Ontological Arguments About The Divine Command Theory Of Morality - Essay Example

Plato Plato argues against the divine command theory of morality based on a number of principles that show a strong conviction and logic against common beliefs and assumed logic. The concept of morality according to the divine command theory of morality states that there is a relationship between right and wrong; and the will of God (Taber). In this case, it states that the relationship between God and the state of being and wrong could be determined by two aspects where something could be wrong because God deems it to be wrong by condemning it, or it could be that God condemns the sad thing as it is wrong in his sight. Following these two arguments creates the basis of the divine command theory of morality, in which Plato argues against every other theory that beats the logic of God in that God can only condemn something because it is wrong and something is condemned by the gods because it is wrong. Plato goes disowns the theory by bringing out a logical argument based on what he believes to the truth, especially on the concept of right and wrong and their relationship with the gods. On this topic, he brings up the issue of morality and immorality and the views of the gods on it based on why an action can be moral or immoral based on his argument with Euthyphro. In this case, he asks what if the gods considered what they asked to be done as the correct thing, despite being an immoral thing and one that inflicts pain and suffering amongst the people. In his objection against the theory, Plato argues the theory because it means that the gods that determine morality and human behavior by vouching for or criticizing it. For this reason, the foundation of morality in the case of the divine command theory of morality, morality becomes an arbitrary issue (Austin). This is in which case the gods determine what is right and what is wrong, and can at the same time move yardstick to create a shift in what is considered moral. As such, morality loses sense of justification since the gods can justify almost every action in which one engages. It also means that immoral behavior and conduct can be justified to be moral behavior and one that every member of society can be obliged to carry themselves. Logically, this does not make sense since Plato believes in a state of unambiguity, where such dilemmas do not come up; thus, there must be another form that guides morality. Another argument, by Plato against divine command theory of morality is that if gods do not call the arbitral change in morality, then they must be mere spectators. This is to mean that they just act as beings with the ability to recognize right and wrong, and cannot direct ethics, which is based on the argument that the gods condemn something because it is wrong. To Plato, this is another absurd idea and basis of morality as it puts the gods at the same as man; because man can also recognize right from wrong based on the law. The theory places the gods under the influence of external moral law, where the gods lack all manner of sovereignty. The theory also presents the gods as beings with no supernatural ability whatsoever as they are mere subjects of external moral laws and discover morality rather than invent it. The theory of divine command theory of morality loses its sense in that in the first place it sees the gods as arbitrary beings who only seek to justify the behavior, conduct, ethics and morality of humankind. The second failure focuses on the lack of divinity for the gods by losing their sovereignty and falling under the moral laws of man. Plato regards the Olympian deities based on argument in the Euthyphro where he uses the question of piety and its relationship to the gods. This is the same way he did with morality, where he asks why things are regarded as piteous; is it because the deity loves them or does the deity love them because they are piteous? His critique is that there is a complex relationship between the deity and the people and the influence that the deity has with the people. This coupled with the issue of morality changed the influence of the fusion of Greek philosophy and Judaic-Christianity. This is because Plato’s criticism proved the failure of deity to influence human behavior on issues of morality as in both cases, which attempt to explain their influence, fail miserably to cases of ambiguity. In these cases, the deity is no longer applied as a source of morality as Plato draws the relationship between the soul and the deity as piety is doing god’s work to benefit human beings (Sharpe 46). Through this, Judaic-Christianity is more focused on looking after one’s soul rather than following the commands of the gods concerning morality, as it has no contribution to piety. The Euthyphro embodies Plato’s conception of philosophy in the cave and the divided line based on a number of things that are interlinked. One such thing is the conception and presentation of the idea of holiness and morality. Before one comes to understand the relationship between the deity and morality and the deity relating with humanity on a divine level, one must face a revelation. This revelation involves release from a state of misconception, which is significant since it helps in understanding the concept in the first place. This lays ground for intelligence of new concepts after which one becomes enlightened, as is the case of deducing the failure of the divine command theory of morality. In conclusion, Plato sees the divine command theory of morality fail owing to its depictions of the deity and logical or philosophical conclusions from this. The deity is viewed as independent of humanity and not under the influence of the same humanity and this does not guide morality, the same way it does not recommend ethics. Anselm and Aquinas Anselm made an argument on the existence of God, which was comprehensive and ontological and divided into two. His argument begins with for god beyond whom nothing else can be conceived in that it is the greatest quality, power, love, intelligence, and truth (Neal). The above name creates the basis for his argument in relation to the intrinsic quality of God’s existence regarding divine nature and the absolute necessity of God’s existence concerning the above-mentioned nature. This makes his argument on the existence of God an argument solely based on reason and that requires reference to pre-existent faith for the purpose of support. The greatness of the being in question, who in this case is God, is not measured based on size or space, but is rather great in perfection. The perfection proclaimed by Anselm refers to intelligence, power, truth, love, and every other item that makes or comprises perfection. He, however, goes on to state that perfection in this being is not the most perfect being in existence, therefore, nullifying the perfection of God as the perfect being (Neal). This is to say that there might be another being in existence that may be perfect in every way, but it does not necessarily mean that it is God. As a result, God is a perfect being to an extent that no more perfect beings can be conceived, which creates room for ambiguity based on the possibility of there being a perfect being, which is more perfect than God, but then again no being can be conceived to be more perfect than God. The concept of God, therefore, becomes complicated that God does exist but there is the possibility of other beings that beat God in perfection. The idea of the existence of these beings might imply that God is not the final authority, but rather a mere being that is rated higher than human beings are. The presence of this other perfect beings remains out of the conception of the human mind as the limit lies only in the external forces beyond humanity that are capable of manipulating life and all that it entails. The existence of God is only for the purpose of controlling these forces and be more than perfect being remains under the control of God, which is what remains conceivable under the view of Anselm (Abel 34). Aquinas purports that the world is in motion, which serves to show that God exists in a self-evident manner, which is, however, is not apparent to humans. As a result, humans need demonstration as proof of this existence of God as an entity of its own. As a result, all objects are in motion and keep moving in their own course, and cause motion in other objects that they meet along their course to their destination. The process of setting things in motion keeps repeating itself over and over again in a form of infinite cycle that can never go backwards to its point of origin. According to Aquinas, the process cannot go backwards to infinity in an attempt to retrace its origin, but an examination of this process would reveal an original being that began the motion process. It is, therefore, possible and necessary to understand that the first being to cause the motion was unmoved and that the originator of the motion should be seen as God. The process of motion is used to denote any change in the cosmos that could be in the form of growth, movement, and even reactions in the environment, as we know it. The argument follows a basic line of thought that can easily be proven logical and illogical based on the perspective one’s train of thought is based. As such, not a single can change of its own will or accord, as there must be an external stimulus to enforce or inspire the change. Then every inspiration must have an origin, which, if traced back, should lead back to God. The alternative thought of the argument on anti-side is that there is no possible way to retrace the origin of motion by moving backwards infinitely, as it would, mean the inexistence of one trying to prove it. This can be seen as proof of the argument too, provided the line of infinity and lack of existence of the tracer is followed. Altogether, Aquinas on the issue of God’s existence follows a delicate line of thought that is simple to follow and draw conclusions, but is not as ambiguous as those of Anselm are. Anselm’s argument remains complicated and difficult to follow without insight and without faith; thus the need to have faith in expressing his argument. Works cited Neal, Gregory. Anselm's Ontological ArgumentFor the Existence of God. n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2013. Taber, Michael.The Euthyphro Objection to the Divine Command Theory of Morality. n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2013. Austin, Michael W. “Divine Command Theory”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2006. Web. 13 Feb. 2013. Sharpe, Matthew. Uncovering Euthyphro’s Treasure: Reading Plato’s Euthyphro with Lacan. 2010. Web. 13 Feb. 2013. http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf25_26/pdf/2010/1IFI/01Mar10/54422743.pdf?T=P&P=AN&K=54422743&S=R&D=afh&EbscoContent=dGJyMMvl7ESeprI4xNvgOLCmr0uep7BSsq64TbGWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGqtk2zqbBNuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA Abel, Donald C. Fifty Readings in Philosophy. Fourth Edition. Bosten: McGraw-Hill,2012. Print Read More