The Devine Command Theory

The divine command theory refers to an ethical concept stating right and wrong based on the commands and teachings of God. It provides insight and meaning for the wrong actions or unethical behaviours inconsistent with God’s teachings (Amini 2019). There is limited and vague debate on the right and wrong things since the divine command theory is grounded on God’s command such that which goes against the authority of the Almighty is termed unethical or wrong. This theory can have both negative and positive effects on human beings depending on various situations concerning the Euthyphro dilemma. To support this, there are specific actions that are correct and some are wrong; therefore, they are also difficult to defend because there are flaws and the essence of God. However, the Divine theorists can easily support the theory by arguing that it was pushing people and termed it impractical and cannot state whether something is ethically right or wrong. To understand the idea well on what it contains, the theory must be questioned and eliminate flaws (Roberson 2018). There are contemporary modifications to the Devine commands theory, and it becomes a significant discussion. Based on the Devine command theory, command from God is the only authority that forms the foundations of morality for the universe that dictates how people live. This paper critically discusses and evaluates the notion that the Devine theory is a moral philosophy grounded on religion, which undermines some of the critical tenets of religious belief.

Devine command theory states that commands from God are our only moral obligations. People do whatever God commands them to do, and doing anything contrary to that is wrong as ethical obligations depend on the commands from God (Amini 2019). The dependency on moral obligations attracts many theists who believe that there is no morality when there is no God. In addition, God is the only one who can bring the moral obligation coming from his commands, and all commands should come from God. Through the Euthyphro dilemma, we can quickly get some pause before the acceptance of divine command theory. There is a rise in difficulty accepting the two possible God commands in the entire universe. First, there is a moral obligation that is God's command, which is termed the first horn, or God commands them; they are moral obligations (Danaher 2019). People's choice to be taken puts them in a dilemma as they are getting confused about which to accept and follow. The first option about God's command as a moral obligation is a promising arbitrary Divine will. The second option is about the orders from God because they are a moral obligation that is all about posits values about the independence of God. The two options are creating a dilemma for people as they are getting confused about choosing the right option. The Devine command theory claims first, but the approach is making God be not more of a supreme being who is the source of arbitrary commands and as ordinary beings in the universe (Bauer 2018). When the orders from God are taken to be moral obligations because he commands them to the universe, innocents can be tortured just for fun. They can also be punished to show God's displeasure; thus, people are always ready to follow the command and are taken as wrong if a person does the contrary. Therefore, this leads to arbitrary worry.

The arbitrary worry on the Devine command theory is a point where people should reason about God's command as non-arbitrary moral standards for the universe (Sztuden 2018). God can command people to torture innocents just for fun as a moral obligation that no one can resist. Resisting is wrong and will be punished as well and to feed the hungry ones in society is a moral obligation. There is a contradiction between the two moral obligations, as one is ethically correct, and the other is wrong. Universally, no ethical principles are working above obeying the Devine commands coming from God because His commands are the bedrock for morality. The divine theory makes no guarantees, as the commands can be loving or harsh in different situations, which makes the universal worry about God based on arbitrary commands (Danaher 2019). If God can command torture for fun or not do so, the theorists argue that if the command is to torture for fun, then people could do it, and if the command is not, then no one can do it. If the command is to torture people, then the arbitrary worry is taken to be in full force and makes morality contingent on the Divine will that can or cannot be benevolent. If torturing for fun is not allowed, then God could not order it and is not allowing such actions in society, and the limit can be seen as accurate. It becomes the source and the epitome of universal moral obligations. Therefore, anything that God commands becomes a moral obligation, whether cruel or loving, and no one should go against it (Whaley 2021).

The two responses have their commands to people and bring different reasons, but they must obey the command from God. God's orders form the moral obligations that are the sources and develop the bedrock for morality in the universe that people follow (Roberson 2018). Developing morality contingent on the divine command will, whether benevolent or not, forms the people’s choice to follow and govern their actions in the universe. Even God has a reason for choosing the possible and suitable command which people should follow because it forms the good and needed standards for moral obligations but not a base from God (Bauer 2018). If God commands a particular activity, for example, torturing for fun, anything that God commands becomes a moral obligation. The command is a moral obligation. Even if the order is to torture people or to feed the hungry in society, God is not obligated to keep his promise, but the universe must honour the commitment to follow the command. God can only hold a guarantee when there is a moral standard governing Him, which does not exist, as argued in the Devine command theory (Roberson 2018).

In situations where arbitrary worry motivates contemporary moralists and ethicists by trying to modify the divine command theory, they work on different things to make it right (Whaley 2021). They are working to help save the Devine command theory from many charges arising from arbitrary commanding and some moral despotism. From the commanding and moral authoritarianism, there is a guarantee that God will command for some non-arbitrary. Simultaneously, the Devine command theory is suiting for the foundation of the universal moral obligations conveyed in a principled way, comporting with the universal moral sensibilities (Danaher 2019).

Responses to the Euthyphro Dilemma

The main Euthyphro dilemma response rests on the acceptance of God’s commands without considering either their cruelty, friendliness, or love. According to the morally obligated theorists, behaviour can be perceived as hostile such that it leads to people suffering, and one is required to follow the commands from God to the latter. In this regard, the people opposed and questioned the moral obligation of this act. Some individuals argued that God would not provide space for such ill actions because He issued commands to help people and not to make them suffer since He is the Almighty Father. Yöney (2019) says God desires people to feed and care for the vulnerable in society because that kind of action is a typical demonstration of love for one another. Also, God condemns showing cruelty to other people by torturing them for fun. The Euthyphro dilemma suggests that the nature of humans can be meant to prevent the arbitrariness challenges by drawing on the divine command theory. Ideally, a good life for human beings relies on their nature or religious background, including God’s commands, features, and behaviour (Sztuden 2018). According to Yöney (2019), God created the world with a specific personality that any force could not destroy. So, folks must follow God’s commands by engaging in the right activities and living healthily and positively with others in society. In this manner, people must embody God to demonstrate love to fulfil his commands and teachings. The Devine command concept supports this argument by highlighting the wisdom and knowledge from God as the most significant authority forming the basis of morality in the universe (Yöney 2019).

Amini (2018) says the relationship between people and God has an intrinsic value that should be recognized. The behaviour of God, like showing love, will allow for the guarantee that God will command non-arbitrarily (Sztuden 2018). It demonstrates the independence of God and the dependency of human beings on God regarding their life. Amini (2019) says that folks must obey God’s commands since they entail the moral obligation directing how they should live or act. God only issues commands to the no-arbitrary from his kind which is logical, and people are expected to embrace inclusivity and civility as these are aligned to God’s commands.

Conclusion

Devine theorists can easily support the theory by arguing that it influenced people and was impractical. It cannot state whether something is ethically right or wrong. To understand the idea and its contents well, the theory must be questioned and eliminate flaws undermining people's lives. When looking at the situation based on the Devine command theory, command from God is the only command that forms the foundations of morality for the universe that dictates how people live. It is important to note that all orders come from one Supreme being, even if theorists are trying to criticize the work of God.

References

Amini, Majid. "God and the Grounding of Morality." Humanities Bulletin 2, no. 1 (2019): 85-90.

Bauer, Stephen. "Christian Ethics: Four Views [review]/Wilkins, Steve." (2018): 220-224.

Danaher, John. "In defence of the epistemological objection to divine command theory." Sophia 58, no. 3 (2019): 381-400.

Roberson, Stephen. "Because God Told Me So": Divine Command Theory and Abhorrent Commands." (2018).

Sztuden, Alex. "Judaism and the Euthyphro Dilemma: Towards A New Approach." Theologica: An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology 2, no. 1 (2018): 37-50.

Whaley, Kristin. "God, Morality, and Religion." Philosophical Thought (2021).

Yöney, Ferhat. "Islam, the Divine Command Theory, and Religious Fundamentalism." Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 30, no. 4 (2019): 413-433.