In order to examine the problems this claim is followed by, first we must assess exactly what the statement means. The specific problems that arise from claiming it to be true and different depending on whether you say it because you believe that God commanding the actions make them good, or whether God would only command actions which are good absent from his will. These two different option form the basis for Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma in which Socrates asks Euthyphro that very question: ‘Is what is holy holy because the gods approve of it, or do they approve it because it is holy?’, with the former being known as the Divine Command Theory.
The notion of Divine Command Theory is primarily where this statement lies, because it states that anything God commands becomes good by definition, even if it may not have been thought of as good beforehand. This, however, creates the Arbitrariness Problem. If whatever God commands becomes good, then morality becomes completely arbitrary as it depends entirely upon
…show more content…
However, this still corresponds to the statement at hand as it is still claiming that whatever God commands must be good. Martin claimed that this defence only “postpones the problem”, stating that it creates a new question: “is God’s character the way it is because it is good, or is God’s character good simply because it is God’s character?”. Here we fall back into all the problems that arise from the Divine Command Theory but instead for God’s character rather than his actions, and so this response does not work as a defence of the criticisms against Divine Command Theory. Many would argue that our standard of judgment as to either the actions or commands of God are made from a prior standard of moral behaviour and so we cannot say that what God commands is
In Antony’s paper Good Minus God: The Moral atheist, she is questioning the label of “bad” that has been placed on atheists. To help aid her throughout her paper, she uses the differences between the divine command theory (D.C.T) and the divine independence theory (D.I.T). According to Antony (pg. 5) “Whatever the gods love — bingo! — That’s pious.” This is what she uses to define the D.C.T. Antony defines the D.I.T (pg. 6) to be “that the goodness of an action is a feature that is independent of, and antecedent to God’s willing it.” To further explain, the D.C.T is the belief that if god finds something moral and good then it is pious.
For the individuals who are searching for a tasteful meaning of devotion, the discourse is a failure, for no conclusion has been come to concerning the exact idea of that goodness. It has now and again been kept up that the genuine motivation behind logic isn't to answer addresses yet rather scrutinize the appropriate responses that have been given. Anyways, this is precisely what Socrates has been doing in this back and forth. Euthyphro has displayed a few speedy and prepared responses to the inquiry "What is devotion?" however upon magnification, each of these questions has appeared to be unsuitable.
The Divine Command Theory (DCT) explains which actions are moral based on whether or not God commands it. The theory is difficult to support due to its flaws, arbitration, and even due to the essence of God. While Divine Command Theorists may completely support this theory, I will argue why the theory is impractical and cannot dictate what is morally right or wrong. In understanding if this theory holds ground we must question what God commands. Instead of uncritically accepting a theory we must put it to question and eliminate any flaws.
HUM2225 Dr. Hotchkiss September 30, 2016 Moral Insight Plato’s Euthyphro is based on a lesson between Socrates and Euthyphro outside of the Athenian court about the definition of pious or impious. Euthyphro was surprised to see Socrates there and even more curious to find out why he was there. Socrates explained that the court was persecuting him for impiety because Meletus was spreading rumors about him corrupting the Athenian youth. Euthyphro explains to Socrates that he was there to prosecute his father for murdering a farm worker named Dionysus.
Devine command theory The theory, Devine command theory, also known as theological voluntarism is philosophical perspective and view to what Gods will is relevant to determine moral status of some set of entities. The theory holds that morality is Gods command, doing what is morally right is implementing Gods command. In this writing, I aim at giving a characterization of the theory, argue for the theory and against the theory, I will present my own views, arguing for and against the philosopher 's arguments, I 'll evaluate the theory, point out objections to the theory and present approach to respond to the objection. Metaethical and Normative Theological Voluntarism Defined as voluntarism.
The deductive problem of evil defines omnipotence as having no bounds to power and being all-good as having the will to prevent and stop any evil that one possibly can. Furthermore, Adams presents how much this problem is amplified when considering horrendous evils that would push the average person to “doubt the positive meaning of their lives”(Adams 300). Adams acknowledges that this definition of God’s qualities alongside the definition of horrendous evils hinders the existence of the Christian God. God is one who is supposed to hold love for all of his creations, but allowing for his creations to suffer needlessly doesn’t align with this love. This problem causes people to question not only God’s love for them but also God’s reasoning in their suffering and their living.
Defenders of the Argument from Evil have challenged the last premises of the presented by the critics of Theological Fatalism and have shown that free will is not possible under an omniscient god. Conclusion In conclusion, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good God cannot coexist with evil. Therefore, seeing that evil still exists in this world in terms of natural disaster and human suffering, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good God cannot
It’s not possible for God to command an immoral act because He commands moral acts, but He cannot command immoral acts so He cannot be omnipotent. So God doesn’t command an act because it is moral, which makes Landau wrong. The argument is sound, because the argument is valid
This is so because it becomes difficult to know whether moral goodness is independent of the will of God or if it is as a result of His will. The Euthyphro dilemma offers two intensely differing sides. On one side of the argument, theorists are of the opinion that morality is whatever God wills. This position then brings into question the goodness of God’s will if His command vindicates what is wrong. Arguing that goodness is the determined by God shows that what is rights is so because God wills it to be right.
God mustn’t tell us to do something irrational to society that can be labeled “evil to us, for he is above all and morally perfect. However for us human beings, we need to follow something that IS powerful than us and can lead us to something great at the end. Thus, we question when do we ignore something that is not considered ethical. Hegal wants to prove that he Abraham can be the “tragic hero” of the story, but he can still make rational decisions by his own and not by his “God” he follows. 2.
Platinga then argues that God’s omnipotence is limited in the sense that He could not construct a world in which there were free creatures that simultaneously abstained from evil choices. The very act of
He describes the objection as, “all men desire the apparent good, but have no control over the appearance, but the end appears to each man in a form answering to his character” (1114b). This view argues that all people pursue that which seems good, but some people cannot see the true good, which is out of their control. The immediate implication of this objection, if it is indeed true, suggests that “no one is responsible for his own evildoing” (1114b).
Since God himself dictated those words to his prophet, why should I seek to make myself better than God?” {Alexandre
The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories. The divine command theory says that what is morally right and what is morally wrong is determined by God and God alone. People who follow the divine command theory believe that God is the creator of all things, therefore, he must also be the creator of morally right and wrong acts.
Knowledge is Sufficient to Qualify Philosopher as a Ruler Plato insists on his proposition claiming that knowledge alone is sufficient to qualify philosophers to be the ruler “...provided that they are not inferior to the non-philosophers in virtue...they are superior pretty well for the most important one” (484d) and makes plausible arguments to support it by explaining the importance of knowledge of the form of good for the ruler in a perfect state and the most important virtue that only philosophers possess. The Argument can be formulated as: 1) philosophers have knowledge, and 2) philosophers are not inferior to the non-philosophers in virtue, and 3) Philosophers are superior pretty well for the most important virtue of understanding/knowing