The divine command theory argues that God is the lawgiver and that it is he who has introduced the rules of morality to us. It tells us that because morality is "right" that means that God "commands" it. It argues that God and morality is dependant on one another. It also states that God is altruistic because everything that is "good" God commands.
             This theory tries to solve the problem of objectivity in ethics. It shows that morals are not just based on people's opinions but dictated by a higher being. It also solves the problem of why anyone should obey morals. According to others, if morals were not commanded by god, why bother with them and not just look out for yourself like ethical egoism suggests. According to the divine command theory, because God has commanded it, then if we obey it, we will be rewarded in heaven, or punished in hell.
             This theory fails for multiple reasons, the first reason being that it concludes non-sense. The Devine Command Theory argues the following:
             "X" is good because God commands it. Therefore "X" was not good or bad before Gods commands, which in result leads to the conclusion that God commands "X" because "X" is good. This means that God could have said that killing was good and that would have become our morals. He could have enforced other morals on us which were indeed wrong and we would have adopted them. Well, if this were true, our society could not have survived.
             This proves that god is independent of morals. God simply adopted morals that already existed. So, this would mean that even without God, we would indeed still have morals.
             Emotivism is the second part of the ethical subjectivism argument. This theory argues that any ethical statement that is made is simply an expression of ones emotions that can neither be true nor false. For example if you say that Abortion is wrong, you are
             ...