Ethics the Divine Command Theory of Morality

Ethics The Divine Command theory of morality is known as a nonconsequentialist theory because this particular theory of morality is one that is not in any way based on the consequences or outcomes of specific action, but rather holds that all actions have any intrinsic rightness or wrongness. In the case of Divine Command Theory, rightness or wrongness is decided based upon whether or not a specific action can be said to be in accordance with the dictates of God.

Indeed, while there are advantages to this idea of morality, such as the more simple categorization of actions into a dichotomy of what is permitted, there are also many sever disadvantages, as well. These disadvantages can make the view difficult to entertain. For example, one of the main issues depends on the source of the divine command.

If the divine moral commands come out of scripture, for example, how can on be certain that one is following the scripture exactly and how can one be certain that the scripture has been interpreted and (in the cases of many religious scriptures) translated correctly.

Secondly, given that there are a great number of religious scriptures that all purport to be the actual and revealed word of God, how can one be certain that one is following the correct scripture? Moreover, how can one reconcile the conflicting claims of these different texts, or (in many cases) the conflicting moral imperatives of a given scripture. Of course, there is even another serious difficulty with this possibility.

One other such difficulty lies in the possibility that, since one is acting according to the dictates of a divine entity rather than in adherence to any abstract concept, that one may, in one's actions, violate several serious moral rules. For example, let's consider the Biblical story of Abraham and Isaac. In this story, God commands Abraham to take his child out to the woods and to sacrifice him.

Despite the fact that Isaac was his most beloved son he takes him out and is prepared to sacrifice him when, at the last possible second, God stops him from slaughtering son and instead produces a ram that is to be used for the purposes of ritual sacrifice.

Thus, what we see here is that if we use the divine command theory as the basis for a system of ethics then it is possible that one undertakes an action that must be considered "inherently good" because it conforms to the will of God, but which is clearly moral evil. In the above story, while Abraham does prove his loyalty to God he only does so at the near-expense of his child's life.

Such an ethical system seems difficult to condone and practice if it does not rule out the undertaking of events that seem cruel and ruthless, whether or not they are the divine commands of a God or Gods. Along with the above considered argument of the proliferation of scriptures and scriptural materials, this argument suggests that, though the divine command argument does allow for a simplicity in terms of creating a black-and-white codification of things, it also possesses several severe problems that considerably undermine it as a reasonable ethical system.

Thus, while there are some benefits to adhering to this view, as the Abraham story reveals, holding to a divine command view invites the possibility of divine justifications of basically immoral acts. Question 5: There is a fairly clear and easily establishable distinction between the positions known as ethical absolutism and ethical relativism.

Indeed, it is perhaps easiest to define ethical absolutism before we define ethical relativism: ethical absolutism is the philosophical idea by which one argues that there is one singular ethical system that exists by which all other ethical systems can be judged, although, indeed, one must be certain to include the idea that this one true ethical system need not be the one that the person even holds.

In ethical absolutism, a person contends that we can then proceed to judge the moral systems of other countries and nations by using the standards as they are explicitly defined in this moral system. In this system then, there is an absolute morality and an absolute moral standard against which other standards can be judged.

Ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the system by which one accepts the different moral and ethical systems held by different societies and cultures around the world and, in this system, one asserts that all of these moralities are right in respect to their differing cultural milieus. Indeed, it is important to make a distinction between this view and another separate view, which is that of cultural relativism.

Cultural relativism holds that different cultures around the earth all possess a different series of ethical systems and that these systems are all held to be equally correct by the different societies that believe in them. Indeed, given the overwhelming data that has been presented to us by sociology and anthropology, it is very easy to say that cultural relativism is, quite simply, a fact about the world.

Ethical relativism, on the other hand, is different than cultural relativism and actually a more stringent concept, which asserts that not only do different cultures have different ideas of morality but that these different.