God's Call Analysis

1498 Words 6 Pages
God 's Call, by John E. Hare, is based on three lectures Hare gave at Calvin College in which he presents and defends his version of Divine Command Theory. The books is separated into three essays. The first essay gives the historical context of Hare 's theory. In the second Hare lays out his theory. In the third he defends his theory, and compares it to his understanding of Kant 's theory of ethics. Hare argues that the history of moral philosophy is a story of compromise. There exist two extreme camps, the realists who believe that morality has a objective existence, and the expressivists who believe that morality does not exist at all. Over time both camps have made concessions, and drifted closer to the opposite camp. Hare believes that …show more content…
The commands of God have four important qualities which must be understood in order to understand Hare 's philosophy1. Firstly, God does not give commands in order to control his creation; he is always in control. He commands as invitation to his creation to love and obey him. Secondly, God 's commands are understood subjectively; like in Hugo 's philosophy, Hare believes that everyone knows what God commands of him. He writes that individuals feel the “pull of the good [the commands of God]... independently of their evaluation” (49). Thirdly, God 's commands are good regardless of what he commands, and he has the freedom to command anything. Fourthly, obedience results in the individual spending eternity with …show more content…
He uses “good” to mean “being like God, or having a positive relation to God”. In this way Hare makes statements like, God is good, what God wills is good, God 's plan is good, and godliness is good. This definition of “good” is useful because it shows us how to find goodness. When we want to know if something is good we simply ask, “does God say Yes to it?”. If he does it is good; if he doesn 't it is not good. Hare uses the word good differently when he writes, “we need to trust that this constraint [the obligation to obey God] is consistent with our good.” (49). Because of Hare 's negative view of selfishness the phrase “our good” cannot mean “our benefit”. Therefore it must mean something like “our values”. If this is the case, what does it mean to trust that obedience is consistent with what we find valuable? It means that no one fully knows what actions are best to take. We must trust that obedience is what is best for

Related Documents