Meta-Ethics: Divine Command Theory and Moral Realism
Students Name
Course
Professor
Date
Introduction
When speaking of ethics and accompanying types, we can only fathom extensively on the differences in cultural understanding. With there being so many types of theories discussed in the Christian ethical theory world, it can be challenging to understand when compared to other competing ethical methods out there. Sometimes it is better to compare and contrast theories to help better understand theories. By discussing the similarities and the differences in philosophies, understanding sometimes becomes clearer as different perspectives are sought. With that said, I would like to discuss Moral Realism and Divine Command.
Meta-Ethics contrast and comparison
As we read in our Moral Reasoning textbook, Moral Realism seems to be more of a claim that the moral concepts are unimportant under certain circumstances. In other words, there are claims under Moral Realism that facts can be objective. Also, that moral facts can be understood through empirical observations. On the other hand, the Divine Command Theory is more about attempting to establish facts and decides that God’s existence is not observable[1]. In short, Divine Command questions whether we can know for sure what God expects. With Moral Realism having the view that moral facts are independent of beliefs, what is right may not be determined by what anyone thinks. We cannot get together and say something is good by agreeing that it is when we know that it is not. One good advantage that Moral Realism has is that when there is a disagreement between two beliefs, they believe all parties cannot be right. So, they determine that resolving the conflicting information together by seeking the correct answer is best. One of the branches of moral realism, that is, ethical naturalism, for a noble to be objective, must rely on evidence that is independent of everyone’s perceptions. Therefore, no personal views come from a God’s life, a human mind, or the mind of advanced species of extra-terrestrial alien life can determine an objective moral reality individually of the consequences and motives in question. Besides, nature itself profound morality, whereby the actual experiences affect human consciousness. As such, people’s intentions and their effects of moral actions hold the scientific foundation. In cases of Is/Ought dilemma, people have the mandate to grant new premises to conclude the moral element of motion[2]. Therefore, moral relativism depends on social context, personal situations, and cultural context to determine whether the belief action is either right or wrong. Even though there should be moral principles to govern people, there should be a feasible formula to adapt them in particular situations.
Now, according to Divine Command, God claims that there are no ways to validate claims and that we do not know for sure what God expects of us. The Divine Command suggests that God is good, and that good cannot exist independent of God[3]. With this theory, ultimately being based on the fact that God’s character or commands make up morality, the morally right action is the one that God requires or commands. With that said about Divine Command, it is difficult to find similarities, but not necessarily impossible. With Moral Realism and Divine Command, they do have their differences. However, they share commons aspects certain such convictions and certain beliefs when determining what wrong is. For example, they both believe that murdering a human being is wrong, and they both believe lying and stealing are also illegal. Despite this, there is always the question of which is the more substantial ethical theory, though.
Divine Command Theory and how it is stronger when compared to Moral Realism
Although the Divine Command Theory continues to be highly controversial, I believe that the Divine Command Theory is the more definite theory because Divine Command carries both practical and theoretical importance when discussing argument for the method. Since a divine law requires the existence of God, this makes him the maker of the law. In other words, he would be the person who gives the rules. Also, with the belief that there is a God who helps us satisfy the moral law demands, we can live righteous lives[4]. With that, we must believe that morality requires faith that there is an afterlife and that there is a God.
In my opinion, that holds in the ideology of God’s reasons for a better understanding of what is suitable for human beings makes it more potent than the Moral realism theory. Through God’s command, under Divine Command Theory (DCT), everything is permitted. Therefore, Christians must hold the stipulated ethics of the DCT due to fundamental reasons. Despite that, the old Euthyphro dilemma challenges such a view. The Divine Command Theory implies that God commands possess the best for human beings even if He commands inflicts suffering to someone. The inflicted pain is moral[5]. The personal perceptions in determining what is right and wrong are what God forbids. As such, the DCT is the view that morality depends upon God, whereby the moral obligations encompass obedience to God’s commands. The theory upholds that morality requires extensive faith belief in God and an afterlife. The prerequisites of morality dramatically depend on the existence of God. People have the mandate to believe in God’s presence so that He helps them satisfy their moral law demands[6]. Therefore, personal acceptance of such beliefs enables people to live moral lives. As such, even afterlife, God rewards the righteous people with massive happiness, whereby they also gain justice of what was done to them by human beings despite their sufferings. As such, people’s problems go away. It eludes that, possessing moral by an individual does not guarantee happiness, but believing in God who rewards the morally righteous gives them satisfaction. Such accruals of morality outweigh the ethical realism theory of relying on people to determine what is right or wrong.
Besides, the Divine Command Theory provides morality with an objective metaphysical foundation. As such, the individuals committed to the availability of objective moral realities, such truths correspond well with the theistic framework. Therefore, if the universe originality is an individual moral being, then the availability of actual moral facts dwells in the universe. In contrast, if the universe originality exhibits non-moral elements, later, the subsistence of such truths become philosophically perplexing since it is not visible how moral assets come to existence through non-moral origins[7]. Given the “creation out of nothing” metaphysical insight, it is clear that nothing ethical exists out of the non-moral. The lack of naturalness of fitting entirely in the actual universe leads to the elimination of objective moral properties. As such, the perspective assumes that fundamental moral properties exist, despite the controversy of the approach.
Also, the Divine Command Theory effectively answers the question, why be moral? Besides, the DCT strength relies on its ethics perception connection that is grounded in God. Our actions by God defines our accountability measures[8]. Therefore, those who do evil will get punished, whereas those who live morally upstanding will receive rewards and vindicates from God. As such, the people eliminate from committing crimes and focus on obeying God’s commands for human being welfare development. Thus, in the end, good triumphs over evil. Within a theistic framework, people need to embrace ethics that counter-attacks personal interests due to the merits and significance of self-sacrifice. Therefore, the DCT advocates for the rational sacrifice of individual well-being for the welfare enhancement of the societal members, like children, neighbors, and strangers, since God commands self-sacrifice actions. As such, the Divine Command Theory has set guidelines and rules to follow and ensures that emotions will not change the personal judgment. When it comes to the decision-making process of individuals, the DCT does not offer any grey area. The DCT rules and regulations, such as the ten commandments among others, enable people to adopt them and live a moral life.
The Divine Moral Theory awakens the intuitions of a person. Since God is our creator and objective, He, therefore, knows us the best. As such, people may project that certain things act effectively in their life, such as an affair[9]. However, God’s law moves against such relations that happen for a reason. The DCT takes away human responsibility. People’s goodness ins not subject to their situations misunderstanding since their reasoning is fallible. Due to that., following God’s commandments, it protects the people from such challenges. God inflicted moral obligations on people, including love to God and respect for themselves. Some of the commandments exhibit moral and ethical irrespective commands regardless of God’s commands. Since the natural contains what is self-evidently analytically true, God could not integrate the false element in these statements[10]. Therefore, God’s will does not determine the natural law. Besides, since morality depends on its responsibility towards human existence, it is the mandate of human nature can determine what is moral by following God’s commands. Since God created a human being, he offered moral obligations to determine what is right and wrong.
The DCT offers a framework on the genesis of the arising moral conflicts. When compared to moral realism, which provides measures on how to solve conflicts, it does not provide a channel on how they came to existence. Therefore, there exists a widespread disagreement on deciding on what is right and wrong for the human assumptions on the acquisition of the moral facts. Such problems become solved effectively by the Divine Command Theory. In moral realism as per the evolutionary debunking argument, the evolutionary process determines human psychology, which seems to lack sensitive reasoning to moral facts. The divine command theory eliminates such moral skepticism, thus maintaining the ethical standards among the people[11]. Moral realism suggests nonmaterial noble events making it difficult for empirical investigations. The noble truths cannot be observed as compared to objective material facts. The DCT helps eliminate such complications, thus making it more reliable than the moral realism theory.
However, the divine command theory has exponential weaknesses attached to it. God’s ethical commandments determine what is morally wrong and right to the people. Firstly, epistemic problems arise under the divine command theory. The question is, how can people know the actuality of God’s commands? The emergence of various religions, with several truthful claims and their interpretation of the spiritual scriptures, makes it question the credibility of the theory[12]. As such, text transcribing to multiple languages and arising contradictions due to various editing creates a challenge of the approach. Besides, people claim to receive daily revelations, and such a phenomenon lacks empirical validity. The theory only argues on the religious scriptures as accurate God’s message, with other human texts being fabricated. The validity test fails to ascertain the authenticity of the scriptures. Despite God’s moral commands in scriptures, the lack of the original version of the old testament raises concerns on whether it inspired them.
The DCT encompasses the Euthyphro dilemma. It leads to the iteration on whether something is excellent due to God’s command, or does God command make it suitable? As per the theist, the two elements lack intensive clarification. In the first part of the question, God arbitrarily determines right, while the latter means that good exists external to God. Besides, religious scriptures contain several people who exhibit immoral commands, such as homosexual and slavery behavior[13]. Also, the divine command theory neglects people the freedom of free choice. The availability of hell and heaven suggests that people must adequately follow God’s commands. Since goodness is an inherent property of God, such claims do not prove that morality cannot exist independently of God. Some of God’s commands do not conform to natural law. As such, God’s commandments arbitrarily determine that goodness.
Lastly, there lack of observation and verification elements of God’s existence. The theory relies on faith. Therefore, unlike moral realism, which focuses on scientific facts and validity, the DCT may guide us towards embracing values not integrated with events, despite the life benefits we derive from them. Obedience to the following moral element virtually may result in challenges to people[14]. Therefore, in the divine command theory, no reconciliation measures as per the outlined problems. But even if there are weaknesses regarding the DCT over moral realism, it has numerous advantages on how people can live virtuous lives.
Conclusion
There are claims under Moral Realism that facts can be objective. Also, that moral facts can be understood through empirical observations. On the other hand, the Divine Command Theory is more about attempting to establish facts and decides that God’s existence is not observable. In short, Divine Command questions whether we can know for sure what God expects. With Moral Realism having the view that moral facts are independent of beliefs, what is right may not be determined by what anyone thinks. We cannot get together and say something is good by agreeing that it is when we know that it is not. However, they share commons aspects certain such convictions and certain beliefs when determining what wrong is. For example, they both believe that murdering a human being is wrong, and they both believe lying and stealing are also illegal. Despite this, there is always the question of which is the more substantial ethical theory, though. The Divine Command Theory effectively answers the question, why be moral? Besides, the DCT strength relies on its ethics perception connection that is grounded in God. Our actions by God defines our accountability measures.
Therefore, those who do evil will get punished, whereas those who live morally upstanding lives will receive rewards and vindicates from God. The Divine Moral Theory awakens the intuitions of a person. Since God is our creator and objective, He, therefore, knows us the best. As such, people may project that certain things act effectively in their life, such as an affair. However, God’s law moves against such relations that happen for a reason. The DCT offers a framework on the genesis of the arising moral conflicts. When compared to moral realism, which even though it provides measures on how to solve conflicts, it does not provide a channel on how they came to existence. There is a lack of observation and verification elements of God’s presence. The theory relies on faith. Unlike moral realism, which focuses on scientific facts and validity, the DCT may guide us towards embracing values not integrated with facts, despite the life benefits we derive from them.
Bibliography
Jones, Michael S. Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2017
Stivers, Laura A., Christine E. Gudorf, and James B. Martin-Schramm. Christian ethics: A case method approach. Orbis Books, 2012.
Tropman, Elizabeth. “Meta‐Ethics.” A Companion to Atheism and Philosophy (2019): 341-354.
[1] Jones, Michael S. Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2017
[2] Jones, Michael S. Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2017.
[3] Tropman, Elizabeth. “Meta‐Ethics.” A Companion to Atheism and Philosophy (2019): 341-354.
[4] Tropman, Elizabeth. “Meta‐Ethics.” A Companion to Atheism and Philosophy (2019): 341-354.
[5] Jones, Michael S. Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2017
[6] Jones, Michael S. Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2017
[7] Stivers, Laura A., Christine E. Gudorf, and James B. Martin-Schramm. Christian ethics: A case method approach. Orbis Books, 2012.
[8] Stivers, Laura A., Christine E. Gudorf, and James B. Martin-Schramm. Christian ethics: A case method approach. Orbis Books, 2012.
[9] Jones, Michael S. Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2017
[10], Jones, Michael S. Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2017
[11] Jones, Michael S. Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2017
[12] Tropman, Elizabeth. “Meta‐Ethics.” A Companion to Atheism and Philosophy (2019): 341-354.
[13] Jones, Michael S. Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2017.
[14] Tropman, Elizabeth. “Meta‐Ethics.” A Companion to Atheism and Philosophy (2019): 341-354.