I found a theory of the right to be quit interesting, the deontological theory. In contrast to the teleological theory, which focuses on the consequences of an action; a deontological theory looks to the motives of an action or a God command. But the one view I have found intriguing is the divine command theory that says that an act is right if it is commanded by God and wrong if God forbids it.
             This theory is worthy of note to me because in my case the divine command is something of a fact to me. On occasion I have gone to church and read the bible. The theory is almost undeniable to me because it relates to the fact that I am a believer. Now if an act is right if it is commanded by God than undoubtedly an act is wrong if he forbids, as I feel and read that God originally created us to be in harmony. Now, who is to say that to be in harmony we must follow these commands, but as I find a non- believer objecting to, for instance, murder because, "we all have a right to live; or murder is sorrowful I don't want it done to me", than peace (harmony) is a virtue that many people look for in the world. One can say that the divine command theory is almost a fundamental basis from which people can say that, "murder is sorrowful". Certainly which commands to follow are of a hard question because there are so many religions out in the world? But it is all a question on culture, for I see the word of God to be in the Old and New Testaments, some one else may see it in the Koran.
             To summarize, the divine command theory has a hosts of possible interpretations and the theory is indisputable to me because it relates to the fact that God exists. Although most philosopher challenge himself or herself with a thought on a situation, God most often is accounted for in their hypothesis. Which I interpret as the one
             ...