The relationship between a theistic God (considering there is one) and morality cannot be explained in simply a few sentences. One may immediately come to the conclusion that God decides what is moral and immoral. This is known as Divine Command Theory which says that morality is dependent on God’s commands. However, this gives rise to the other side that says an action is moral because God approves of it. This is known as the Autonomy thesis which says that morality is not dependent on God’s commands.
He based his argument on the statement “Does God will something because it is good or is something good because it is willed by God?” There are two ‘horns’ to this argument which stem from the statement; these both critiques of the link between religion and morality. Horn one questions “Does God command x because it is good.” This argument suggests that God is inferior to good, or perhaps good could even be temporally prior to God. In addition both God’s omnipotence and omniscience are damaged; he cannot claim full responsibility for creating the world and therefore cannot possibly have full control as it is not his creation. He also may not have the knowledge of right and wrong if it is independent of him. An independent good takes away from religious motivation to do good, we can be good for the sake of being good as opposed to seeking eschatological reward, for example going to heaven in the afterlife.
Their intention is all that matters. Kant focuses on what should be done, rather than doing things for their outcome. This means that even if something terrible happens as the result of a morally good action, it is still morally right. Kant had an absolute view that the right moral action must always be done. Kant tried to make moral ethics scientific through universalisation.
Which follows on from which? Do the Gods make piety, or fit in with it? Euthyphro states “Is what is pious loved by the Gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved?” Essentially what Euthyphro is saying is ‘Does God command what is good because it is good, or is the good “good” because commanded it?’ This dilemma leaves us with an argument based upon circular logic, and no matter how we seem to go about answering it we are left with the same predicament. We could side with the latter half of this
And for morality to require God in such a way, there must be a direct link between the two. I believe that morality is defined by God, therefore immoral actions are wrong solely because God forbids them. Similarly, the “rightness” of moral actions is only because God has commanded them. In today's world things are defined as “right” or “wrong” or “moral” and “immoral.” This is because God, is the one that has allowed us to even understand what morality is. I believe that God is the creator and sustainer of all things, and that we would not even be self aware, let alone aware of right and wrong, if God had not created within us his image, and therefore the ability to make moral distinctions.
Free will means that God does not have any set destiny for us. If God were to create free agents that could only choose good, that would mean that God laid out a destiny of good for all agents. Even though God is omniscient, free will is still possible because while God may know the choices we are going to make, he is not the cause of them. Since God does not choose or cause our destiny, we still have free will. In response to the option in which God creates a world with free agents and no evil, a world with no evil would mean a world with no good, so it would be impossible for God to create a free agents that only choose good, since evil does not exist.
The Divine Command Theory is the view that moral actions are those that conform to God's will. Charity, for example, is morally proper because God endorses it, and murder is wrong because God condemns it. But, where does God get these moral values? If they come from a still-higher power, he
Descartes declares he has to determine if there is a God and if he does exist, whether he can be a deceiver. The reason he has to determine the existence of God and what he is, rests in his theories of ideas. This is because we do not know if there is an outside world and we can almost imagine everything, so all depends on God’s existence and if he is a deceiver. “To prove that this non-deceiving God exists, Descartes finds in his mind a few principles he regards as necessary truths which are evident by the “natural light” which is the power or cognitive faculty for clear and distinct perception.” If arguments is presented in logical trains of thought, people could not help but to be swayed and to understand those arguments. Natural light
I believe that if there is a God and He is great and loves us, then He would want us to think of others and volunteer and those type of things more than worshipping how amazing He is. That sounds very selfish to me. So this is why you should do what you think is right and not because someone tells you its right. Because if someone tells you something is right, they can still be wrong. No one can decide what is right or wrong except yourself.
These impulses are perceived as unjustified temptations in natural law because “true happiness is not found in … wellbeing … but in God alone, the source of every good and of all love” (CCC 1723). However, Aquinas recognises that fulfilling the transcendent will of God – true happiness and divine perfection - is unfeasible in the presence of earthly distractions, and thus, a human can merely approach pure goodness asymptotically by achieving