Divine command Theory

Ethics

On the surface, both ethical relativism and ethical egotism are appealing theories. The ethical relativist avoids many of the problems that arise from encounters with different moral codes, and can help to eliminate some of the culture clashes and social problems inherent in the human condition. For example, when many Westerners come into contact with Middle Eastern cultures such as that of Saudi Arabia, they are tempted to pass judgment on the status of women. However, ethical relativism holds that all moral systems are valid, that ethics cannot be absolute or imposed from without. Therefore, ethical relativism is closely connected with cultural relativism. Such a stance makes it easy for people to get along and to resist fighting. "Anything goes," and "live and let live" are in fact some of the basic hallmarks of a liberal democracy and to an extent ethical relativism should always be at least entertained. On the other hand, ethical relativism has some significant problems. Using the same example as above, the status of women in many cultures is so poor as to cause direct bodily and mental harm. Women in cultures that suppress them become unwittingly dependent on men and are deprived of education and basic human rights. In many cases, the legal system supports the rights of men to beat their wives. In such cases, the ethical system used to justify the mistreatment of women has clear moral problems: how can it be ethically good to directly harm half of the population? Therefore, an attitude of "anything goes" must be tempered with common sense in order for it to work. An ideal ethics would combine a foundation of ethical relativism with the strict caveat: "so long as it harms no one."

Ethical egotism is also an appealing ethical theory. Equally as libertarian as ethical relativism, ethical egotism acknowledges that human nature is fundamentally self-seeking, that all persons are motivated by self-interest and that self-interest is not necessarily bad. Often, people who act out of self-interest inadvertently act in accordance with strict morals. Similarly, acting too altruistic can often give rise to problems such as inefficiency or chaos. For example, in many places where drivers yield to pedestrians both driver and pedestrian can become overly polite. The pedestrian is perfectly willing to wait while the car passes, but the car holds up the traffic behind him in order to let the pedestrian cross. In many cases, the altruistic show-down occurs where there is no crosswalk. Sometimes, the pedestrian waves to the car to indicate "Please pass," and the person in the car returns the gesture. Meanwhile thirty seconds have passed before anyone is assertive enough to make a move. If two ethical relativists were in this position, they would simply follow the laws of traffic flow: allow the bigger vehicle, already in motion, to keep going unless there was a stop sign or light. Situations that bring out ethical egotism are often less mundane than this, but generally self-interest is not always as morally problematic as some ethicists would claim.

Moreover, acting out of self-interest does not necessarily entail harming others. In some cases, ethical egotism can directly benefit others. For example, if my mother were dying of kidney failure but I could save her life by donating one of my kidneys it would be both in my self-interest and hers to save her life. It would be in my self-interest because for me because the pain of losing my mother, concurrent with the guilt, would significantly outweigh the pain of the transplant operation. Ethical egotism does not, therefore, preclude compassion or empathy. Many ethical systems would fall apart were it not for ethical egotism. For instance, when the catholic priest tells us that to sin brings eternal damnation it is in our best interest not to sin. We might not be inclined to act good only for the sake of goodness or godliness.

Of course, ethical egotism denies the relevance of divine commands. Divine Command Theory proposes a powerful ethical dilemma that Plato referred to in his writings. The Divine Command Theory suggests that an act is morally good because God wills it. This theory presupposes the belief in God as well as the existence of God. Because many people do not believe in God, the Divine Command Theory cannot serve as a universal ethical theory, but only for theists. Moreover, because the Divine Command Theory presupposes the existence of God it is somewhat logically flawed. Those arguments aside, the Divine Command Theory does make sense for many of the moral and ethical codes proscribed by various religions whose survival depends on the presupposition of God's existence. For those who already believe in God, knowing that an act is ethical because God wills it offers a compelling reason to act ethically. Especially when the fear of God is instilled in people, the Divine Command Theory can create strong impetus to act ethically. When a person faces a major moral conundrum, such as the choice between the lesser of two evils, the Divine Command Theory can direct the person to seek guidance in scripture. The Divine Command Theory therefore provides a means to develop clear and unequivocal ethical codes and to avoid confusion.