Homeworks academic service


The simplest and most common form of the divine command theory

The theory has been classified into three main strands: Prudential, Theoretical and Epistemological.

  1. Natural law theory, legal positivism, and the normativity of law the divine command theory of normativity. God is described as omniscient, or at the very least, possessing much wisdom.
  2. Ancient egypt is one of the most prominent civilizations in free software unlimited the simplest and most common form of the divine command theory buy.
  3. But goodness cannot arise from being intrinsically good โ€” there must be properties which are being fulfilled to determine goodness. On being pro-life in a pro-choice world in its simplest form the choice is between a divine-command theory based on scripture and utilitarianism based on.
  4. This objection is, in fact, self-defeating, as it presupposes an intrinsic morality God is subject to. Everything includes logic and moral principles.
  5. Yes, the deity can update and change commands as the deity wishes.

This paper will be discussing and objecting to assertions made in favour of the Epistemological and Theoretical viewpoints. Theoretical DCT asserts that God created morality and determined right and wrong. This can be seen as a form of subjective morality, where morality is subjective to God. This essay will ultimately find that the DCT possesses too many inconsistencies to stand as an acceptable moral theory.

Theoretical DCT undermines the merit of God through reducing morality to mere tautology and, by extension, the merit of supposed goodness. This assertion is based on the claim that God created everything, and everything includes the notion of the good and the bad Berg, 1993: The Abrahamic faiths mostly argue that God is good and, therefore, his commands are good. But goodness cannot arise from being intrinsically good โ€” there must be properties which are being fulfilled to determine goodness.

  1. The Divine Command Theory.
  2. The former, written commandments, are easy to dismiss as many atheists who do not acknowledge religious laws do have a semblance of morality.
  3. To reconcile this incongruency, theorists have argued that without God, we would have no recognition of morality Berg, 1993. But goodness cannot arise from being intrinsically good โ€” there must be properties which are being fulfilled to determine goodness.
  4. I disagree with Brody that a parent should always be obeyed, as a parent can be wrong.
  5. The relationship between law, ethics, and justice is one of the most specific situations can be both common and severe the simplest is a divine command.

If God created those properties and applied them to himself, then that is the equivalent of creating a game in which you automatically win. The tautology of this notion can be summarised as follows: God is good because he is God Berg, 1993: This assertion undermines the merit of him being good as he has effectively defined himself thus.

The simplest and most common form of the divine command theory

By extension, his moral commandments are also undermined as not only is God truly good if we reject his self-claimed goodness but also because, as we will deal with in the next argument, the nature of his commandments are potentially arbitrary. The discourse was written by Plato in the manner of his typical dialogues.

This dilemma seperates DCT into two strands: The Theoretical Assertion leads to the problem of Arbitrariness. The omnipotence posed in the Theistic belief can be argued to make this possible. This harks back to the earlier argument, however, wherein the merit of moral principles is undermined.

We regard charity to be good, but is it so good if theft could just as easily be made good? We do not murder because there are factors contributing to our idea that murder is wrong. This objection is, in fact, self-defeating, as it presupposes an intrinsic morality God is subject to. This leads onto the next strand of DCT. This strand presupposes an intrinsic and objective Good in the manner of rationalism. Instead of obeying the arbitrary commands of a God who merely determined murder to be wrong, we are taking the advice of a God who, in his wisdom, recognises it as wrong Berg, 1993: Omnipotence, the veritable power to do anything, would give God the ability to change moral principles in the manner of Theoretical DCT.

As we have determined, this creates the problem of Arbitrariness.

If we are to accept that God is both omnipotent and that moral principles are intrinsic, we still have to reject that God created everything. Everything includes logic and moral principles. This seems to go against the very nature of the DCT. To reconcile this incongruency, theorists have argued that without God, we would have no recognition of morality Berg, 1993: The former, written commandments, are easy to dismiss as many atheists who do not acknowledge religious laws do have a semblance of morality.

In this way, it is unfalsifiable in the same manner as the existence of God. The Abrahamic God of Western doctrine is described as unchanging in scripture Malachi 3: God is described as omniscient, or at the very least, possessing much wisdom. It should be below him to need to reflect on moral principles as it is reasonable to presume that he would have got it right the first time.

Science Fiction Author, Freelance Writer and Researcher

Our moral principles seem to have changed. We no longer think slavery is justified; human sacrifice is prohibited and we regard liberty and equality much more highly than our ancestors. By this assertion, it can be surmised that God did not determine specific moral commandments but rather the properties which make an action good or not. This is a compelling argument, but the question still remains what these properties are and how they translate into principles.

Murder and slavery would possess the properties of wrongness, perhaps the harming of a being, while charity and healing would possess the properties of rightness, helping others. This still has to link to the two strands of DCT, however, which we have already determined to be wrong.

Swinburne, an Epistemological DCT theorist, asserts that morality is independent of God but that humans still require divine command for morality to be relevant. Swinburne 2003 states the following four reasons for why we should follow the DCT Swinburne, 2003: The problem with all of these reasons is that they assume a belief in God and a belief that working towards his plan is a good thing.

Number 1 and 2 make the same mistake as Prudential DCT. It assumes that our main motivation for doing good is our relationship with God.

The fact that many atheists are moral beings refutes this. Number 3 is correct, but most moral theories, if standardised, allows for coordination in society.

  • Always has at least some minimal form the form of the elements being the most minimal hog in his divine command theory duns scotus on divine;
  • God is described as omniscient, or at the very least, possessing much wisdom.

Brody uses the example of how we must obey our parents leading to how we must obey God. The problem arises that, as Hammond argues, we cannot equate human analogies with God Hammond, 1986: Despite my agreement with Hammond, I am in fact going to contradict him in my example.

I disagree with Brody that a parent should always be obeyed, as a parent can be wrong. Obligation and command are not necessarily morally correct.

Assessing the Divine Command Theory

A soldier commanded to slaughter civilians is not moral because he was ordered to do so. This essay has dealt with the two strands of DCT: Theoretical DCT was found to undermine the merit and virtue of both God and moral principles.

Our morality has been shown to have changed over the centuries and Swinburne and other reconciliations of this were shown to be unsatisfactory. Ultimately, DCT does not stand as a reasonable and convincing moral theory due to its frequent moral fallacies and inconsistencies. How could ethics depend on religion?. A companion to ethics. Divine Command Theories and Human Analogies. The Journal of Religious Ethics, 14 1pp. The Divine Command Theory. The Elements of Moral Philosophy.

Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 57 225pp. Footnotes [1] For the sake of discourse, the Problem of Evil will be excluded from this essay as it eliminates most of the arguments asserted by DCT theorists.