individual practices. For example, in Mary Meehan’s essay “ Taking Sides: Clash Views on Moral Issues” “Why Liberals should defend the unborn” quotes “Religious people have done most of the organizing and speaking against abortion”. (59) In continuation, the dilemma between the righteousness of abortion results to be a challenging debate because of the views of those whom find the procedure immoral. Also, the approach of divine command theory would have to be addressed as a freedom of decision to the victim of abortion, for different scenarios can play a bigger part to the morality of an individual that makes the decision of abortion righteous despite their religious belief of being immoral. Additionally, the decline of abortion can be a theoretical approach of divine command theory because of the different scenarios that can play in part of a dilemma pregnancy that would make the procedure righteous, even if moral views oppose different. Therefore, the ethic divine command theory approaches as a theoretical approach to abortion because of the different scenarios that can change the view, decision, and understanding of the situation in a abortion dilemma. In Addition, the ethic framework that is more practical is natural rights theory because of the practical advantage it holds to exercise human rights at all times, no matter the situation or circumstances certain rights have to be exercised to society with rights.
The morality of natural rights theory has an excessive advantage to society, for the practice of the economy’s righteous justice to individuals in society constrains an economic positive function. Furthermore, the practical ethic results in equilibrium to society in all matters, scenarios, and conflicts, whether an individual’s actions are wrong or right the ethic natural right theory is always exercised. For instances, in David Boonin’s essay “ Taking Sides: Clash Views on Moral Issues” “Same Sex Marriage and the Argument from public disagreement” he argues about the righteous to exercise the freedom for an individual to marry whom ever they prefer, for he quotes “ For surely it is widely agreed that most people have a right to marry whomever they wish, and to have their marriage publicly recognized”. (85) In addition, in the challenging dilemma of same sex marriage that has disturbed a portion of society has been approved because of the ethical practice of society natural right theory that gives individuals the right to practice same sex marriage. Therefore, the ethical dilemma of same sex marriage should be addressed as a freedom of expressing an individual’s free will to socialize intimately with whomever they prefer. Also, the ethical framework of natural right theory is a practical advantage in society, for challenging decisions are decided constantly and the natural right theory justifies the morality of decisions. Therefore, the ethic with a practical approach is natural right theory because of the moral ethic that is used to constrain an economy’s well
being.
The constitutional right of gay marriage is a hot topic for debate in the United States. Currently, 37 states have legal gay marriage, while 13 states have banned gay marriage. The two essays, "What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage?" by Katha Pollitt and "Gay "Marriage": Societal Suicide" by Charles Colson provide a compare and contrast view of why gay marriage should be legal or not. Pollitt argues that gay marriage is a constitutional human right and that it should be legal, while Colson believes that gay marriage is sacrilegious act that should not be legal in the United States and that “it provides a backdrop for broken families and increases crime rates” (Colson, pg535). Both authors provide examples to support their thesis. Katha Pollitt provides more relevant data to support that gay marriage is a constitutional right and should be enacted as law in our entire country, she has a true libertarian mindset.
Natural law theorists claim that actions are deemed right just because they are looked at as natural and something that is unnatural is immoral. However, there are different understandings of what is natural and what is not, which can make support for this theory hard. Examples such as homosexuality, give a strong argument against the natural law theory. We will look at the work of John Corvino as he explains the arguments for the immorality of homosexuality, but also the reasons why these arguments are not strong evidence. With these examples in mind, the fact that something is unnatural is not a good enough reason to claim something immoral.
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
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 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.
1) What is the “divine command theory” and how does it act as an ethical framework for beliefs and decisions? How does Quinn defend the divine command theory of religious ethics?
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.
The Theory of Natural Law, defined in three aspects, there being a natural order in the world, everything having a purpose and how things are and how things ought to be. This theory also states that humans can distinguish between what is right or wrong through human reason/moral knowledge. On the other hand, the Divine Command Theory is a view of morality and believes that what’s right or wrong is set by God’s moral commands. God’s commands tell us what is morally obligatory, permitted and wrong.
The Divine Command Theory has more arguments against it than for it. However, it is strongly favored by the religious, while also being opposed by many religious people. The argument from divine supremacy is the main argument that is used to promote this theory. It states that everything is dependent on the will of God. Therefore, morality in turn is dependent on God’s will.
Not only does Divine Command Theory provide a metaphysical basis for morality, but it also gives us a good answer to the question, why should we be moral? Should we be moral because “An act is
Divine Will is known as God’s will. Masha Allah is an Arabic phrase, that in translation means ‘god has willed it’. The phrase gives meaning to Arabic speaking Christian’s and Muslim’s, who use the word Masha Allah out of happiness and praise. The term God’s will, has been carried on throughout many different religions. Divine Command Theory is the meta-ethical theory that creates a foundation for philosophers as well as religions; it proposes that what is considered morally right or wrong is solely based on if God commands it. In this paper I am going to provide supporting facts and information of why we should not act morally solely based on God’s will.
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 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.
A monarchy is a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch, or a hereditary sole and absolute ruler of a state or nation, such as a king, queen, or emperor. Many monarch rulers believed in the Divine Right Theory of Kingship as it helped them to maintain absolutism, this is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. (Dictionary.com) It assures that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority. They receive the right to rule directly from the will of God and therefore is not subject to the will of his people or the Catholic Church. Only God can judge a king. (Wiki DRK) The Divine Right Theory of Kingship had such a lack of responsibility that it has been known to produce evil kings.
The recognition of same-sex marriage is a political, social, and religious issue. Because of this same-sex marriage is a very controversial topic. Legal acknowledgement of same sex marriage is commonly referred to as marriage equality. Many advocates of marriage equality argue that laws restricting marriage to only heterosexuals discriminate against homosexuals. On the other hand advocates against same-sex marriage argue that it would undo long-standing traditions and change the meaning of marriage in a damaging manor. In this essay I will be arguing for same-sex marriage. The arguments mentioned as well as others will be discusses throughout this paper.