Paper Example on Defense of Divine Command Morality

Introduction

Divine Command Theory is an ethical theory that proposes that morality is linked to God such that actions are termed as moral if they conform to God's commands. According to the Divine Command theory, moral obligations are therefore dependent on God's commandments, and God commands moral actions. It is worth noting the contents of the divine commands vary from one person to another depending on the religion therein. However, all these divine commands are based on a single common version that holds that morality is ultimately dependent on God' commands. In this case, people that support Divine Command Theory believe that God is the principal source of all principles that guide human morality and therefore God is the principal guide who plays a vital role in shaping human actions towards achieving a particular ethical and moral outcome. The paper, therefore, focuses on providing arguments that support Divine Command Theory by first looking at it as a moral theory, evaluating the objections to the theory and lastly offering responses to these objections.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Arguments for Divine Command Morality

The primary argument for the Divine Command Theory is based on the concept of metaphysics. By metaphysics, it refers to the philosophical perspectives that focus on the first principles of things. In this case, it is worth noting that the Divine Command Theory is linked to God's commands in determining whether an action is right or wrong. Based on this, it is a supporting argument since God is the first cause and the creator of the universe. God is, therefore, uncaused and cannot be affected by anything. The middle age philosophers argue that Goo is the first things and therefore He is the indication of first good. Therefore basing our action on God's commands is beneficial in building our faith and a solid foundation to the religious community. This is because God existed even before any other being on earth and therefore developed the first laws that dictate human actions. In this case, God' commands are the first laws that determine the ethical and moral actions and people have an obligation to follow these rules.

Divine Command Morality as a Moral Theory

Through the explanation of how the Divine Command Theory works, it is evident that it focuses on illuminating the aspect of ethical and morality in the human world by stressing the significance of ethics and morality. In Plato's Euthyphro, it is evident that the Divine Command Theory forms the foundation of morality. According to this theory, the morality of an action is determined by God's commands but not on human nature or the outcome of the action. People, therefore, differentiate good and evil by God's commands. Divine Command Theory works under four basic assumptions that God exists, God's commands accept and forbid particular actions, an action is a moral right if Gods commands they support it and morally wrong is the commands forbid the act and finally, people determine what actions are accepted or forbidden by the Gods commands. For example, the act of torturing a person is morally wrong even without God's commands. Every person is aware that torturing another person is wrong and therefore not a moral act.

Objections of Divine Command Morality from the Perspective of Natural Law

Objection One

One of the primary objections to the Divine Command Theory is the Euthyphro Dilemma. From the dialogue between Plato and Socrates, it is evident that Socrates objects the Divine Command Theory by stating that the foundations of morality based on this there are arbitrary. According to Socrates, the Divine Command Theory states that an action is morally right or wrong based on commands. It, therefore, means that God commands determine if an action is right. Based on this, it means that if God orders people to torture others, it means that this action is a moral right. We all know that causing harm to others is not right and therefore the Divine Command Theory is not a foundation of ethics and morality as the supporters claim. Furthermore, various occasions in the bible show divide commands and action that were not ethically right, but since God commanded them, they are termed as moral actions. In various biblical occasions, some of the actions violate the Ten Commandments that God gave to his people yet these actions are termed as morally right. For instance, in the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible, we find the God ordered Abraham to visit the mountains and kill his only son Isaac as a sacrifice. Abraham went ahead and prepared to kill his son just because God had ordered him to do it. In the Old Testament, we also find Jacob deceiving his father, Samson committing suicide, Hoes committing adultery, and the Israelites stealing from the Egyptians.

Objection Two

Another objection is that morality and religion are independent. Thus, morality cannot be logically dependent on the command and will of God. While following the commands of any powerful being such as God is prudent, it does not mean that it is a moral obligation. For Gods command to be relevant in determining our moral actions, God must be good. Although most religious believers hold that God is good based on the biblical teachings, it is essential to elaborate the basis to which the Divine Command Theory supporter define the goodness of God. It thus shows that grounds to which the believers define goodness is arbitrary and it is merely different from the fact that God exists and he created the universe.

Objection Three

Another objection that people against the Divine Command Theory would present is that God is omnipotent and therefore when the supports of this theory claim that God cannot command people to show cruelty and suffering to others is wrong. This is because God is omnipotent and there he is powerful, and there is nothing that he cannot do. In this case, God, therefore, has the power to command people to do even the actions that are morally wrong.

Response to the Objections

Response One

In response to the first objection based on the Euthyphro Dilemma, I suggest that we need to accept that whatever Gods commands is obligatory in determining if an action is right or wrong. If God commands cruelty, theft, or adultery, then we have to accept these actions as morally. This is because these commands are set for a purpose that is based t create a good outcome. For example, as Socrates bases his argument on the biblical occasions, it is worth noting when God ordered Abraham to kill his son, it was not aimed at causing harm to Isaac, but to test Abraham's faith. Furthermore, God eventually did not allow Abraham to kill his son. It is also a mere logical possibility that this objection assumes that God would command us to cause harm to others. Based on God's nature and his manifestation to the real world, it is not a real possibility for him to command us to cause harm and suffering to others. God is all loving and caring, and through his commandments, He dictates that people should show love to others, and therefore the claim that God would command people to cause harm on others is just logical but not based on reality.

Response Two

In response to the second objection, I would argue that it is true that ethic is not necessarily linked to God but is required in order to maintain an adequate moral society. The claims in this objection fail to acknowledge that God is the only source where human beings find ultimate love and happiness. It is through loving God that we find the purpose and fulfillment in our lives. Although goodness may not be similar to God's will, we have to admit that it is in loving God that we exist. Therefore, Gods is a key player in all our actions, and therefore his commands are significant in deciding as to whether an action is morally right or wrong.

Response Three

In response to the third objection, it is worth noting that even though God is omnipotent, He only has the power to do the possible things but cannot order impossible actions. For instance, it is impossible to go round a corner since this statement is a contradiction of events. The same case, God's nature cannot allow him to order cruelty as moral obligations to his people. This means that God would not command cruelty and suffering to other people as a moral action due to his nature as omnipotent.