Section 2
The conception of morality through the lenses of religion makes it appear as if God's commands are arbitrary. Assessing morality in the realms of religion requires individuals to analyze the Divine Command Theory (DCT). God is seen as a parent who does not provide a rational reason for his rules and commands. Religious groups including the Muslims, Christians and the Jews amongst others have rules provided by a Supreme Being for which they are supposed to obey. The DCT theory classifies morality in three different sections including those which God commands, those which he forbids, and those which he says nothing about. Therefore, these result in morally right, morally wrong, and morally neutral actions respectively. The fundamental basis of the theory is that all the powers to decide which actions are morally right or wrong are vested in God. Critics have however downplayed the validity of this theory that puts God at the helm of all moral decisions.
First, atheists who do not believe in the existence of God would not accept it. Believers would also find it difficult to adhere to its provisions as indicated by Plato. In one of Plato's books known as "Euthyphro," there is a debate on whether "right" entails what God dictates. Socrates shows doubt with these assertions and questions the validity of the claim that a conducted should remain right just because God asks so. As such, Socrates shows skepticism and wants to understand whether God is responsible for making the moral truths or his rule is simply reduced to that of recognition. Therefore, according to the DCT, nothing qualifies to be either good or bad unless God declares it so. As such, it builds on the mysteriousness of morality and further makes God’s commands arbitrary. Furthermore, critics have further alluded to the fact that the DCT trivializes the debate on morality and casts a blind eye on the seriousness of actions. It, therefore, decides to remain concerned with whether deeds satisfy or not the provisions outlined by God.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Section 3
Many agree that the concept of morality offers the wrong reasons to support the moral principles. One of the concepts of morality severely criticized for this is the Divine Command Theory (DCT). In providing the analogy of child abuse, it could be regarded as an immoral act because it is malicious, involves pain, and could result in the long-term suffering of the abused child. However, in applying the DCT theory that relies on the position of God in differentiating what is right from what is not, no significant identification of these sufferings occurs. The theory only cares about whether the child abuse would counter the arguments presented by God. As such, it provides the wrong reasons for moral principles. Many critics of this philosophy believe that it is wrong because the nonexistence of God would probably make child abuse acceptable because no one would be there to classify it as morally alright or unacceptable. However, with or without God, child abuse would continue to be a malicious act. In this regard, the DCT fails to account for such a concern.
The failure of these concepts of morality in addressing the moral principles could also be seen as a failure since many religious people have shown their doubts with the commandments of God. Religious texts have demonstrated certain gross inconsistencies with each other and in some cases; even a single text could conflict with the other. Therefore, this has resulted in many people doubting the actual will of God. However, in the real sense, one should not doubt whether indeed an act such as child abuse is wrong. People must firmly understand that God's commandment could be different from what the impacts of action entail. The only remedy for human being remains to accept that God commands us to do specific things because he sees them as right other than holding to the notion that proper conduct only remains so because God says that. People must keep in mind that God is wise, recognizes the importance of truth, and commands human beings to stay within the realms of doing what is right. Such an assumption helps people to determine that God's commands are not arbitrary but rather the knowledge of knowing what is right from wrong.
Although philosophers such as Plato and Socrates have shown resentment to the DCT theory and highlighted the difficulties associated with it, some of its advantages cannot be ignored. Plato identifies its most significant flaw in his booked named "Euthyphro" by questioning God's position in designating what is morally right or wrong. In DCT, God has created human beings as free agents capable of choosing what is right from what is not. However, it only requires people to follow the laws of God to the latter without questioning the rationality behind them. One of the attractive features associated with the theory is that it solves the challenge of objectivity with ethics. One must note that ethics cannot be reduced to the discussion of social custom or personal feeling. The rightness or wrongness of matter is perfectly objective and depends on the position of God on it. Another significant incentive provided by the DCT theory is that it gives people a reason to act morally. Knowing that in the judgment day people will receive punishment for acting immorally, there is always an extra push to strict in adherence to the commandments of God.
