What is the Divine Command Theory and How Might Socrates' Dilemma Be Supposes to Undermine it - Essay Example

Task Philosophy Introduction The Divine Command Theory (DCT) comprises the claim that ethics are ultimately based on the ordersor nature of God, and that the morally right act is the one that God commands. This view is one that binds morals and religion as one. This often provides a comfort zone for most people as it presents a solution to darned arguments on moral relativism and the detachment of ethics. This theory also asserts that morality is somehow reliant upon God and that moral accountability consists in deference to God’s commands. The clear content of these divine commands differs according to the religion and the precise views of an individual divine command theorist; all versions of the theory hold in common the claim that morality and ethical obligation depends on God in the end. The issue of the probable links between religion and morals is of interest to ethical theorists, as well as those of religion, but it also guides us to regard the function of beliefs in humanity and the nature of moral consideration. Given this, the arguments presented for and against DCT have both hypothetical and realistic significance. This paper starts by vividly defining DCT, looking into Socrates’ refutations of the theory, while also explaining how his dilemma might undermine the DCT and how the theory is still salvageable in spite of Socrates’ critique. We finally end this with a clear conclusion that gives a summary of the discussion. Socrates Socrates was a prehistoric Greek philosopher who chose to question customs and beliefs of his time. He is renowned for arguing that one must know oneself to be prudent and that an unexamined life is not worthwhile. He is one of those philosophers who attempted to rebut the DCT. For this, he was, therefore, charged with several offences including “corrupting the minds of the young”. Socrates’ unique critique was seen as irreligious in his religious observances. According to the divine command theorists, he represented the sacrilegious creation of a dangerous freethinker who challenged the connection between God and morality. He was, therefore, considered not only strange but also open-minded. Socrates’ Dilemma Socrates’ dilemma is also referred to the Euthyphro Dilemma (ED). In his dilemma, Socrates asks the following questions: Are God’s orders morally superior because they are ethically acceptable? On the other hand, are they ethically righteous because God commands them? It is in response to this question that the DCT comes across intricacy. A supporter of the divine command theory might assert that an act is ethically correct because God orders its existence. Conversely, the inference of this response is that if God commanded something different from what is the norm, doing so would be morally correct. Human beings would be required to act so because God ordered its occurrence. The setback to this response to Socrates’ question, then, is that God’s orders – the fundamentals of morality – result in becoming illogical, which then call for ethically reprehensible actions to become ethically obligatory. Socrates’ assertions, hence, eliminate the rational validity of God being obedient. In addition, the fact that God orders something because it is right and is palpable to Him in His infinite wisdom, evades the arbitrariness of the preceding alternative but introduces a new problem which brings us back to the start. If God commands something because it is right, accepting an argument that has deserted a religious concept of right and wrong is morally acceptable. All these propositions will lead an advocate of the divine command theory into an ethically uncomfortable field. Furthermore, delving into the ED, one could argue that it is a false dichotomy since mean and evil are not independent of each other. God’s ethical commands, then, would be ethically acceptable because God is the objective moral remedy by which everything is measured. Hence, he cannot do an arbitrary act. To clarify, God may even decide that something like murder is morally acceptable, and it cannot be argued because the moral law has already been laid down in God’s nature. In other words, arguing that God’s commandments may be something other than God’s nature is based on the condition that God will act against himself. God’s goodness is, therefore, not a possibility but a reality. Many atheists consider God as arbitrary and nonexistent because of the evils in this world. However, it is vital to understand what is ethically correct or evil to comprehend God’s demands. Atheists particularly believe that God formed both right and wrong and, therefore, He is morally impious. It is, nonetheless, easy to define evil because from the atheists’ point of view, evil is something separate from solid. According to many people, the DCT gives a metaphysical foundation for morality, further offers us a positive answer to the question: Why be moral? On theism, God holds individuals answerable for their deeds. Those who do evil will be punished and those whose lives are upright live will be vindicated and rewarded. God, therefore, ultimately defeats evil. Assessment of the Claim If we critically and logically try to analyze the claim that the DCT is said to have been supposedly undermined by Socrates, we can evaluate as follows: Moreover, supporters of DCT do not want to accept the proposal that brutality could possibly be morally correct, nor do they want to believe the insinuation that the basics of ethics are irrational. Hence, a divine command theorist might evade this difficulty of arbitrariness by choosing a different response to Socrates’ question, and say that for any finicky deed that God commands. He orders it because it is ethically correct. By taking this path, the theorist shuns from having to accept that causing suffering to others for pleasure could be a morally correct action. If God orders a fastidious act because it is morally correct, then morality no longer relies on God in the way that divine command theorists argue. God is no longer the sole creator of morals but rather a mere identifier of right and wrong. As such, God no longer acts as the basis of ethics. Besides, it now appears that God would be under an external ethical law, and is no longer supreme. Hence, the believer in the DCT of moral values faces a dilemma: Either morals rest on arbitrary basics, or God is not the basis of morals and is subject to an external ethical law, both of which supposedly compromise his utmost moral and metaphysical position. Is the Theory Salvageable? Despite strong rebuttals by Socrates and other philosophers, Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Practical Reason, believes that there is a connection between morality and religion. He asserts that one must believe to be morally upright (Kant 63). Though not being a traditional renowned supporter of the divine command theory, Kant claims that morality requires faith in God and life after death. We must, as human beings, believe in God’s existence as the necessities of ethics demand. Human beings also suppose that a God would help fulfil the necessities of ethical rule. With this belief, we have the hope that we will eventually lead morally upright lives. Kant does not utilize the concept of moral belief as an argument for DCT, but a contemporary promoter could argue along his perspective that these advantages do ensue from this viewpoint of morality. Moreover, modified DCT is another theory that better answers the ED. This modified version of the DCT asserts that an act is wrong only if it is different from God’s will. On this amended DCT, actions, and perhaps goals and individuals, have the property of moral injustice, and this property is an objective one. We could agree with this alteration of DCT but disagree with the claim that it is a required truth that any deed is morally wrong only if it is opposing to the laws of God. This claim might also be taken as a contingent truth that in the real world, being different from rules of God is what comprises moral wrongness. It should be pointed out that for the theist who wants to base his or her argument on the existence of objective moral properties, this theory’s strong claim, namely, that an action is immoral simply if it goes against the orders of God, should be taken as an indispensable truth rather than a conditional one. In any case, whichever alternative a modified divine command theorist prefers, the adjustment at issue is aimed at avoiding the horns of the ED. Morality, for the modified divine command theorist, is eventually based on the faultless nature of God given that the ethical rule exists and is innate to God. Conclusion All of the above arguments clearly illustrate that the DCT is not as widespread as many might want to accept. This needs to be analyzed as a sacrilegious argument rather than simply as an incitement for deeper thought into the issues. Some of the renowned religious thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas discarded the divine command theory because of the mere rational dilemmas presented here. Thus, in this logic, basics of religion should borrow from moral ideas, but moral conceptions may exist detached from religion. Work Cited Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Practical Reason. Third Edition. Translated by Lewis Beck. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall, 1993. Print. Read More