Divine Command Theory

Good Essays
Wait squirrel! You cannot steal those acorns, they are not yours. The idea that it is morally right to steal because that is what your god wants is called Divine Command Theory. Divine Command Theory says that “An act is morally required because it is commanded by god, and immoral just because god forbids it.”(Shafer-Landau, 67) One premise of Divine Command Theory is that for a valid moral law to be created the creator must be perfect, because imperfect beings would make mistakes. I am not sold on the idea that imperfection cannot make perfection. Let’s take a look at when a different set of laws and codes were being drafted. The first amendment to the United States Constitution gives its people the right to freedom of speech, press, religion, …show more content…
This perfect law was created by a group of imperfect men. This is possible through the idea of synergy. A group working together can accomplish much more than the sum of the individuals would. Therefore, the creator of a valid moral code does not have to be a perfect god. Another issue with Divine Command Theory is that it is impossible to determine whether or not god actually exists, and if he does exist, does he command humanity at all. (Shafer-Landau) Another flaw in Devine command theory is explained by Shafer-Landau thru his description of The Euthyphro Argument. He summarizes the argument by saying that god may or may not have reasons for his moral code. If god has reasons for his moral code, than those reasons are what make actions moral or immoral, which disproves Divine Command Theory. If god has no reasons for his moral code then his moral code is random, causing his moral code to lack credibility. (Shafer-Landau) Due to these reasons Divine Command Theory is false and you should not steal those …show more content…
Squirrel stop! This nihilistic view that you have adopted can be even more dangerous than Divine Command Theory. To live one’s life with the belief that there are no moral truths can be dangerous. The metaethical view that I agree with is known as Cultural Relativism. This view states that “moral standards are relative to cultures or societies.” (Shafer-Landau, 293) I like this view because I believe that people should be able to live their lives according to their own moral standards. Cultural groups and societies should be able to dictate what is good and what is bad on their own. A moral code should not have to be validated by a god, people can be the authors of morality. The views of Cultural Relativism are very similar to sovereignty. Living in a world filled with many cultures it would be impossible to create one uniform moral code that could be accepted by everyone. For this reason alone, cultural relativists believe that the morality of an act can only be determined when viewed through the context of the society that the action was made in and every societies’ moral code should be viewed as equal to one another.

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    I chose that I am a relativist because I believe that everyone’s moral principle is relative to the person who holds it. Everyone has their own opinion on what is permissible and what is not permissible. Everyone’s moral code can be different than society, for prime example, some people believe that everyone should be treated equally, and some do not. We as individuals cannot say that everyone’s moral value or cultural practice is objectively right or wrong. I am exactly like this, everyone has their own opinion, practices and beliefs, we cannot use our standards to judge another’s morality it is just ethically wrong.…

    • 1164 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Julian's Theory Of Evil

    • 1207 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Natural evil may also be called unjustified, as it cannot be justified by reason or explanation. The problem of evil is relying on the existence of natural evil. It cannot use metaphysical evil because by definition it depends on God’s existence. The evil exists simply because God exists and is perfect. It cannot use moral evil because this can be explained by the necessary existence of free will.…

    • 1207 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In this case, we cannot define this action as an evil that God creates or necessarily warrants. However, evil exists because humans have free will to choose cruelty over good. However, Mackie responds, “why could He not have made men such that they always freely choose the good?” [1;334]. Mill proposes that perhaps, God just didn’t know how. And for the same reasons, this is why God couldn’t make humans to live longer or not wear down.…

    • 983 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    These arguments by Descartes were intended to proof God’s existence; nonetheless, the two arguments had weaknesses. An example, in the first argument a person can deny having a perfect idea that is caused by God and therefore not acknowledge the existence of God. With this line of argumentative points, Descartes arguments do not hold meaning and as a consequence the conclusion cannot follow. Second argument is also weak in the sense that Descartes believes that God is perfect and is not a deceiver. How is it then that the imperfect is a deceiver?…

    • 1137 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The reason for why God commands something is this love and it would be logically impossible for God to command something which would go against his character. Therefore, morality cannot be held as being unstructured. However, this is not a sufficient defence of the theory, as we could respond by saying that if God had loved something else, murder for example; then morality would be different to what we have now. Secondly, Socrates second horn destroys the validity of God being Good (Law, 2015). If something is good because it is the will of God, then God is Good because this is his will.…

    • 1485 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Divine Command Theory explains that actions are good if and only if God commands them, and actions are bad if and only if God forbids them. This makes the Divine Command Theory independent of human thought and feeling, it is God who determines what actions are moral. If we were to disobey God that would be an immoral thing to do and thus, we would be punished. We are motivated to follow this theory because it is the only reason why we still follow moral laws. If we were to believe that God did not exist, then there would be no reason for people to do the right thing.…

    • 762 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Do God And Evil Coincide?

    • 1284 Words
    • 6 Pages

    He says that we try to come up with solutions so that God can logically exist, but they all fail at creating any logical arguments. One of our solutions is that good cannot exist without evil, but he says this is a fallacy because if God had limitless power then he could create good without evil, which means God does not exist. Next is that evil is as a means to good which is a huge restriction to God’s power because it is basically saying that God has to follow some sort of rule. Lastly there is the idea that evil exists because humans have free will; God could have and should have created us to only know and act good, which would then mean that evil would never have existed if he was actually all-powerful. He says that this disproves God because we would not have been created like this if he really were all-powerful, but I believe there was a…

    • 1284 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    She describes morality as something that is wholly individual to cultures, and which cannot be criticized by members of other cultures. Pojman does not agree with Benedict’s views of morality. He claims that if morality is relative then it may as well be made up (p.165). Because their beliefs…

    • 745 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If God does not all things past, present, and future, how will God be able to judge the world? This view is, therefore, incorrect because God is omniscient and omnipotent not just omnipotent. We do not know if God has a method analogous rather to our memory or perception than to our reason. The doctrine that there is no succession in the eternality of God, neither denies nor explains his foreknowledge. It is impossible for us to know and understand God’s knowledge with our human understanding.…

    • 902 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Noah Porter paraphrases Eph 2:12 as "Hopeless because Godless." Agnostics may say that they do not deny the existence of God. Whether they claim unknowableness of God or that the existence of God is unknown, in either case, they do not know God and hence they are in a Godless situation, and the above phrase may describe agnostics' condition. Porter cleverly points out that the ignorance of God, which was regarded as a sin, "is now taught as a necessity of reason" and "the unknowableness of God has been formulated as a philosophy." Thomas.…

    • 913 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics