Divine Command Theory And Euthyphro Problem

The Divine and Command Theory states that an action is right or wrong if God commands it. Divine Command Theorists would say that anything God commands is morally correct, but do not like the fact that cruelty or suffering could be morally right. They believe that any command God gives, He is commanding it because it is morally correct. Meaning that this is the better option for us, but this is where I

First, I will explain what Divine Command Theory is in more detail, and why someone would believe this theory because of its claims to morality. Robert Mortimer is the creator of this theory and he makes many claims as to why God is the sole reason that morality exists. First, it must be known that people reject the idea

The conflict between the Divine Command Theory and the Euthyphro objection come with questions about who sets the rules of morality, and how it can be assumed that these rules are justifiable. On one hand, the Divine Command Theory defends the idea that an act is morally right because God commands it and wrong because He commands against it. This sets God’s will as the foundation of ethics, making morally good actions those that comply with His commandments. This religion-based concept becomes problematic when it runs into the Euthyphro dilemma, founded from Plato’s Euthyphro dating back to 395 BC. The argument centralizes on why it is that God commands rightful actions, bringing in the question of, “Are moral acts commanded by God because they are morally good, or does God command things to be right because He has good reasons for them?” The Euthyphro argument creates its foundation on the idea that either God has reasons for His commands, or that He lacks reasons for them. This divides up the Divine Command Theory in two ways, either making the theory wrong or portraying God as an imperfect being. If God does have reasons for His commands, then these reasons are what would make the actions right or wrong. God’s reasons would stand as the basis of morality, instead of God’s commandment itself. God having reasons would insinuate that goodness existed before any direction from God because otherwise, there wouldn’t be any commandment. Morality would have to stand independent

In the absence of specific consideration the dialogue steers towards normativity of the deleterious effects of a son’s action on his father regardless of the normativity of the father’s action. Euthyphro intends vindicating piety, or holiness, such that at a wider scale where gods assume omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, there will be acceptance of his stance.

The concept of holiness emerges in the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro as a result of Euthyphro's assertion that he intends to prosecute his own father for murder even though critics accuse him of being impious (that is, unholy). Euthyphro divulges this information after hearing Socrates' own reason for going to court, which is to defend himself against the accusation of corrupting the youth. Thus, the two men have similar reasons for going to court: both pertain to the question of what it means to be pious/holy. The question of holiness takes such a prominent position in the dialogue because Socrates sees in his discourse with Euthyphro the opportunity to distinguish between true and false holiness. This paper will present Euthyphro's three definitions of holiness, explain how Socrates refutes each one, examine Socrates' goal in the dialogue, provide my own definition of piety/holiness, and imagine Socrates' response to it.

Ethics can be defined as ‘Human moral conduct according to principles of what is good or right to do’. In Christianity there are certain ethical teachings, mainly The Ten Commandments, Beatitudes, and Jesus’ commandments of love. The Ten Commandments are derived from the Old Testament which defines what people must do in order to serve God faithfully and gives direction on how to live a life according to the covenant and in essence to be a good Christian person. In the New Testament the Beatitudes and Jesus’ commandments of love are found. With love being the main concept of these teachings, they and the Ten Commandments can be seen as alike as they

The Divine Command theory of ethics is a theory that states that an act is right or wrong and good or bad based on whether or not God commands or prohibits us from doing it. This means that the only thing that makes an action morally wrong is because God says it is. There are two sides to this theory; the restricted and the unrestricted. The restricted theory basically says that an action is obligatory if and only if it is good and God commanded it; the unrestricted theory states that an act is only obligatory if it is commanded by God, it is not obligatory if it is prohibited by God and it is optional if and only if God has not commanded nor prohibited it.

The Divine Command Theory is the assertion in ethics that an action is morally right if, and only if, it conforms to God’s will. This premise ties together morality and religion in a manner that seems expected, since it provides a solution to arguments about moral relativism and the objectivity of ethics. On the other hand, in Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates questions whether something is right because God commands it, or whether God commands it because it is right. The ethical implications of the Euthyphro problem suggest that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as straightforward as suggested by the Divine Command Theory.

The divine command theory is put forth for people who believe in God. The theory implies that good actions are morally worthy as a result of their being commanded by God. God, for these individuals, include people from the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faith. Individuals, because of these propositions, believe that it is their moral obligation to abide to God 's commands; which is, what is morally right is what God desires. This theory states the idea of objectivity between what’s right and wrong. If God makes

The divine command theory is composed of two maxims. First, it is right for an agent to do x. Second, God commands the agent to do x. Thus, God commands what is right for the agent to do. These statements are logically equivalent, as they together can only be either true or false. The second statement must also precede the first in order for the overall theory to make sense. For example, if God commands a man to love his neighbor as himself, then it is right for that man to do so. He cannot act on a command that is morally right if that command is not given to him. This idea of the divine command theory is presented by Plato in his Euthyphro. One of the main characters, Euthyphro, is prosecuting his father for killing a servant. Socrates, his philosophical counterpart, observes this act

Divine Command Theory theorizes that God it is the author of moral law and the right actions are those willed by God and that God clearly defines right and wrong. This allows the concept that sometimes situations are only right or good because God deems it so. In the simplest terms, God can determine right and wrong since he is omnipotent. Since God is all powerful, he can establish moral norms. Critics of Divine Command Theory believe that if a specific action is only right because God wills it so then evil acts would also be right since God willed them into existence. For example, if God wills murder or torture than these actions would be considered morally right.

The divine command theory states that “An act is morally required just because it is commanded by God and immoral just because God forbids it” (Shafer-Landau, The Fundamentals of Ethics, p.67). In interviewing an Elder of a local Jehovah’s Witness congregation on the ethics involved in religion, he agreed that the divine command theory is correct, and that there are many commands and things that are forbidden in the bible that are considered to be God’s standards for the way we live our lives. But, when asked the modified version of the Euthyphro Question: is an action morally right because God commands it, or does God command an action because it is morally right, (Shafer-Landau, The Ethical Life, p.57) he picked the latter. Despite agreeing with the statement that the divine command theory makes, picking the latter is not uncommon even if the first affirms the theory. The statement that God commands an action because it is morally right, “implies that God did not invent morality, but rather recognized an existing moral law and then commanded us to obey it” (Shafer-Landau, The Fundamentals of Ethics, p.67-68). This does not make the Elder’s message wrong, in fact most theists don’t follow the divine command theory. This is based on the fact that if the theory were true, whatever God says is a command, and therefore morally right, but God could have said that rape, murder, and stealing is morally right if that was the line of thinking.

The divine command theory states that an action’s status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. I do not think executing a criminal would ever be considered morally permissible according to the divine command theory. I think this because in the Book of John, Chapter 8, a woman is found guilty of adultery and is brought before Jesus. Jesus said ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’. Jesus is not condemning the sinner, but calls the sinner to change.

Religion and morality, and the divine command theory claim that morality relies on religion, except that claim is problematic.

Religious belief is our source of moral guidance. (2014, pg.63). If all assumptions are true, therefore Divine Command Theory must be true. However, a philosopher known as Plato proves the following theory to be false.