Divine Command Theory can be described as the opinion that ethics is in some way reliant upon the creator of universe (God). This theory also suggests that ethical responsibility comprises submission/obedience to God's instructions/commands. It comprises the assertion/claim that morality/ethics is founded not only on the creator of universe instructions but also of his character. Additionally, it is founded on the assertion that ethically correct action is the 1 that the creator instructs.
Normally, the exact content pertaining to these instructions differs in accordance with the meticulous religion/belief. Of note, however, is the fact that each and every adaptation/version of this theory holds in common the fact that ethical responsibilities rely on the creator of universe (God). This essay will focus on criticisms of Divine Command Theory and Mavrodes criticisms of secular ethics.
Criticisms of Divine Command Theory
This theory has actually been and persists to be extremely contentious across the globe. Various philosophers across the world have condemned it. They include Plato and Nielson Kai. Nonetheless, a number of philosophers such as Phillip Quinn and Thomas Aquinas have supported it. It is worthy noting that the opinions provided by the aforementioned philosophers for and against this theory have not only hypothetical significance but also practical significance.
Of note, however, is the fact that supplementary theories that connect ethics to the creator are in addition understated. Moreover, these theories aren't disapproved in a way/manner such as the Divine Command Theory. According to Plato, if a deed is fine owing to the fact that the creator instructs it, this shall imply that if criminal offenses such as homicide or even robbery with violence were exquisitely instructed, then they shall turn out to be good. For that reason, he argues that this appears illogical. However, according to him, on a number of instances, it has in fact been critically been recommended. As a consequence, it may possibly inflame/provoke a reaction to the extent that the creator cannot control what was erroneous.
Two, according to him, if the creator (God) instructs/commands a deed simply for the reason that it's fine/good, then this assertion dents the Divine Command Theory. He states, "It implies that the deed was fine autonomously/independently of the creator's instructing it". He further states that due to the fact that the deed is instructed by the creator, it's not the sole explanation as to why it is fine but there are several other reasons". This criticism of Divine Command Theory by Plato is generally referred to as the Euthyphro impasse/dilemma.
Three, this theory has been criticized since it creates a problem on what to do in a situation in which commands that aren't pertinent to a meticulous/particular moral impasse/dilemma are nonexistent. A perfect example of this problem is a scenario in which a devotee/follower of the Divine Command Theory desires to perform God's will. However, if the follower of Divine Command Theory has simply right of entry to particular instructions instead of the normal guiding values, then he or she shall be compelled to struggle especially when encountering moral tribulations that are not taken care of by God's instructions.
Contrastingly, there are a number of morality schemes that permit a follower to figure out the correct guiding principle for whichever circumstances. These schemes include utilitarianism. Another example of a scheme that permits a follower to figure out the correct guiding principle for whichever circumstances is Kantian deontology.
Four, various critics of this theory across the globe have indicated that it entrusts a naturalistic fallacy. This is because an error is made while making use of terminologies that are not ethical in offering the connotation of the term/word 'good'. Five, opponents of this theory have argued that an individual who asserts to discern our creator's will doesn't discern if he or she is lying or even erroneous. Last, critics have argued that this theory suggests that human beings are ethically blind. Furthermore, it suggests that they (human beings) have no straightforward knowledge of what is fine/good and even bad/evil.
I support this theory because of a number of reasons. First of all, morals need conviction in God. Besides they require an afterlife. Human beings ought to trust that God subsists. This is due to the fact that needs of ethics/morality are surplus for human beings to tolerate. Human beings ought to deem that God subsists who shall assist them in gratifying the demands of moral/ethical law.
Two, this theory (Divine Command Theory) offers a decisive metaphysical basis for ethics. This means that if the source of the world is not moral, then the subsistence of ethical truths turns out to be philosophically confusing. This is attributed to the fact that it's not apparent as to how ethical characteristics may possibly exist through sources that are not ethical.
Three, this theory provides human beings with an ideal reply/answer regarding the query, "Why be moral?" This implies that human beings are held responsible for their actions by God. It also suggests that those of us who commit evil shall severely be disciplined. Additionally, those human beings who lead a sinless life shall be rewarded.
Last, I believe that morality depends on religion due to the fact that without a supernatural power, it is impossible for human beings to have ethical doctrines.
Mavrodes Criticisms of Secular Ethics
Many philosophers across the globe have disputed the fact that whichever effort that is aimed at reaching at a foundation for morality which is autonomous of religion has a higher likelihood of not succeeding. This is due to the fact that as far as secular ethics is concerned, the basic intention to be good doesn't exist. Several other philosophers have in many occasions differed and disputed that a morality which is founded on apprehension/fear is a slightly effectual morality.
A philosopher by the name George Mavrodes criticized secular ethics in a number of ways. First of all, he indicated that secular ethics may possibly be considered to be superficial. Two, he argued that secular ethics is short of metaphysics. According to him, secular ethics is a foundation for principles and commitments. Three, George claims that it (secular ethics) can't respond to certain queries which include: "Why be ethical constantly?" Additionally, he indicated that secular ethics cannot answer the query "Why always reflect on forfeiting individual wellbeing?"
Four, he ascertained that we (human beings) encounter a sense of commitment. If this sense of commitment is tracked, then it would lead to no gain within a Russellian globe. According to him, this world (Russellian) doesn't have eternal life and besides, it doesn't have a pious kingdom. Five, as far as the Russellian world is concerned, he indicated that the gains and failures are in fact of Russellian diversity. For that reason, scores of commitments shall tantamount to a Russellian loss. An example of a commitment which is liable to lead to a loss of this kind is settlement of an arrear. Therefore in accordance with Mavrodes, inhabitants of this world (Russellian) ought to be ethical.
Six, he argued that in this world (Russellian) some people may possibly not act unethically. Last, he argued that in this world, there is no likelihood that both ethics and obligations may possibly be profound.
Secularism can be defined as the encouragement of perceptions that are unspiritual. Examples of these perceptions/perspectives include atheistic/skepticism and worldly/secular humanism. I agree with secularism due to a number of reasons. First of all, prior to the beginning of the twentieth century, most women could not be admitted to male universities. This is attributed to the fact that the spiritual principles at that time considered them to be lesser/inferior. However, subsequent to the rise of skepticism secularism, they were admitted to these universities.
Second, during the rise of atheistic secularism science and workers rights improved considerably across the globe. Last, in the modern day world, efforts to lessen poverty and to control of deadly diseases for instance, HIV/AIDS are hampered by the rejection of a number of religions to endorse the usage of contraceptives.