Outline
Introduction
Moral commands have to come from an external agent who is powerful and benevolent but the Euthyphro’s dilemma exposes a lot of loopholes in the divine command theory. Such loopholes lead to the discussion on the philosophical implications of each option. Whether one agrees with the first or second option, he/she should be able to justify the implications of such an option.
Thesis Statement
Morally good acts are good because they are willed by God and He has the authority to dictate what is right or wrong.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Main Body: Divine Command Theory
This theory establishes that for an action to be deemed morally good is equivalent to stating that the action is commanded by God. This assertion establishes that God is morally upright and worth commanding the issue of morality.
The theory relates to Socrates’s question but it subjects itself to numerous criticisms. The criticism results to Euthyphro’s dilemma, where picking either options bears an implication.
The benefits of divine command theory are that it motivates people to do good as God wills because doing the contrary attracts a punishment. It is rewarding to being morally good because this behavior pleases God.
Philosophical Implications of Each Option
Picking the option that states; “morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good” indicates that one has to decide to accept morally good acts as being independently good even without God
The next option is “morally good acts are good because they are willed by God” indicates that acts can be deemed good only with God’s command; notwithstanding whether they are good or bad.
Conclusion
Moral goodness is willed by God because he has such power and benevolence to establish the basis of what is good or bad. Morality has to be dictated by an external agent who has power over it and not subject to the same moral judgments and such a character is God because his traits qualify him as the supreme being. The characteristics of God include; wisdom, omnipresent, God’s faithfulness, and justice. He is also merciful; all these traits allow him to be the moral agent worthy to command what is good or bad.
Moral Goodness, by God or for God
Morality provides a framework for deciding what is right and wrong, it gives a clear insight into the good and bad. However, moral commands can only be a command given that it emanates from an external agent. The agent has to be extremely powerful to issue such a command and provide a guideline on how morality should be defined. From a limited human perspective, one might think an act is right while others view it as wrong. The basis of establishing such a conclusion from a limited human standpoint is unclear and unreliable. Therefore, moral commands or morality have to originate from a supreme being who is independent, powerful, glorious and holy. In determining what is moral, God’s commands have to come in play, and for one to be morally upright; he/she has to follow God’s will. Morally good acts are good because they are willed by God and He has the authority to dictate what is right or wrong.
Divine Command Theory
Moral discussions fall under the meta-ethics branch of philosophy. The discussion of morality leads to the establishment of the source that informs its definition. There are key factors that can convince one to accept that an entity is a morality qualified. The factors are as follows; omnipotence, Omni benevolence, Purity, glory, justice, grace among others. Such traits point to that of a supernatural being, who is wiser beyond the limited human understanding. This foundation deconstructs the origin of morality and provides a framework on how judge whether actions are morally right or wrong.
The issue of morality is unclear without a definition of its origin. The ability to determine right and wrong, good and bad has to be informed by a supernatural being, with the traits described above. Divine command theory establishes that for actions or behaviors to be seen as morally good is equivalent to assert that they are commanded by God (Rahimi, 2012). This equals to agree that God has the moral authority to dictate what is right or wrong because he is the moral law himself. Therefore, for one to be morally upright he or she has to establish a relationship with God. Such a relationship should be fueled by obedience to the law of God and believing always that what God wills is the right thing to do. It is clear that for an act to be deemed good, it has to be informed by what God commands (Rahimi, 2012). For instance, Romans 8:7 points out that “the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.” This verse affirms that submission to God’s law or commands equals to not sinning or being morally good, and the contrary shows hostility to God and leads to the objection of His definition of what is moral or deviant.
The theory leads one to arrive at some conclusions; That the awareness of their moral obligations as human beings affirm the existence of God. It also confirms the acknowledgment of God’s power, purity, and Omni benevolence. The law of the land demands that it has to be respected and followed and those who go against the law live to serve the consequences provided by such legislation. Religion tends to establish morality through the character of God and focusing on what God requires of human beings. Therefore, with such awareness on what is right and wrong from a nation’s perspective and humans having a full recognition of their moral obligations equals to an establishment of a relationship with God. Therefore, being cognizant of God’s laws and the benefits of adhering to them exhibits the understanding and respect of the authority of God. Additionally, it affirms the power He has in establishing what is right and wrong according to His will (Plaisted, 2016). This theory relates to the famous question raised by Socrates to Euthyphro on whether “morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good or they are morally good because they are willed by God.” However, this question raises a lot of loopholes in the divine command theory and provides a lot to desire philosophically as far as morality and God are concerned. The question provides two options to pick from, but each option bears some philosophical implications to it. However, before the analysis of Euthyphro’s dilemma, divine command theory is essentially effective in establishing a morally upright society, as discussed below.
Benefits of Divine Command Theory
The acceptance of moral principles means that one acknowledges the existence and authority of God. Such acceptance entails that, one has to encounter whom God is through faith in him and acting as he wills or commands. Therefore, such a belief puts a reward on moral obedience, that when one respects God’s commands and the moral obligation therein then a reward is deemed necessary by God (Plaisted, 2016). Another possible merit of the theory is that the knowledge of the universe being established by a supreme being provides a foundation for morality. Acknowledging the existence of such a supernatural being confirms the need to commit to our moral obligations. It is right to assume that, there has to be a reward in the end for respecting such commands (Plaisted, 2016). Reverting to the verse in Romans, that being moral means respecting the authority of God, this comes with a reward for those who believe in the afterlife. On the contrary, those who go against the commands of God, sin against him and there are consequences for being deviant too.
However, the issue of the merits of divine command theory builds up to some philosophical dilemmas. The moral motivation of either reward or punishment seems to be insufficient in this case to motivate humans to be morally upright (Plaisted, 2016). Some could assert that being morally good cannot be based on motivation alone. Rather the assumption that God created human beings in such a way that conforming to his moral commands is a necessity to their existence (Rahimi, 2012). This argument amounts to a philosophical confusion that exists in the Socrates’ question to Euthyphro and the implications of picking either options thereof.
Philosophical Implications Associated with Each Option
Socrates’ question provides two options to pick from; the first one is that morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, and the other one is morally good acts are good because they are willed by God. This question causes some unavoidable dilemmas to divine command theorists. The first option states that “morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good.”. The contradiction that exists in this option is that morally good acts are independently good without God in them. Therefore, God commands such acts because he also believes that they are good, this option puts God’s authority in question (O'Connor, 2015). Divine command theory establishes that God has the power to command and therefore has the authority to establish wrong and right, which is not the case with the first option.
The second option “morally good acts are good because they are willed by God” nullifies the assertion of the first option. This option points out that something is good because God commands so and therefore an act cannot be independently good without God’s will (O'Connor, 2015). In this option, the command of God is given more emphasis regardless of whether the act is good or not. What matters is, if God commands so then it is deemed morally good. Socrates's question made the standpoint of the divine command theory flawed and opened a lot of doors for criticism of the theory. Modern divine command theory advances on this thought further by establishing that an act can only be found morally wrong, only if it goes against the will of God (McAllister, 2016). This theory tends to avoid the two options in the Euthyphro’s dilemma, that acts are morally good because God commands so, which makes morality arbitrary (McAllister, 2016). Based on this, humans are morally obligated to do as God commands regardless of how wrong such an act may be. Therefore, the modern divine theory avoids this option with the assumption that God’s love and Omni benevolence are constant and unchanging and therefore He could not command a harmful act. The modern divine command theory further establishes that morally good acts are good because God commands so. The use of a conjunction “if” in the modern command theory, establishes that God cannot command morally wrong actions. This not only exhibits that God has the moral authority to command alone, but he is such moral law and possesses the supreme power rule over the subject of morality.
There is an implication of God’s omnipotence. Based on the modern divine command theory, God cannot command a cruel thing because it goes against His benevolence. This assumption does not recognize the power of a supernatural being and fails to acknowledge that God can command whatever He wills and finds to be morally right according to his authority (McAllister, 2016). Morally mature, entails being free to decide the kind of morals to live on. This sort of autonomy negates the provisions of the divine command theory (O'Connor, 2015). God has the power to command and define what is morally right and humans are obligated to fully respect and follow as he wills. Thus, one is not entitled to define their own versions of morality.
There are so many religions in the world today. How does divine command theory establish the divine commands to follow, and which religion bears the correct way of morality? Since Socrates's question to Euthyphro, divine command theory has been heavily put under the spotlight (O'Connor, 2015). Different religions in this case have unique definitions of what is right or wrong. However, a divine command theorist has to base the judgment of how wrong or right the religion is, based on its conformity to the commands of God.
Moral goodness is commanded by God. The efforts to understand the foundations of morality should start with establishing a relationship with Him. However, picking either option; moral goodness is by God or for God about the Euthyphro dilemma raises a lot of philosophical confusion. The philosophical implications of such choices are that the divine command theory becomes weak in guiding the basis of determining right and wrong. Nevertheless, morality has to come from an external agent, who is powerful, benevolent, merciful, wise, faithful, pure, and glorious. There is no other character with such traits other than God. He is of such a character and qualifies to be the moral law and therefore possesses the power to dictate what qualifies as morally good. Concerning Euthyphro’s dilemma, the correct option should be morally good acts are good because they are willed by God. God has the power, goodness, glory, he is also just and gracious. The traits described above exhibits that God is an agent of morality or thus fits for him to establish what is right and wrong.
References
McAllister, B., (2016). Divine Command Theory and Moral Supervenience. Philosophia Christi , 18(1), pp.65-78.
O'Connor, D., (2015). Moral Relativism and the Euthyphro Dilemma. Think , 15(42), pp.71-78.
Plaisted, D., (2016). On justifying one’s acceptance of divine command theory. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 81(3), pp.315-334.
Rahimi, S., (2012). Divine Command Theory and Theistic Activism. The Heythrop Journal , 53(4), pp.551-559.
