Introduction
I think divine command theory is the idea that morality exists because a higher force, typically God or gods, says so. In other words, God’s commands determine the rightness and goodness of an action. Divine-command theory aspires to raise moral notions above the transient character of human desire and tradition, making them irrefutably binding and giving “holiness” that is difficult to achieve without the intervention of God. If divine directives have moral validity in and of themselves, as most religious ethics assumes, then divine commands must imply at least certain responsibilities.
Divine Command Theory
Divine command theory is based on moral notions wielded by a higher power. However, whenever people begin a study of ethics, the first question that comes to mind is why they are studying it in the first place. Zagzebski argues that “since it is rational to try to be moral, it is rational to believe in a providential God” (294). Morality is described as the contrast between correct and incorrect judgments, behaviors, and intentions, or, to put it another way, the distinction between good and bad things. Essentially, these are norms or principles derived from a standard of conduct generated from a specific philosophy, society, or religion. Nonetheless, finding the balance or origin has constantly confronted humanity with concerns and a need for justification. The vague impression that seeking to live a moral life is pointless is one root of the fear of doing so (Zagzebski 294). Moral claims can be an expression of an individual attitude. As a result, judging whether someone possesses a particular virtue is more than a matter of opinion.
Zagzebski’s argument about the existence of God is that the purpose of divine command theory is to yield good and hinder any evil while making individuals virtuous. “Perhaps to say something is morally wrong is to that it is a violation of moral law” (Stich and Donaldson 259). When humans recognize that living a moral life takes more than time and effort, the problem becomes even worse. In essence, it entails putting one’s interests aside to pursue the “greater good.” On the one hand, it is not reasonable to forego a known reward unless the sacrifice is likely for the greater good. On the other hand, it is plausible to doubt morality power in the notion that we can contribute to good and avert the evil by acting collectively and individually. Overall, if the people’s desire for trust is powerful enough, it may be able to overcome skepticism.
I believe God commands because it is the right thing to do, hence, I am persuaded by divine command theory. After all, anything adored by the gods is loved by them and is bound to be correct, but what makes anything religious is an entirely different issue. As a result, although they are not universally moral, religious ideology presents us with righteous ideals. Generally, some acts are evil, while others are appropriate because there are standards attached to actions, but they all rely on God’s commands.
Conclusion
In brief, if divine orders are morally valid, then the ideology must imply some level of responsibility. Therefore, the most compelling argument for the divine command theory is that God is fundamentally kind and wants what is suitable (right) for His creation. Despite the contradiction, believers’ proclivity for philosophical ethics, especially the existence of God and the powers He wields, is best understood. Generally, the theory’s potential to provide a desirable result is primarily based on an individual’s ability to account for God’s divine command, which is neither dependent nor trivial.
Works Cited
Stich, Stephen, and Tom Donaldson. “Are There Objective Truth About Right and Wrong?” Philosophy: Asking Questions–seeking Answers, Oxford UP, 2018, pp. 243-259.
Zagzebski, Linda. “Does Ethics Need God?” Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers, vol. 4, no. 3, 1987, pp. 294-303.