Philosophy

Monotheism is a widely accepted and practiced type of religion in the society today. Even though there are some polytheistic religions that are still followed by many, they are not as popular as the monotheistic ones.  Religion is something that is embedded in peoples everyday living.  It is a well-known fact that people put much value and importance in their religion that is why they tend to seek advice from religious leaders for moral support and guidance. This is because of the common belief of many that these leaders have a special bond and connection with God that not all men have. There are those that believe that everyone must surrender and follow the commandments of the divine God or gods because what they are telling people to do is right. This kind of belief is called the Divine Command Theory. Despite this theorys probably wide acceptance among those that have firmly established religious beliefs, many philosophers and critics find it questionable due to certain logical considerations.

    To properly discuss the theory, both in terms of its supporters and detractors, it would be most appropriate to partly define the aforementioned theory first. In the context of the divine command theory, an act is basically defined as either good or bad, or more specifically morally correct or not, depending upon whether such an act is among the commands of God. In this sense, only Gods commands would be the most reliable basis of morality and ethical appropriateness in relation to actions and decisions made. Hence, instead of the actions being ethically sound depending on the situation or upon the nature as well as the needs of the individuals involved, the Divine Command Theory emphasizes the point that only a single basis for morality should be considered and that basis is, as aforementioned, Gods commands or will. In relation to this, logical arguments or reasoning would bear no effect upon the outcome and appropriateness of an action is such a theory would be applied. For example, if God would command a person not to hurt others despite being hurt and wronged and a person would still opt to prevent himself from doing so despite being considerably defaced, then such an action or decision would be considered as morally correct.

    As noted previously, different views and objections regarding the theory are present. Among the most notable objections regarding the appropriateness and reliability of the theory pertains to key points, as implied in Rachels article, such as how God defines and determines the commands given, the possibility of having alternative commands, and of course the conflicting aspects of how moral principles are formulated and applied. As for the first point, despite the fact that God determines what is morally correct, which is implied through commands, the extent and definition of how such commands should be applied are not thoroughly explained. To serve as an example, among the most famous and often cited of Gods commands is to give to the needy. In relation to the theory, determining how the act of giving would be problematic since it has not been clearly specific. Money be given for example, but ethical concerns once again arise due to questions as to whether the individual would use it for morally sound actions. Another example would be in terms of honesty. While it is generally accepted that honesty should always be expressed in all actions for such is a command of God, it may come in conflict with the command of not opting to hurt others in any possible way. To explain, there are instances in which being honest may lead to emotionally scarring another individual, which of course presents the dilemma of whether ethics and morality has indeed been properly followed according to Gods commands.

    The second key point or objection, which pertains to the arbitrary nature of Gods commands, is easier to understand. Since the reasons for such commands are not clearly discussed, comprehending the rationale behind preventing opposite commands from being given would cause confusion as well. In essence, if God has given a command to follow the proper rules in crossing the street, if one would question why such a command was given then no one would be able to properly and definitely respond to the query. The third point as aforementioned pertains to the conflict in establishing moral principles. In essence, since Gods commands determine what would be right or wrong, what would happen if a certain action has not been covered by such commands For example, would it still be wrong to steal from ones peers if one does not acknowledge the presence of God at all In addition to this, since the concept of God may differ from individual to individual, how should a universal concept of morality be established through such an ideology Indeed, from the given key points or arguments against the Divine Command Theory, it becomes evident that there is a need for alternative means of understanding or further the reliability and logic of such a theory.  

    The key points in part highlight the positive aspects of the alternative to the Divine Command Theory, in which instead of actions being determined as either morally proper or not depending upon whether God has commanded for or against it, the commandments of God are given for the basic reason that such commands are ethically correct or good. To further explain such an alternative thought about the theory, it would be best to highlight the aforementioned concerns regarding the basis or rationale behind such commands. However, if God has based the commands upon another form of thought aside from innate concepts, then doubt regarding the wisdom of God may manifest. Specifically, instead of God being considered as the basis or embodiment of all that is good and just, God would theoretically be merely following another set of commands or considerations which serve as the true basis for following an ethical existence. In this sense, concerns regarding the concept of Gods commands being absolute would of course be developed, since instead of completely being the judge of appropriate actions, God instead merely follows a predetermined set of rules as well and simply passes it on to humans. In essence, the basis for ethics would then be met with doubt because questions as to whether God, or another separate entity or thought, determine what is morally appropriate. Such concerns regarding the alternative approach to the theory highlight a greater issue in relation to maintaining and accepting the monotheistic concept of God. Basically, since God is supposedly the only Supreme Being, then God should be characterized as omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. However, if one would consider that a set of considerations regarding the establishment of appropriate ethics has been the basis of God for such commands, then it would be possible that the source of such considerations has existed prior to the existence of God, which highlights the possibility of having more than one Supreme Being or thought.

    Although philosophically not the most proper and reliable of theories, as discussed above, the Divine Command Theory would still be the a more appropriate representation of religious belief than the alternative theory. In common interactions with those considered to have strong faith in God, one would immediately know that questions as to the reason behind Gods commands and the reasoning in which such commands were based upon would be negligible or inappropriate for such individuals. As a matter of fact, if such individuals would be given the chance to steal a considerable sum of money, it is most likely that instead of rejecting such an act by reasoning with laws set in society, they would merely state that such an act is against the will of God. In fact, instead of focusing upon other perspectives and using such as a basis for the appropriate actions to take, those with strong religious faith would instead focus on completing tasks and living life according to the commandments given by God. Hence, religious belief in the most essential form, is merely a manner in which God is considered as the only supreme being and is not simply all knowing but all powerful as well. 

    Having stated that the Divine Command Theory best represents religious faith, it would only be proper to defend it against the aforementioned flaws of the theory. To reiterate however, the main arguments against the theory are based upon the following the problems in properly defining the commands given, the concerns regarding alternative commands, and the conflicts in how moral principles are formulated and applied. However, in discussing the theory in relation to religious belief, it would only be proper to consider general assumptions in monotheistic forms of religion. Specifically, among the main and usual assumptions in following a religion is that God exists. Such an assumption would then disprove or eliminate concerns over the reliability of Gods commands if God was proven not to exist. In addition to such, another assumption is that God is all-knowing which, if considered as true, would then make the ethical basis and rationale doubtful, for giving such commands would no longer manifest. The third and arguably most important assumption in discussing religious faith in relation to the theory is that God created everything in existence. Expectedly, if such an assumption is treated as fact, then questions about the presence of thoughts or concepts regarding morality that existed prior to God would not arise specifically, such would be true since with such an assumption, all general concepts and thoughts may technically have been created by God as well.   

    From the discussion of the Divine Command Theory, it becomes apparent that although it may be philosophically unreliable and unsound due to various problems in providing a logical explanation, in reality, it is still the most realistic and correct representation of religious faith. The main reason behind such a generalization is that in relation to religious faith, logic is not necessarily the main binding aspect but rather, it is faith. Therefore, instead of being concerned with the basis of Gods commands, and how ethics or morality may be properly formed through such, those that believe in the core assumptions of monotheistic religious faith would instead be more concerned in following without question the commands of God, for such commands dictate what is morally correct and in doing so, God would eventually reward their loyalty.