Does someone want to read my divine command theory essay.Need constructive criticism

  • Thread starter Thread starter maxdouglas402
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

maxdouglas402

Guest
This is my second philosophy paper. If anyone feels like taking 5 minutes out of their day to be critical of a newbee philosopher please feel free 🙂
 
From somewhere in the middle of your long, circular, redundant, rambling, unfocused essay:
( it was a heavy burden to read this far 😦 )
Divine command theory is the ethical theory that God has given us all of our ethical truths in oneway or another.
Click to expand...
For believers, it’s not a theory but an article of faith.

For nonbelievers, it’s not a theory because it doesn’t explain reality.

The word “theory” has no place in theology.

===============================================

If you want a topic for a philosophy paper, try this one:

“Whether the deist’s belief that God created the universe but afterwards has nothing to do with it is true?”
 
empther said:
From somewhere in the middle of your long, circular, redundant, rambling, unfocused essay:
( it was a heavy burden to read this far 😦 )
Click to expand...
please be more specific. I know it is somewhat of a dry and boring topic. The assignment was to define an ethical theory (i should have specified that).
 
Yes Max, you are talking about an ethical theory. empther’s definiton of theory is either wrong or he is thinking about the wrong kind of theory. Theory in the ethical and philosophical sense here means more of a doctrine or position. What it looks like empther is saying is that believers (code-word for believers in God I presume) believe in Divine Command Theory and those who don’t believe in God don’t believe in Divine Command Theory.

But I think, that would be a very foolish thing to say!

Hey Max… I commented on your blog. I have a habit of focusing on the negative too much and for that I apologize. Please take my comments in all charity and keep up the philosophy!

Oh, and ethics can be one of the most exciting topics of all! What other discipline can change your outlook on life and the entire way you live your life???!!! I hope your teacher isn’t making it boring!
  • Michael
 
thank you for the feedback Michael ! I appreciate the advice you have given me, and you have given me a lot to think about. This was just an intro class to philosophy class so Im not very inclined to know that much. My teacher didn’t spend much time on Divine Command theory because i do attend a secular college. He actually recommended that I don’t do my paper on DCT, but rather hedonism, or kantian ethics
 
maxdouglas402 said:
This is my second philosophy paper. If anyone feels like taking 5 minutes out of their day to be critical of a newbee philosopher please feel free 🙂
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with doing a paper on Christian Ethics. Though your title sounds a bit high brow. Just call it Christian Ethics. A system of ethics to be efective must be objectively true and must be known as true and all or most people must be convinced that it is obligatory. Christian ethics is the only one that can even begin to approach these criteria.

newadvent.org/cathen/05556a.htm ( see Outline of Ethics ).
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Nothing wrong with doing a paper on Christian Ethics. Though your title sounds a bit high brow. Just call it Christian Ethics. A system of ethics to be efective must be objectively true and must be known as true and all or most people must be convinced that it is obligatory. Christian ethics is the only one that can even begin to approach these criteria.

newadvent.org/cathen/05556a.htm ( see Outline of Ethics ).
Click to expand...
Is it just me, or does it seem like Linus is also endorsing Divine Command Theory? I can’t fathom why anyone would believe in it… the people who champion it are usually atheists who then promptly go and tear it down, wrongly thinking it’s Christian Ethics.
 
Shike said:
Is it just me, or does it seem like Linus is also endorsing Divine Command Theory? I can’t fathom why anyone would believe in it… the people who champion it are usually atheists who then promptly go and tear it down, wrongly thinking it’s Christian Ethics.
Click to expand...
Would you explain how? :confused:
 
maxdouglas402 said:
This is my second philosophy paper. If anyone feels like taking 5 minutes out of their day to be critical of a newbee philosopher please feel free 🙂
Click to expand...
The Euthyphro problem is a false delimma. It confuses Acts of God with Acts of Man. When the Israelites punished their enemies, that in essence was an Act of God. True the Israelites did it at God’s direct command. But this is not the situation in totally human acts where we are free to obey the commandments and later the elements on the Sermon on the Mount. The former case was not a part of the natural/moral law given by God to the Israelites, the latter was. The Divine Command theory has to do with the latter only. God is always free to intervine in human affairs. But when he does so that is not part of the Divine Command to men. So there is no delimma.

And if there is no Divine Command governing human acts then we are lost in the dark pit of relativism, which is the beginning of hell on earth, since all human acts then will be judged by the whim of some dictator.

I am well aware that the modern Sophists have been busy trying to dismantle the Divine Command theory. They don’t realize that they too will suffer at the hands of some dictator of the future. 👍
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Would you explain how? :confused:
Click to expand...
So, why is Divine Command Theory an Atheist’s best friend and a strawman of Christian Ethics (or ethics in general)?

The definition from Wikipedia (gasp) says it pretty well: “Divine command theory is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action’s status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. The theory asserts that what is moral is determined by what God commands, and that to be moral is to follow his commands.”

Let’s look at what they’re saying a little closer. First off, its status as a “meta-ethical” theory means little. I don’t think the distinction between ethics and meta-ethics is all that important or correct. Basically, if you’re talking about ethics or the meaning of ethics I still think you’re doing ethics in some relevant way. It’s like the lame distinction between philosophy and meta-philosophy–it’s a time-waster and a distraction. No more attention for it will be given here by me.

Really, at first glance this definition seems good and true. If I follow God’s commands, won’t I be moral? The answer of course, is yes. This part of the quote aligns with Christian ethics and the truth. And isn’t it true that God won’t lead me astray, that whatever He says or commands I should follow, and if I do that I will be a morally good person? The answer again, is yes.

So then, what’s the problem with Divine Command Theory as formulated above? The problem is that it puts God beyond good and evil. It is true that God is beyond evil in the sense that there is no evil in Him nor could there be… but God is not beyond goodness (at least if the word is understood as being analogically predicated). In other words, the problem is that God’s will is made the truth-maker of moral propositions.

This is not so bad in the Catholic Tradition if we keep our heads on. We know that God’s will is eternal and good, and that He doesn’t flip-flop arbitrarily on what is good and evil. However, it is harder for other theists and atheists to keep from flying off the deep end, primarily because they usually have a deistic conception of God. A deistic conception of God doesn’t hold the doctrine of Divine Simplicity, and therefore says that God’s will and God’s being are different not just in idea but also in being: and this is precisely where the Atheist will charge arbitrariness! I think the Atheist rightly attacks the deistic conception of God with the Euthyphro Dilemma–the only problem is that they usually do not make a distinction between the deistic and classical theistic conception of God nor do they see the importance of such a distinction.

So, am I saying that we can live with Divine Command Theory as Catholics and inheritors and (I would hope) defenders of the classical theistic conception of God? The answer is no. Divine Command Theory as stated above, as understood by the general body of people who learn about Divine Command Theory, is voluntaristic… meaning that it tends to lead to Ockhamism and all the fun of nominalism. Contrary to what the rest of the Wikipedia article says, I would say it could be said that Aquinas held a variant of Divine Command Theory, but only with extreme qualification. Though it is true that God’s will is a necessary part of his ethical theory and God’s pronouncement is what gives moral law it’s law-like character and binds us… it is not true that the mere pronouncement of God will is the truth-maker of moral propositions. Rather, it is God’s very being which is the truth-maker of moral propositions.

In sum, you might be able to get away with Divine Command Theory in a Catholic context if you do some highlighting of certain other important truths, like Divine Simplicity. But the general understanding of Divine Command Theory would seem to be voluntaristic and that it allows, at least in principle, arbitrariness.

Ethics (not just Christian ethics) is a hard balancing act… because you need to hold up nature’s role and God’s role at the same time. Aquinas did that.

Let me know if you have any questions or comments.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
The Euthyphro problem is a false delimma. It confuses Acts of God with Acts of Man.
Click to expand...
You are correct that God is not arbitrary and that Atheists are usually too quick to interpret scripture and judge the actions of God as they would judge any human’s actions.

But this is not why the Euthyphro Dilemma is wrong, it is rather why examples supporting the Euthyphro dilemma are not good examples.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dilemma because at heart, it only works against a deistic conception of God. We should say that there is another option for the God of the Bible and Christianity… that He is goodness itself and that His very being is the foundation of morality.
 
Shike said:
So, why is Divine Command Theory an Atheist’s best friend and a strawman of Christian Ethics (or ethics in general)?

The definition from Wikipedia (gasp) says it pretty well: “Divine command theory is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action’s status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. The theory asserts that what is moral is determined by what God commands, and that to be moral is to follow his commands.”

Let’s look at what they’re saying a little closer. First off, its status as a “meta-ethical” theory means little. I don’t think the distinction between ethics and meta-ethics is all that important or correct. Basically, if you’re talking about ethics or the meaning of ethics I still think you’re doing ethics in some relevant way. It’s like the lame distinction between philosophy and meta-philosophy–it’s a time-waster and a distraction. No more attention for it will be given here by me.

Really, at first glance this definition seems good and true. If I follow God’s commands, won’t I be moral? The answer of course, is yes. This part of the quote aligns with Christian ethics and the truth. And isn’t it true that God won’t lead me astray, that whatever He says or commands I should follow, and if I do that I will be a morally good person? The answer again, is yes.

So then, what’s the problem with Divine Command Theory as formulated above? The problem is that it puts God beyond good and evil. It is true that God is beyond evil in the sense that there is no evil in Him nor could there be… but God is not beyond goodness (at least if the word is understood as being analogically predicated). In other words, the problem is that God’s will is made the truth-maker of moral propositions.

This is not so bad in the Catholic Tradition if we keep our heads on. We know that God’s will is eternal and good, and that He doesn’t flip-flop arbitrarily on what is good and evil. However, it is harder for other theists and atheists to keep from flying off the deep end, primarily because they usually have a deistic conception of God. A deistic conception of God doesn’t hold the doctrine of Divine Simplicity, and therefore says that God’s will and God’s being are different not just in idea but also in being: and this is precisely where the Atheist will charge arbitrariness! I think the Atheist rightly attacks the deistic conception of God with the Euthyphro Dilemma–the only problem is that they usually do not make a distinction between the deistic and classical theistic conception of God nor do they see the importance of such a distinction.

So, am I saying that we can live with Divine Command Theory as Catholics and inheritors and (I would hope) defenders of the classical theistic conception of God? The answer is no. Divine Command Theory as stated above, as understood by the general body of people who learn about Divine Command Theory, is voluntaristic… meaning that it tends to lead to Ockhamism and all the fun of nominalism. Contrary to what the rest of the Wikipedia article says, I would say it could be said that Aquinas held a variant of Divine Command Theory, but only with extreme qualification. Though it is true that God’s will is a necessary part of his ethical theory and God’s pronouncement is what gives moral law it’s law-like character and binds us… it is not true that the mere pronouncement of God will is the truth-maker of moral propositions. Rather, it is God’s very being which is the truth-maker of moral propositions.

In sum, you might be able to get away with Divine Command Theory in a Catholic context if you do some highlighting of certain other important truths, like Divine Simplicity. But the general understanding of Divine Command Theory would seem to be voluntaristic and that it allows, at least in principle, arbitrariness.

Ethics (not just Christian ethics) is a hard balancing act… because you need to hold up nature’s role and God’s role at the same time. Aquinas did that.

Let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Click to expand...
Well, we can’t help what the Sophists do with the Divine Command Theory ( who invented that term by the way?). I think you are splitting hairs. Irregardless of how the Sophists twist and turn the meaning of things or irregardless of who the chief adherents of the theory are, the fact remains that it is the only Theory that is objectively true. It is the only one compatible with human freedom and free will. It is the one each human will be judged by. It is our job as Christians ( it is not only Catholic Christians who adhere to the Divine Command Theory, and Jews do as well) to convert the world.

Perhaps I am confusing this theory with what I have always believed to be true. What we were taught and what the Church teaches did not have a name attached to it. At some point, I suppose some egghead decided to formulate it into a grand theory and from that point all the critics came out of the woodwork. Can’t be helped. We cannot deny moral truth simply because critics appear and attack it. Isn’t that the story of our lives as Christians? 👍
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Well, we can’t help what the Sophists do with the Divine Command Theory ( who invented that term by the way?). I think you are splitting hairs. Irregardless of how the Sophists twist and turn the meaning of things or irregardless of who the chief adherents of the theory are, the fact remains that it is the only Theory that is objectively true. It is the only one compatible with human freedom and free will. It is the one each human will be judged by. It is our job as Christians ( it is not only Catholic Christians who adhere to the Divine Command Theory, and Jews do as well) to convert the world.

Perhaps I am confusing this theory with what I have always believed to be true. What we were taught and what the Church teaches did not have a name attached to it. At some point, I suppose some egghead decided to formulate it into a grand theory and from that point all the critics came out of the woodwork. Can’t be helped. We cannot deny moral truth simply because critics appear and attack it. Isn’t that the story of our lives as Christians? 👍
Click to expand...
I really like what you say. And for the most part I would agree. We definitely shouldn’t let sophists get in the way of what’s true, even though we should be ready to answer them if the occasion calls for it.

You bring up an interesting question. I don’t think what the Church teaches has ever had the name Divine Command Theory attached to it in an official or semi-official way, but I could be wrong. Hopefully someone with a lot more history under their belt could answer this; it would be exciting to know.

However, the definition of Divine Command Theory that I quoted is the only one I know of–and it is flawed in all the ways I said. So, unless you know of a better formulation that preserves the truth, then I must not save Divine Command Theory from the sophists, but condemn it as part of their scheming.

The strict philosophical and ethical formulation seems to me to have always been that God’s will is the truth-maker of ethical propositions.
Is it fair to say that your definition makes no such claim, but rather highlights God’s prescriptions as binding on us… and to follow his prescriptions will make us moral? That’s what I’m getting from you and I don’t think it’s wrong in the least. I’m just not sure that it’s called Divine Command Theory.
 
Shike said:
I really like what you say. And for the most part I would agree. We definitely shouldn’t let sophists get in the way of what’s true, even though we should be ready to answer them if the occasion calls for it.

You bring up an interesting question. I don’t think what the Church teaches has ever had the name Divine Command Theory attached to it in an official or semi-official way, but I could be wrong. Hopefully someone with a lot more history under their belt could answer this; it would be exciting to know.

However, the definition of Divine Command Theory that I quoted is the only one I know of–and it is flawed in all the ways I said. So, unless you know of a better formulation that preserves the truth, then I must not save Divine Command Theory from the sophists, but condemn it as part of their scheming.

The strict philosophical and ethical formulation seems to me to have always been that God’s will is the truth-maker of ethical propositions.
Is it fair to say that your definition makes no such claim, but rather highlights God’s prescriptions as binding on us… and to follow his prescriptions will make us moral? That’s what I’m getting from you and I don’t think it’s wrong in the least. I’m just not sure that it’s called Divine Command Theory.
Click to expand...
Hey, I’m not sure either. All this deep searching into theories of ethics seems to have surfaced since I completed my formal studies. It never occurred to me that there could be valid " schools " of ethics. Ethics, pure and simple, was what Fr. Fogherty gave us in his book on Ethics and that was primarily Natural Law. Outside of that it was what Revelation and the Catechism taught. I am behind the times and I don’t see any reason to give much more thought to the subject since I don’t see how it could be profitable. I’ll leave that to the younger set who seem to attach an importance to it. 👍
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Hey, I’m not sure either. All this deep searching into theories of ethics seems to have surfaced since I completed my formal studies. It never occurred to me that there could be valid " schools " of ethics. Ethics, pure and simple, was what Fr. Fogherty gave us in his book on Ethics and that was primarily Natural Law. Outside of that it was what Revelation and the Catechism taught. I am behind the times and I don’t see any reason to give much more thought to the subject since I don’t see how it could be profitable. I’ll leave that to the younger set who seem to attach an importance to it. 👍
Click to expand...
For the most part there are not valid schools of ethics, only a bunch of schools of thought that get more or less right. Of course, the various systems get labeled this school and that school… and sometimes rightly because of their different approaches to their subject matter. But this is all philosophy and is subject to many of the critiques of philosophy–and the profit for knowing such things is the profit found in philosophy, which is knowing the good and being able to communicate it to others.

Basically, knowing what Divine Command Theory is and what is good in it and what is not and why overall it is wrong is important because a) it will better help you understand what is true and good and b) it will help you help others… perhaps someone who mistakenly bases their entire moral life on it (or at least their mental life about their moral life since there is often a gap between belief and practice).

I am somewhat familiar with Church history and until someone shows me otherwise (though unlikely) I’ll stick by my statements that Divine Command Theory is messed up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top