The divine command theory proposes that any action is viewed as morally good only if it is commanded by God. Only God determines what is moral and any individual who follows his commands is viewed as moral. The Euthyphro question is presented by Plato’s dialogue where Socrates asks Euthyphro if whatever becomes pious is viewed as so because it is loved by the god or because it is it is pious the gods love it. Rachel relates these two concepts and his conclusion is that whether an action is moral because God commands or because it is moral then God commands it, is open to individual conclusions and objections. His argument against the divine command theory is sound as it provides every person room to interpret the theory as they best fit helping reduce debate.
According to the act-utilitarian standard, happiness is the sole determinant of the morality of an action. Any action is viewed as morally right only when it results in happiness. However in some instances, the act-utilitarian standard may not suffice. For instance, when an individual resorts to suicide to take away their pain, just because the action may be viewed by the victim to have resulted in happiness, the resulting pain for the individual’s loved ones overpowers its consequence of happiness. The case supports Rachel’s prompt that utilitarianism goes against the assumption of hedonism as it does not factor in the aspect of pain and how the action increases or reduces pain while increasing pleasure.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In Rachel’s book, McCloskey presents the case of a time of increased racial strife when a utilitarian is visiting the affected region. There then occurs a crime where a black man rapes a white woman. Riots and lynching result from the act and because the utilitarian was present when the crime occurred, he or she resorts to a quick accusation of the wrong individual to stop the other consequences that seem to outweigh the arrest of a single individual (Rachels & Rachels, 2014). Therefore, the act-utilitarian requires the individual to bear false witness to stop more adverse consequences from taking place. As a consequentialist theory, act-utilitarianism views an action as morally wrong or right according to its consequence. In such a case, the utilitarian’s action of the wrong accusation is viewed as moral because it prevents riots and lynching. However Rachel believes that it overlooks the aspect of justice which focuses on fairness for all. The action is unfair to the accused as he will suffer consequence for a crime he did not commit.
Reference
Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2014). The elements of moral philosophy . New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
