The Divine Command Theory
The Divine Command Theory states that God is the ultimate source ofmorality and the abandonment or lack of belief in Him results in, or islargely liked to, the many social problems in the world (Schlick, Jr 2003).It says that something is good because God wills it. His commands andinstructions are also eternal or unchanging. It is understood in one ofthree versions: first, it applies only to particular religious communitiesand, therefore does not affect those outside (the weakest); second, moralbehavior in itself is good and people should behave morally, therefore,limiting the theory to religious believers (a stronger version); and third,moral behavior is good and desirable because God wills it (the most popular This theory, first of all, states that whatever God wills, goes andthat makes Him a despotic ruler who does things arbitrarily (Schick) ratherthan prefer one thing to another because it is good or right. It alsoteaches that we must trust God enormously to make this world right and thatthis is the best of all possible worlds. God can choose to change His ownmoral code whenever He pleases and for reasons only of His choosing. There
It negates the notion of free will and the validityof praising Him for certain acts at certain times and opposite ones atother times. It suggests that eachperson ought to serve his self-interest, if necessary, without or againstthe interests of others (Wikipedia 2003). It advances that the intellect, through its natural light, can directlygrasp truths, whether rational (logic and mathematics) or ethical. It implies that virtues, such ashonesty, justice and benevolence, don to serve or fulfill one's self-interest are egoistic, but those who performed them for reasons other thanself-interest were not egoistic. There were only a few philosophers whoheld on to this theory, as they found it implausible, and those whoadvocated it had to redefine the parameters of self-interest. Hume arguedthat virtue and personal merit consisted in qualities, which were useful tothe doer and to others. There are asocial governments or groups that do not regardothers as being like themselves, nor expect the rest to be. Categorical imperatives are undeniable and practical moral laws thatprovide universal validity to an act (honesty, justice) and express a morallaw as enacted by reason. Like Aristotle, Immanuel Kant considered metaphysics a necessity andmaintained that categories help us see natural phenomena, with humanity asparticipating in nature and in the ultimate purpose of the universe (Alex1997). Although his critics objected to the inconsistencybetween self-interest and benevolence, Hume insisted that benevolence wasthe supreme virtue. Its strongestproponent, Philip Quinn, on the other hand, argues for the theory in thatOT examples given are mere cases of God's suspending His own moralstandards. Furthermore,this theory appears to seek individual happiness by proving one's powerover others and acquire wealth to prove superiority, rather than serve thewelfare of some and work to care for the environment. These fewwere called "enlightened egoists," who managed to resolve their divergentself-interests by voluntarily sacrificing some of their individual aims orinterests. The theory's failure in establishing a passage from egoismto altruism, its viewing self-interest and benevolence as single motive ofconduct, and the lack of difference between what morally right and what isuseful are its signal weaknesses. Imperatives tell us what is right and what is wrong -- the ought -connecting the subjective to the objective and representing human freedom.
Common topics in this essay:
John Locke,
Alex Kant,
Schlick Jr,
Testament Utilitarianism,
Immanuel Kant,
God Neither,
Hume Kant,
Testament God,
Philip Quinn,
Theory God,
god wills,
john locke foremost,
pleasure pain,
self-interest benevolence,
moral behavior,
david hume,
locke foremost,
john locke,
moral code,
categorical imperative theory,
own moral,
moral actions,
|
Acceptance Essays
