Divine Command Theory
The core of ethics is the distinction between what is considered to be good and what is considered to be wrong. As societies evolved and lives became more intertwined, the need for understanding right and wrong became increasingly important. In order for large groups of people to live in a functioning way, a set of rules must be established so that everyone is aware of the consequences of certain behaviors. The application of establishing a set of rules that labeled actions as wrong and right created morals. Morality is the standard by which choices are tested, but the origin of morals is questionable. Morals mark actions as good or evil but the genesis of these morals is an enigma. Some credit God with establishing the morals that must be
…show more content…
Perhaps the easiest counterargument to the Divine Command Theory is the existence of atheists that are capable of living moral lives. So if morals can exist without a belief in God, then God must not be a requirement for morals. Others arguments against the Divine Command Theory include the arbitrariness of God’s decision on good and wrong and the reason that the theory establishes for living morally. Stating that an act is wrong simply because God said so does not offer any reason as to why the act is actually wrong. And by not knowing the reasoning and simply following the commands because they came from God the arbitrariness of His commands are exposed. The flaw with moral based on God’s mandates are that “he always could have commanded the opposite” (Rachels 53). Not only could the commandments could have been reversed, God’s commandments could change at any moment and, according to the Divine Command Theory, that would cause any previously established moral rule to be subject to change. To eliminate the seemingly capricious nature of God’s choice between right and wrong, then God must use some form of reasoning to form his commands as “God’s commands are arbitrary if He has no reason to command one act rather than another; but if He does have reasons for His …show more content…
People are extremely motivated by self-interest, even as societies have evolved and grown larger. While the more intertwined societies did lead to a greater need for cooperation in order to live as peacefully as possible, the need to follow the rules of that society can still be ignored when self-interests are present. The need to live by a set of moral rules is well explained by connecting God and morality. As God holds a person accountable, following the moral rules is now is that person’s interest. So even while the person may act according to society, the actions are still explained by the incentives and sanctions placed by God with the promise of Heaven and the threat of Hell, respectively. However, the Divine Command Theory falls short by basing morality solely on God’s commands. Morality then seems subject to God’s whims, which makes morality arbitrary. The opposing view counters strongly with the existence of morals within atheists. For if morals are based only on God’s will, then atheists must be godless brutes lacking any semblance to a moral compass. The morality of atheists is clearly evident, yet the argument failed to establish a reason for morals other acknowledging damage done to the
Perhaps the easiest counterargument to the Divine Command Theory is the existence of atheists that are capable of living moral lives. So if morals can exist without a belief in God, then God must not be a requirement for morals. Others arguments against the Divine Command Theory include the arbitrariness of God’s decision on good and wrong and the reason that the theory establishes for living morally. Stating that an act is wrong simply because God said so does not offer any reason as to why the act is actually wrong. And by not knowing the reasoning and simply following the commands because they came from God the arbitrariness of His commands are exposed. The flaw with moral based on God’s mandates are that “he always could have commanded the opposite” (Rachels 53). Not only could the commandments could have been reversed, God’s commandments could change at any moment and, according to the Divine Command Theory, that would cause any previously established moral rule to be subject to change. To eliminate the seemingly capricious nature of God’s choice between right and wrong, then God must use some form of reasoning to form his commands as “God’s commands are arbitrary if He has no reason to command one act rather than another; but if He does have reasons for His …show more content…
People are extremely motivated by self-interest, even as societies have evolved and grown larger. While the more intertwined societies did lead to a greater need for cooperation in order to live as peacefully as possible, the need to follow the rules of that society can still be ignored when self-interests are present. The need to live by a set of moral rules is well explained by connecting God and morality. As God holds a person accountable, following the moral rules is now is that person’s interest. So even while the person may act according to society, the actions are still explained by the incentives and sanctions placed by God with the promise of Heaven and the threat of Hell, respectively. However, the Divine Command Theory falls short by basing morality solely on God’s commands. Morality then seems subject to God’s whims, which makes morality arbitrary. The opposing view counters strongly with the existence of morals within atheists. For if morals are based only on God’s will, then atheists must be godless brutes lacking any semblance to a moral compass. The morality of atheists is clearly evident, yet the argument failed to establish a reason for morals other acknowledging damage done to the