Philosophy

Problems often surface to cause stresses in everyday life, and the methods of finding solutions to the problems vary.  One method in figuring out solutions is to apply persuasive thinking, while another method is to figure out solutions by applying scientific thinking.  Persuasive thinking takes a stand in pointing out the informal rewarding effects of the solution for the individual (Blair, 2006).  Scientific thinking takes a stand in pointing out the formal objective effects of the comprehensive solution (Freeley  Steinberg, 2008).  Persuasive thinking is more limited in its approach, because individuals are often able to be persuaded to take action if there is an immediate personal benefit, without taking into consideration the entire context.  On the other hand, scientific thinking is more comprehensive in its approach, because all objective facts of the problem are considered in context.  In looking to my personal life and experiences, there are two problem situations I can recall which were handled differently, one with application of persuasive thinking, and one with application of scientific thinking.

    Several years ago, I encountered a situation when my uncle did not agree with me about a certain political point.  I believed that the US government could have engaged in more immediate relief efforts after hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, while he believed that the military and civil defense operations were conducted superbly.  By using persuasive thinking techniques, I tried to convince my uncle that he would be better served by a government which acted immediately to cater to his needs in emergency situations.  I used the example of him being trapped on a rooftop for days in the sun, and tried to influence him that he also needed to be better cared for by the government in times of crisis.  By using several examples of how my uncle would have been better served by the government if the government had acted immediately to save him after a hurricane like Katrina, I tried to convince my uncle that the US government needed to make intensive changes in its search and rescue operations.

    Here, persuasive thinking took the shape of an informal and personal appeal to the ideology of another person.  By offering solutions to the problem aimed at my uncles own personal welfare, I attempted to help him to come to the realization that he could personally benefit from having better search and rescue services put into place.  My arguments were based on convincing my uncle of his own personal need for the services.  By pointing out the disconnect between him being in crisis and the response of the government, I aimed to call attention to the simple realization of the rift which existed between what his needs would be in a disaster situation and what is actually available and being provided by the US government.  My aim was not to disparage the US government, but merely to point out that what my uncles needs would be in a crisis would not be met by the current system in place.  It was my intention to persuade my uncle to take personal action to rectify the divide between him and his government.

    Very recently, there was also the situation of the earthquake in Haiti, and my uncle and I again came to a difference of opinion regarding the response of US search and rescue operations.  He believed that the US government did their very best, with no room for improvement, and I believed that out of the many tens of thousands of people who were trapped under the rubble, the US could have saved many more than several dozen.  This time, by using scientific thinking techniques, I pointed out to him the advancements in technology, such as specialized helicopters, the availability of search and rescue training, and the many physical areas from which the US could have operated in regard to logistics.  By making connections between what was scientifically possible for search and rescue missions and what was objectively needed in Haiti, I was able to paint a comprehensive picture of the many resources which were available and the lack of US response to the many Haitians in need.

    Here, scientific thinking took the shape of a factual and rational appeal to known resources and needs of society in general.  By offering solutions to the problem aimed at calling attention to my uncles formal responsibility as a member of a society which is rich with actual resources and possibilities, I attempted to help him come to the realization that there are certain educational and technological capabilities which could have made the search and rescue operations in Haiti much more comprehensive and successful.  By pointing out the disconnect between what the US government is potentially able to accomplish given the facts surrounding modern advancements in implementation of search and rescue teams and the large number of Haitians who were suffering and dying under the rubble, I was able to paint a very clear picture of the comprehensive causes and effects of not utilizing scientific advancements in crises.

    When formulating an argument in support of a solution, persuasive thinking and scientific thinking both have their uses, yet persuasive thinking is more aligned to convincing a person based on the benefit to the individual, while scientific thinking is more detailed and comprehensive.  In regard to the situation of hurricane Katrina, perhaps my uncle was swayed by thinking of the possibility of his own potential plight and the service of the government to him personally.  My purpose in utilizing persuasive thinking was to aim to convince my uncle of the need for government support during crises, based on his own personal needs.  In regard to the situation of the recent earthquake in Haiti, it is possible that my uncle was influenced by my sharing the detailed scientific possibilities in regard to the entire objective situation.  My purpose in utilizing scientific thinking was to aim to convince my uncle of the need for government support during crises, based on the objective facts surrounding what occurred and was implemented in Haiti and what is known to be scientifically possible.

Rene Descartes I knew that I was a substance the whole essence or nature of which was merely to think, and which, in order to exist, needed no place and depended on no material thing (p. 62).

    In this quote Descartes discusses the nature of reality. Reality for Descartes appears to be a matter of perception. His argument centers around the idea that reality does not need a physical body, or a place to exist, it is simply in the eyes of the beholder. What is real is what Descartes sees. Perception is critical to how Descartes defines this reality, if you can see it, it is real, if you can think of it, and it is real. Descartes discusses reality primarily in terms of his own existence, and focuses on his ability to think, and his independence from other living things as being part of his reality.

    Essentially, this statement argues that to think is to be real. However this makes little sense in terms of other things. For instance, chairs dont think, but they are clearly real. This brings into question Descartes concept of I think therefore I exist and am real idea, simply because things that dont think do exist and are real. One can argue that Descartes is applying this argument on reality merely to the existence of his own soul however, it fails utterly when it is applied to other clearly real living creatures, or inanimate objects.

    I think that this argument could be given more clear definition. If one is to apply it to things outside the soul one should instead argue that reality is what can be perceived with ones five senses. But, in this case it is clear that Descartes is simply discussing the reality of his own being. In his terms, thought is what makes his soul real. He exists because his soul exists, and his soul exists because he thinks it does. This argument is rather convoluted and it is much more complex than it appears to be on the surface. However appearances are deceiving. This is essentially a paraphrasing of the statement I think therefore I am.

    Descartes definition of reality applies specifically to human beings. It truly cannot be applied in any other sense, or manner. He argues about the nature of human existence and perception of reality, not the reality that exists for any other living, or non-living object on the planet. Descartes argument makes sense in terms of humanity but cannot be applied to any other species or inanimate object. Descartes focus on the nature of reality when it is applied to humans because philosophers during his time were more interested in human reality than the reality of other living things or objects.

    Descartes arguments on the human soul were a focal argument in the debates on reality and existence during the 17th century. From todays perspective his arguments seem outdated because we understand that reality is so much more than what we as human beings perceive. According to Descartes definition of reality, if it is not thought of by human beings, if it is phenomena outside their perception, it cannot be real. Thoughtreality in Descartes perspective, but, it is not that simple. While this may be true in the case of the soul, one must uses sense and abilities other than thought to define the reality of things outside oneself.

    Based on this single quote Descartes argument is overly simplistic in many ways- except when he uses this statement to define reality for human beings. The reality of the human soul in comparison to the reality of a chair for instance, seems to be minor and utterly trivial, but, it is clear that this issue is more complex than Descartes makes it out to be. The reality if the human soul is debatable and the ability to think does not necessarily define a soul as being part of human reality. However what one can perceive with thought and our senses is real- for instance a chair is real because we can see it, hear it when it hits the floor and touch it, but, chairs do not have souls. Descartes primary meaning therefore is that the human soul has reality because we, as human beings think that it does. Descartes does not focus on anything outside of human thought or experience which is a very pragmatic perspective to take. It can be concluded, therefore that Descartes defines his reality of as the ability to think and perceive his own existence, independent of any other phenomena.

Rubin asserts that Posners significant and desirable postulation with regard to economics and law is the fact that common law derives efficacy economically (Rubin 1999). However, there are no mechanisms to exemplify this putative efficiency of common law. Posners assumption is based on the hypothesis which propagates that judges in set judicial systems achieve the ability to satisfy concerned parties in lawful affairs by making efficient decisions and as such, they are restricted so that other criteria on which to base arrival at decisions are few. Models of law that are ideally evolutionary were formulated so as to avail other criteria for decision making in lawful matters and as such derive the said efficiency. Worth noting is the fact that these models are alongside proof of efficacy and as such, useful in most instances, have not achieved the intended goal. In fact, there now are evolutionary models of legal matters that are primarily driven by the need for change whose inspiration is lawyers rent seeking ultimately resulting into inefficiency in judges decisions. There also is another trend that characterizes legal affairs and economics-judges interactions-which portray the nature of such interactions that primarily indicates there inability to yield consistent results. According to Rubin, Posner sums up the foregoing discussion by observing that at the core of economic assessment of the legal system is a mystery which is also an embarrassment. This dilemma that Posners contention arises, poses the question of explaining behavior that is inherent in the judicial systems in economic terms. We will now review Rubins paper under the lens of Posners postulations whereupon there are two issues. Firstly, is his purport of the economic efficiency of common law, secondly, its nature and thirdly is its purpose.

The first issue that Rubin raises is the efficiency of common law which he argues that is the basic question of law and economics. He points out Posners argument that posits common law to be efficient. Rubin contends that the difficulty that arises with regard to this efficiency of common law that Posner argues is that the conclusion that regards the efficacy of a given rule or law relies on transactions that have estimated costs of all sorts. Rubin poses the question that if in fact Posners intuition about relative magnitudes is not right then it follows that doctrines which he claims to be efficient may not be so. Rubin notes that a significant portion of literature in economics and law is constituted by attempts to assess given legal doctrines and as such, analyze their efficiency. This model of assessment varies fundamentally from Posners concept of efficiency of the common law with regard to other economics faculties. Market competition, is propagated and the process is shown to lead to efficient outcomes. Economists, according to Rubin, do not generally assess consumers so as to find out whether they are equating ratios of marginal utilities to prices or firms to assess whether they charge marginal cost. Contrastingly, the process according to Rubin, which derives the consequent process that derives outcomes, is what results into efficiency. As a result of this reason, many economists are not comfortable with arguments of efficiency with regard to law and economics. Despite this fact, by virtue of the fact that this is the ideal standard in economics and law, any assessment of any given law bodys efficiency, according to Rubin can be regarded as evidence against or for Posners assumption. As such, if a given law is found to come about as in-efficient, whereupon it yields reform proposals, it is regarded as evidence against Posners assumption.

    The second Issue that Rubin Puts across with regard to Posners argument is the concept of utility maximization (Posner 1992). Rubin postulates that Posner argued that judges in the judicial system were insulated from factors that were primarily personal as well as interest groups in addition to other pressures and as such, the only factor with regard to decision that remained was the issue of efficiency. The other candidate in the register of the judges decision criterion was income redistribution which the judges did not have the tools to address. Rubin observes that Posners explanation was and still is not appalling to economists as it ultimately depends on the tastes of the judiciary for efficiency whereupon economists opt not to exemplify behavior on such basis.
The basis of analysis between Rubin and Posners views with regard to the issue of economics and law finds ground in the two legal professionals nature of the knowledge and ideally its place in the arrival of legal decisions. The fundamental in Posners economic assessment of the law is the fact that judges always do, and as such can and should always employ principles in economics in deriving conclusions in legal decisions, moreover, in improving the law. This issue regards Rubins assertion where he postulated that if in fact Posners intuition about relative magnitudes is not right then it follows those doctrines which he claims to be efficient may not be so. These doctrines that Rubin discounts are the economic processes which offer the basis for judges in decision making. To Posner, embedded in these analyses is the principle hypothesis with regard to judges ability to assemble and analyze the necessary knowledge for them to understand the repercussions of their made rulings which have both the effect and objective of enhancing efficiency of the law. In Posners perspective, in the event that a judge gives out hisher ruling, such a judge must always consider the future consequences of that ruling. The perception of judges as makers of rules yields the question of how judges make decisions on which rules are efficient. Posner thus discounts Rubins disregard of economics in legal decisions when he states that the economic theory with regard to law presumes that there exists machinery which ascertains the existence of necessary facts for correct application of the law (Posner 2003). 

The second issue that arises in Rubins essay worth analyzing across the fundamental concept that was propounded by Posner regards the purpose of the law.  Posner exhorted judges to make decisions in cases with the objective of furthering an external standard of value for instance, maximization of wealth. His view of rule selection was ideally at the judges level that chose between alternative individual rules. Elevation of a given rule bound the judges opting for that rule though it was only to the level that the judges felt that it was necessary for adherence to the set precedence. Ideally what a judge ought to adhere to which meant the precedence that on overall, enticed him in his choice, as such, came about as the most efficient rule. In Posners case a typical case would be Hadley v. Baxendale the famous case that explicated the limitation for recovery in a law suit concerning lost profits. In the scenario of Hadley, X contracted with Y to derive a good or service whereupon when executed with adherence to set contract terms, large profits would be yielded. Y is not aware of the lost profits that X might encounter in the event that he breaches his contract with X.  X thus is not successful in making profitable returns he had prior forecast in his union with Y. X goes ahead and files a lawsuit against Y for failure to make profitable returns resulting from Ys contractual breach. The question that the judge is faced with is if X is in a position to recover lost profits or merely the unrealized profits from Ys inability to perform. To Posner, A judge with such a question before himher will primarily base hisher decision on what is better individual rule. This is the essence of criterion in Posners assertions, an aspect that Rubin discounts its existence.

Traditionalism, by definition, is simply the systematic emphasis on the value of tradition.  On the other hand, legal realism maintains that common-law adjudication is an inherently subjective system that produces inconsistent and sometimes incoherent results that are largely based on the political, social, and moral predilections of state and federal judges (Law Encyclopedia, 1998).
For me, legal realism stands out of traditionalism.  The reasons for this are numbered on the following texts.

One of its focuses is on power and economics in society.  It also argues that law equates the authority in society with economic interests and the will of the most powerful is what is on top.  Realists see that the economy is run by the wealthiest member of the society.

It has its attention to judicial power, giving notice that law depends on the characteristics and the will of the judges and the legislators.  Judges should not use his own political convictions when deciding a case.  Interpretation of the law should be based on advancement of the welfare of society. It would be best if decisions, especially political, are based on status quo.  Law should serve the most fragile members of the society (Law Encyclopedia 2010), not all to the wealthy and most powerful.

It is aware of the flaws, limitations, and openness of law.  Tamanaha wrote that legal realsim is conscious that law is influenced by political and moral views and personal biases (2009).  Although realism sounds very skeptical on law and the judges, it also understands that legal rules can work and that judges can abide by and can apply the rules.  Realism also aims to increase firmness and transparency of law.  This awareness will help mould better lawyers and advanced legal justice.  This will also improve law itself to be better in terms of social needs.

Realism not only points to the law only but to the people itself and to human rights.  It strongly suggests that law must be equally redistributed to all citizens, regardless of power and wealth so that all are guaranteed dignity and equality.

Comparing realism to traditionalism, the latter believes that tradition and custom are what guide man and his view of what is wrong and right (wapedia, 2010).  But the thing with traditionalism is that there are bad traditions that need to be abandoned.  Other traditions need to be replaced with laws that came from experiences that gave rise to tradition.  Traditional morality should now be combined with philosophy and social sciences.  This is when realism comes in.

It continues to influence how judges, lawyers, and laypersons think about the law. According to Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it suggests specific improvement in practical areas of the law (2006).  As most of us are aware of what realism recognizes, realists say that most of us are realists now.

In the present world, there are very many real world problems. Among these problems, the paper is going to discuss terrorism and global warming. The paper will address the persuasive technique of solving the problem of terrorism as well as the scientific solution to global warming

Persuasive solutions to terrorism
Terrorism is not something that is more strategic violence, a show of horror purposed to repulse and shock, to reduce morale and create negotiations. The diplomats notion of persuasive solutions perpetually ends with massacres in charge and every other person on the run. The outcome mat be certainly peaceful solution, when everyone who disagrees has been exterminated or run to exile, and a supremacy of insures of terror that the peace is not disturbed by anyone (Herman, 2005).
It is not easy to accomplish persuasive and peaceful solution to terrorism because terrorism itself is not an act that is peaceful. A good way to defend against force is by use of a greater and powerful force. To attempt and make peaceful negotiations with terrorists is to encourage their schemes and insure that they will recur on and on. It is hard to cub terrorism through peacemaking with it. Trying to do this can only bare ones throat to the knife.

Even though the United States department of defense has sophisticated technology and gallant efforts which are using to eradicate terrorism, it still has to reschedule its tactics and strategies. War and terrorism are problems of human and therefore require human solutions. The major causes of these and other aspects of social violence is the gathered social stress

Hence to eradicate such problems the department of defense in the United States requires decreasing collective stress of the society. Absence of collective stress implies little or no tension between the United States and other nations, insurgents and religious groups and hence no terrorism. As Herman (2005) puts it, comprehensive scientific research reveals that the most effective way to decrease collective stress within the society, and hence reduce war and terrorism, is to emulate an ancient strategy which stated Prevent the danger that has not yet come.

By utilising a technology that is based on human resource, and which is neither lethal nor destructive, the military could decrease tensions and be in a position to control terrorism. In such a case, the military becomes unconquerable because the nation takes out the enemies enmity.

Scientific approach to global warming
Wonderful ideas about reducing global warming are being assessed by powerful scientist from the United States, Europe and the United Kingdom. There is need for the exploration of the feasibility of imaginative new aspects of reducing the problem of global warming in the future. This can be accomplished by either reducing the emission of carbon dioxide or through countering its effects.
The suggested techniques of reducing pollution that is brought by carbon dioxide include underground burying of carbon dioxide that is liquefied, sea disposal, reflecting the rays of the sun within the atmosphere, fertilising of absorption of carbon dioxide by marine algae and sea level rise stabilization. These together with other macro-engineering aspects are supposed to be assessed against a precise set of criteria.

Saving of the trees could reduce the change of climate according to the recent researches. As far as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is concerned, about 32 million acres of land that is covered with trees is cleared. These felling of trees contributes to emissions of carbon to the atmosphere. If this can be reduced then it can help reduce global warming. Alterations in management of forests and agricultural practices could remarkably reduce the problem of global warming much quicker than technological solutions.

Among the changes that are proposed is the extensive adoption of no-till farming. This is an activity that involves leaving crop stalks that are unharvested and other plant matter behind and not disturbing them by ploughs and other instruments that agitates the soil. Fundamentally, the carbon found within the remains goes deep into the soil rather than evaporating into the atmosphere when the lands are being prepared for planting using traditional methods (Herman, 2005).

The two real world problems (terrorism and Global warming) that are discussed in the paper are really affecting our economy. Terrorism has become rampant and even others now fear taking flights for fear of a terrorist attack. The United States department of defense has to use some persuasive skill to cub the problem. On the other hand, global warming has also become a major issue and the emission of carbon into the atmosphere has to be checked and reduced. Scientific as well as agricultural techniques should be employed to ensure that carbon emission is as minimal as possible.

For quite a while now, there have been various positions regarding the efficiency of law. There are those who feel that common law is more efficient than statute law. Several attempts have been made, to establish this claim. The discourse regarding the issue of efficiency common law has been central to both economists and legal professionals. Posner was one of those who strongly hold that common law is efficient. This study is aimed at a critical assessment of the validity of the arguments raised by Paul Rubin regarding this issue. Considering that Posner was a major contributor in this debate, this study will offer what would be Posners response to the arguments raised by Rubin and others.

Towards an Understanding of Efficiency
    The concept of efficiency is used across several fields so its application is analogical. This means that its application solely depends on the subject. What efficiency would mean in economics would be different in law. As such, efficiency can only be justified if there is optimum performance. An action would be considered efficient therefore, if it accomplishes its intended goal with minimum employment of time and effort. Economists have advanced various arguments for, and against the possibility of efficiency in common law.

Paul Rubin and Efficiency in Common Law
    The question of the efficiency of common law is very basic in law and economics. It has been argued that expecting judges to attain efficiency would be too much in expectation because they are only presented with already biased cases, due to the rules in the practice. The argument from utility maximization however, claims that, judges are capable of efficiency because they are insulated from all factors that would influence them to make decisions that are inefficient. Posner argued that efficiency derives from the non-bias characteristic of judges (Posner, 1981). How would one establish that judges are free from bias Is there a mechanism that can be used to measure this This is rather absurd because we cannot take for granted that judges are at any particular time free from bias or prejudice. This argument is faced with its own challenges because it presupposes the taste of the judge for efficiency of law, which is unacceptable to the economists, and presumably to the rationalists as well. 

Rubin presented the argument that when judges were promoted it was due to judicial utility function (Rubin, 1999). This argument sought to find the correlation between the age of the judges, promotion, as well as efficiency. However, this was not sufficiently addressed because such a correlation was not established. Therefore, judicial utility functions should not be determined by the vertical mobility of the judges, because as already indicated, promotion could be based on many other issues divorced from efficiency (Rubin, 1999). What if a judge gets promotion out of friendship rather than merit As a matter of fact, one can get promoted as a reward for a favor done, which has nothing to do with satisfactory performance.

Several arguments advanced suggest that due to the many procedural rules, there is bound to be judicial utility. Litigation itself underscores the fact that there exists inefficiency in law. As such, the number of case outcomes is not necessarily an effect of utility maximization.

In the evolutionary model, Rubin argued that most of the cases were actually settled, whereas the best way to go is litigation (Rubin, 1999). This for him consisted of real legal change. It is argued that common law can only evolve to economic efficiency where both parties have an ongoing interest in legal cases. At the same time, common law remains efficient if it changes as conditions change. However, if this is the case, there is the risk of relativity. During the settlement process, there are certain risks of injustice, because some things cannot be bargained away. In this case, one party gains at the expense of the other. Furthermore, litigation is considered in cases where rules do not offer efficiency. In other words, larger stakes mean greater possibility of litigation. Regarding this view, Posner argued that litigation would have an either or effect (Posner, 1981). That is, if litigated, there would be the possibility of that precedent becoming stronger or weaker as a result. Rubin further argues that common laws and statute laws do not have too great, a distinction (Rubin, 1999). He further argued that the variations that are witnessed with regard to these two models are only due to the pressures exerted by various interest groups. However, it is difficult to see how these lead to efficiency, at least in law.

    What exactly are we investigating Is it the efficiency of the judges or the efficiency of the common law Can there be efficient laws and inefficient judges Do efficient laws guarantee efficient judges or do efficient judges guarantee efficient laws If a Justice Department recommends a judge is it the case that they have recommended the law Again, if a judge gets promotion is it a promotion of the law The functions and movements in the judicial system leave great doubt regarding the possibility of efficiency. Economists posit efficiency through the process by which outcomes are generated. This is a relationship of means and ends. If this understanding of the economists is used in law, it would mean that efficiency in law is to be determined by the process by which outcomes are generated. Processes by which outcomes in a legal framework are generated require a lot of judicial functions. As argued earlier, the judicial function could be efficient or inefficient. Just as an effect proceeds from the cause the outcomes are punctuated by the judicial rulings. An efficient judicial system translates into efficient outcomes and vice versa. To posit that higher quality people will occupy judicial positions and write better opinions due to the good pay and life tenure is a big fallacy. It is possible that good and better people remain at low position due to lack of recognition. 

    As already mentioned, if settlements in court are occasioned, and if the expected value to the plaintiff is less than the expected cost to the defendant, then dispensation of justice will be at stake. Inefficiency will occur since the action creates damages to one party that supersede the gains of the other. As aforementioned in this paper, economists affirm efficiency if the system leaves one party better off. From a legal point of view, a law that is unjust is inefficient. Settlements in legal cases risk being inefficient even where they are economically tenable. As Posner postulates, there should be a normative approach to what can and should be considered comprising of efficiency (Posner, 1981). The pressure for the common law to evolve to efficiency rests on the desire of parties to create precedence because they have interest in future similar cases.

    The case of multi-judge interactions can to some extent occasion inefficiency. This is because, where several judges sit, there is a possibility of inconsistency. Judges do in most cases follow judicial precedence, irrespective of rational convictions (Heyne, 2004). This again would add to the inefficiency of law. Judges can solemnly come to one judgment, but that is not a recipe for efficiency. What counts is not the collegiality of the judges but the outcome of their ruling.

    The issue of efficiency in economics and law is a very broad one. As such, there are no absolute measures that can be used to fully explain it. Economists cannot seek to explain the efficiency of any legal frame work by basing their understanding on economic efficiency. The fact that litigation keeps on occurring in every legal system is a clear indication that absolute efficiency in law does not exist. While some laws are efficient, others are not, and if the understanding offered in Rubin is anything to go by, then efficiency in common law is relative.

Even though promotions in the judicial system imply an element of judicial utility function, these promotions can be solely arbitrary and personalized. They should therefore not be considered as measures of efficiency. In addition, judges may care about things other than either efficiency or redistribution. Justice is a factor that transcends concerns in economic efficiency.
Efficiency cannot be dependent on how much judges are willing or seek to move towards it, otherwise, individuals would be reduced to the whims of the judges. Commitment to efficiency is not volitional, but a necessity in every legal framework and as such, it is an end in itself.

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.