God faring people accept the teachings of God and the best way to live. Euthyphro dilemma was “Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right” (Rachel’s and 50-53)? The problem with this dilemma is that God is always right and what isn’t right is wrong according to God. Which makes Euthyphro confused because he isn’t sure anymore what is right and what is wrong. The concept of morality is mysterious is saying that just because god says its right to slap a child doesn’t really make it right.
Does morality depend on God? The aim of this essay is to discuss the ethical issue of whether God commands what is good or if something if good because God commands it. First, I will clarify the difference between these two statements and then go on further to explore whether one or neither statement is true. The first statement, what God commands is good, implies that there is a source of goodness independent of God and that he simply abides by what is good and is the greatest example of good but not the ultimate source of moral goodness. If we are talking about a Christian view of God as omnibenevolant then He always does what is good but this does not detract from the fact that the source of good is independent of Him.
He said morality was innate; a part of us (a priori), and it was our moral duty to carry it out for good, which must lead to God. Accordingly Kant says good actions should be universalisable and free, so basically when making our ethical decisions we should ask ourselves a simple question "What if everybody did that?" if the answer is no, then the categorical imperative tells us that the action is wrong. So if I cheated on my AS-level exam to pass and be successful in the future, this would be my maxim, however I would not want others to do the same and therefore this action would be wrong according to Kant’s Categorical Imperative. My cheating pre-supposes that most people do not cheat even though they have the same reasons to cheat as I have.
Augustine defends the god of theism by rejecting the existence of evil as a force or power opposed to god as it would reject the premise that god is omnipotent. Below are the ways in which he justifies moral and natural evil, which respectively mean evil caused by human acts, and evil events caused by the processes of nature. To justify evil, he solves the problem by defining evil as a ‘privation’ – which means when something is ‘evil’, it is not defined to contain bad qualities but is seen to be falling short of perfection, or what it is expected to be. Take a rapist as an example. Adopting Augustine’s idea of ‘evil’, we are to say that he is not living up to standards expected of human beings.
Surely and all loving (omnibenevolent) God wouldn’t allow this. Human Evil is where people cause harm to others and create chaos. Why would God create a world that consists of evil and cruelty? therefore Mill questions the idea of an omnibenevolent God, however if it is disagreed that God isn’t all loving then it could suggest that God doesn’t know of our suffering and could mean that omniscience cannot possibly be an attribute of God. Mill would say that if God is omniscient then surely he is aware of our suffering and would therefore intervene in the evil as he loves us all.
Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma shows that the Divine Command Theory has several problems. If something is good simply because God commands it, then God arbitrary – He could have given different commands just as easily. According to Leibniz, this would be destroying all of God’s love and glory – “for why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?” On the other hand, if God commands something because it is good, then that would mean good is independent of God. Therefore, we should not follow a God who is arbitrary, but rather, think about it separately. James Rachels states that we should be autonomous, and think about what is right and wrong for ourselves.
It is therefore known through reason that we should follow these natural riles from God, because the opposite is equivalent to ‘condemning the command of God’. By following God’s will and getting closer to achieving our destiny with God, we should act morally. Someone who has an error with their morality also has an error with their rationality as they are not avoiding evil like they should be in order to fulfil their
What is good is good within it. People should not behave in certain ways only because you think that God is asking it. If God were to command that rape is good, it would still not be so. Rape is bad within itself. Just like this there are more issues that people should consider bad even if in the future god would say that it is good.
Does Morality Require a God? The view that god or a supreme being is needed in morality has been a common debate throughout history. In this essay, I will argue that morality does need a god or Supreme Being. I will discuss the Divine Command Theory, the objectiveness morality has and the special authority resulting in rewards and punishments confirming the need to have a god to command morality. The Euthyphro dilemma poses criticisms to which I will clarify from a gods command perspective that acts are only good because a perfect and all-knowing god commands it.
Although this may not seem like God is issuing the justice being met, believers of the DJT will argue that God is the one controlling the people who are sentencing the criminal with their punishment, and therefore God is ensuring that justice is met. The DJT is a more plausible explanation of God relating to morality than both the Divine Informer Theory (DIT) and the Divine Command Theory (DCT). The DIT states that God has given us knowledge of moral law, and has done so through religious texts or by putting the knowledge directly in our mind. This is not plausible, however, because many religious texts are interpreted differently, and therefore moral standards differ from culture to culture. Therefore, DIT isn’t a