God and Ethics
The world has different types of religion. In one of the beliefs, people believe in God, a supreme being who created all that exists in the world. Among the religions present in the world, most of the people believe in God. However, the difference between these God believers are the beliefs they have on the Supreme Being on matters concerning the control of hat is right and what is wrong. The divine command theory is an ethnically based theory on the existence of God. The approach states that an act is only permissible or obligatory only if the action is allowed or commanded by God. In more straightforward wordings, it says that God commands what is right morally and forbids what is ethically wrong. In this case, charity is morally right since God commands it, but murder is morally wrong since it’s forbidden by God. The holy books in religions like the Bible, Koran, Torah, act as the guidelines to God’s directions and moral standards for human beings. In the case of the Divine morality theory, what is commanded by God is what is morally right.
On the other hand, the advocates of this theory believe that things are God because God willed them to be, and He created them. The theorists of the Divine command believe that there are conventional morals that are objective, same for everyone, and others that are subjective, which represent the independent personal beliefs. The objective opinions are mainly standard for all, regardless of their beliefs. The conventional morals of God are given as guidelines sin the holy books f different religions that believe in God. Believers of the theory believe that God cannot command something wrong in morals. God is everything good and right, and therefore, his commands are morally right and are suitable for us as human beings, his creations.
The critiques of the theory believe that God has no much control over human beings and their judgment on morality. The opponents of the Divine Command theory believe that morality is subjective either with God present or not. Individuals argue that the only reason that people obey God and follow His commands is due to fear of punishment in the afterlife if they disobey. The fear rotates on them going to hell, where they will burn for eternity or the belief that something terrible will happen to them if they do not obey. In this case, the motives of most people in following God’s command are self-interested. However, for the true believers of God, they obey the commandments of God because it’s their obligation to obey God, since they are His creation.
Euthyphro Dilemma
The Euthyphro is a classic dialogue of Plato that concerns the relationship between God and ethics. The conversation is mainly a discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro. Socrates was on trial as he was accused of corrupting the youth of Athens by leading them away from their beliefs in gods. On the other hand, Euthyphro was prosecuting his father for the manslaughter of a servant. During the dialogue, Socrates asks the question that maintains to be a persistent dilemma for the divine command theory, does God command and action because morally right or is it a morally right action because God commands it?
On the latter statement, an action is morally right because God commands it, then it means that God can command and on the other hand, not speak against immoral actions, thus making the immoral acts moral. In the Bible, for instance, God commanded Abraham, his most devout believer and follower, to sacrifice his the only son, who he had got at an old age. With God’s command, Abraham tied his son upon a hilltop and was about to kill him when the angel of the Lord put a stop on him and offered him a sacrificial lamb in place of his son. The story indicates that if God had not intervened and sent His angle, Abraham would have killed his son because God commanded him to do so. This story stated that God has the power to bend and unbend morality at any time he pleases because he is all-powerful. Therefore according to this statement by Socrates, if God commanded us to inflict suffering o others for fun, then it would be morally right because it was allowed by God. In this case, the commands of God and the foundations of morality become arbitrary. This then allows for morally unacceptable actions to become ethically obligatory.
The former statement in Socrates’s dialogue with Euthyphro states that God commands an action because it’s morally right. This means that morality is already defined before God approves of it. God commands what is correct at all times; however, due to God’s perfect nature, he is restricted from making immoral commands and acts. In this case, what is morally wrong or right is not based on God alone but also by other factors. This indicates that God is not the author of ethics, but he is the director of what is wrong or right. This makes him subject to an external law that concludes that God is not sovereign. The Euthyphro dilemma, therefore, holds that: morality is either an arbitrary foundation or God is not the author of ethics and is only subject to the external law, which compromises his supreme moral position and his status as a supreme being on top of the earth’s food chain.
Response
A defender of the divine command theory would go with moral obligations are stemmed from the commands of God. God is the determinant of what is morally right or wrong since goodness is grounded in the commands of God. Biblically, God gave Moses the Ten Commandments to guide the people of Israel, which Christians follow to date. God is, therefore, the lawmaker. He dies not subject to external laws since he is the law sovereign, all-powerful. God’s nature is that of goodness, and therefore anything that is commanded by him is right. The goodness of God is manifested in his commands, and hence his set powers on the human moral obligation are good and are meant to humans good and not evil. This is Concerning the theory of forms by Plato. According to the analogy by Plato, red has a universal property that is instantiated with things. In this case, the property is red, and redness in the form exhibited by items. Therefore the property participated in the redness form of objects.
Similarly, the moral duties and obligations of human beings participate in an excellent form of God. The relation between the property and the form is similar to the connection between the goodness nature of God and the property of his commands to human beings. In this case, moral rightness or wrongness is determined by God since he is the lawmaker, and he is the author of human beings’ ethics.
The response of the advocates of the divine command theory is, however, not faring very well. To start, the Bible, which is supposed to be the guide on moral obligations, is contradicting and unclear. In the Scripture, God directly commands death as punishment for actions like homosexuality. This leads to the question of are immoral actions only wrong when God deems them faulty and right when he deems them proper? The Bible offers the conclusion that God commands what is wrong or right. However, the rightness and wrongness of action are dependent on the situation. The nature of God is that of goodness; however, is the goodness of God relative to circumstances and sinners?
There are religions in the world that no not believe in God. In this case, are these religions moral-less, because they do not have anyone to command them on morality? God is the creator of all things in the world. Therefore, if he created all things, then he ought to have taught every one of his existence and his sovereignty, and thus, the whole world could have been one in worshiping God. On the other hand, the guidelines to the commands of God are in holy books, does that mean that before the consummation of these books, there were no moral laws? The response of the divine command theory is, therefore, not in a stable path since there are a lot of contradictions and unclearness about God and ethics.
The divine command theory is a sensitive topic of discussion on both believers and non-believers. There is no proven proof of which side is right I regard to God and Ethics. The theory offers two contradicting opposites. The Euthyphro dilemma presents this dilemma: does God command and action because morally correct, or is it a morally right action because God commands it? According to the response by the advocators of the theory, the nature of God is good, and therefore, he forms goodness in all his operations. In this case, the source of moral obligations is unknown as far as God and ethics are concerned. Is God the lawmaker and moral author, or is he a subject of the external law on morality?