More handpicked essays just for you.
Strengths and weakness for divine command theory
Strengths and weakness for divine command theory
Divine command theory essays
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 …show more content…
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 …show more content…
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
First, Divine Command Theory derives morality from the word of God. This is because God is considered an all knowing omnipotent being. According to Divine Command Theory, God created us and
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.
Cultural relativism is perfect in its barest form. Even though many peoples have many different beliefs and many of these people believe that their own moral code is the only true one, who can say which is better than another? This is the struggle that cultural relativism sets out to permanently resolve. It seems as if cultural relativism could bring about natural equality among groups of differing beliefs. After all, no one belief can be qualified (attributed) as being superior or better than any other belief. ...
This does not, however, dictate specific practices, or undermine cultural contexts. God’s children all have the same playbook. In that book, God has ordained His standards of moral and ethical purity. Within these guidelines, exist nuances of application that have proved to be sources of misunderstanding. Christians in churches around the world experience cultural differences that have helped mold a local biblical understanding. Because of this, the introduction of a global code of ethics may meet significant resistance.
Rachels states that, “cultural relativism would not only forbid us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it would stop us from criticizing our own” (Rachels 700). However, there are some reasons one may accept relativism and it is because it is a comforting position. It relieves individuals of the burden of serious critical reasoning about morality, and 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.
All human societies and communities have basic ethical principles that constitute certain moral codes. People formulated these principles and rules many centuries ago; they are fundamentals that structure human behavior and as such are included in all major religious and ethical systems. One of these basic rules is “do not steal”, something children are taught from their very early age. In our rapidly developing and dramatically changing contemporary world, ethical issues and problems are becoming ever more important and urgent. Maintaining basic ethical principles in a variety of settings and conditions requires more than accepting major moral values; it calls for courage, commitment, character, and strong and flexible reasoning and judgment. Ethical principles have been developed by different philosophical teachings and theories that analyze and structure worldview principles including, as one of their basic parts, ethical issues. In their everyday life, people often use words “good” or “bad” defining by them what they understand as ethical, or moral behavior or that which is immoral or unethical. They normally make no discrimination between ethics and morality, although the former “seems to pertain to the individual character of a person or persons, whereas morality seems to point to the relationships between human beings” (Thiroux Jacques P.20). The simple definitions of “good” and “bad”, however, turn out to be complicated and even controversial when we try to formulate consistently the principles that underpin them or define standards for judging and evaluating these norms.
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
Rachels, J. (1986). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 20-36). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
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.
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 Divine command theory is a metaethical theory which states that an action is obligatory if and only if, it is commanded by God. In this essay, I shall examine whether any form of divine command theory is defensible. I shall begin by looking at the modified theory as proposed by Robert Adams, who is a defender of this position. Secondly, I will attempt to assess objections from Plato, Kant, Leibniz and Aquinas; before proceeding to evaluate whether these objections are successful in demeaning the divine command theory. Robert Adams (1987) proposed a modified version of the divine command theory in an attempt to defend the original view.
In this paper I will argue that cultural relativism is a weak argument. Cultural relativism is the theory that all ethical and moral claims are relative to culture and custom (Rachels, 56). Pertaining to that definition, I will present the idea that cultural relativism is flawed in the sense that it states that there is no universal standard of moral and ethical values. First, I will suggest that cultural relativism underestimates similarities between cultures. Second, I will use the overestimating differences perspective to explain the importance of understanding context, intention and purpose behind an act. Finally, referring to James Rachels’ “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” I will solidify my argument further using his theory that
Cultural relativism also causes a division amongst the various societies because this would imply that we would not be able to come to an agreement when it came to moral decisions. One of Rachel’s main point addresses the justification of Cultural Relativism is invalid because there is an implication of “rights and wrongs are only matters of opinion.” (Sher, 153) Opinion is not equivalent to truth, therefore there is no truth factor as to what is right or wrong. Rachel’s is not completely opposed to Cultural Relativism but simply differentiates the possibilities of what may occur if we were to take Cultural Relativism too seriously, there is likely to be consequences as he has stated. (Sher,154) It would be a flawed system, in where we would think everything in our society was perfect, hence there would be no room for such