Gensler: Divine Command Theory
Gensler’s main argument for the Divine Command Theory is to argue the moral reasons for the existence of God. He gives the premises that everyone knows objective moral duties. Then comes the idea that if there are objective moral duties there has to be something that makes them moral law. For this the only answer that makes sense is God because it cannot be a person or other individuals in society since we do not have the authority to tell someone is they do something wrong. He, however, had one more premise than Lewis did. He said that you need to show the source of a moral law because stuff like 2+2=4 are true of their own nature and objective duties need something to make them true. For example, doing something right needs some sort of source to make it true, it cannot just be right. If these are all put …show more content…
The benefit goes for believers because they don’t have to look for something that says it’s wrong or right because God has already done that. Whatever he says is right and good. It also gives us, if believed the way human conduct should be and it is grounded so it cannot be changed. As with benefits always come weaknesses. It is not logically valid with the argument that God tells us what is right and wrong. As said above in the arguments, it doesn’t make sense that we could believe that it was God because there comes contradictions with that statement and no one would truly know what God actually said. So we would presumably have to make guesses about what is actually good and if we go that way we will never have steady human conduct laws. If you are not a theist in my opinion I do not think it necessary to take this theory seriously because there are so many unanswered questions for this. I would personally rather have something that has facts behind
Gensler’s main argument for the Divine Command Theory is to argue the moral reasons for the existence of God. He gives the premises that everyone knows objective moral duties. Then comes the idea that if there are objective moral duties there has to be something that makes them moral law. For this the only answer that makes sense is God because it cannot be a person or other individuals in society since we do not have the authority to tell someone is they do something wrong. He, however, had one more premise than Lewis did. He said that you need to show the source of a moral law because stuff like 2+2=4 are true of their own nature and objective duties need something to make them true. For example, doing something right needs some sort of source to make it true, it cannot just be right. If these are all put …show more content…
The benefit goes for believers because they don’t have to look for something that says it’s wrong or right because God has already done that. Whatever he says is right and good. It also gives us, if believed the way human conduct should be and it is grounded so it cannot be changed. As with benefits always come weaknesses. It is not logically valid with the argument that God tells us what is right and wrong. As said above in the arguments, it doesn’t make sense that we could believe that it was God because there comes contradictions with that statement and no one would truly know what God actually said. So we would presumably have to make guesses about what is actually good and if we go that way we will never have steady human conduct laws. If you are not a theist in my opinion I do not think it necessary to take this theory seriously because there are so many unanswered questions for this. I would personally rather have something that has facts behind