Divine Command Theory versus Theory of Natural Law Essay Example

this paper. This paper is divided into four major parts. The first part discusses the Divine Command Theory and other issues about it.

On the other hand, the second part shows the tenets and the underlying principles of the Theory of Natural Law. The analysis and the extrapolation of arguments are included in the analysis of each theory. The last part gives the conclusion of this paper. Divine Command Theory This theory states that moral standards are derived from the commandments of God or gods. This implies that human actions are caused and willed by a Supreme Being or Divine Entity. “All actions and even the criteria of these actions are all predetermined by God (Zagzebski, 2004, p. 24). ”

To elaborate more, the Divine Command Theory contains the assertion that morality is eventually founded on the commands or character of a supernatural being – that is God, and that the ethically right action is the one that God requires (Zagzebski, 2004). The explicit substance of these divine commands diverges according to the fastidious religion (such as Christianity and Protestantism) and the exact beliefs of the individual divine command theorist, but all translations of the theory embrace in common the argument that morality and moral duties ultimately derived from God.

Many philosophers both from the past and present have wanted to support theories of ethics that are based in a theistic scaffold. Generally, they advocate the assumption that “morality is [somehow] reliant upon God”, and that moral duty consists in submission to His commands (Zagzebski, 2004, p. 24). Through the years of the philosophical era, the Divine Command Theory has been persisted

to be extremely divisive. “It has been disparaged by several philosophers, including Plato (Zagzebski, 2004, p. 27). (Note: Plato’s response to Divine Command Theory is on the next subheading) Nonetheless, it also has many advocates, both archetypal and modern, such as Thomas Aquinas and Philip Quinn.

The inquiry of the potential links among religion and ethics is of importance to moral philosophers as well as philosophers of religion, but it also directs us to think the task of religion in society as well as the essence of moral reflection. Having all these things, the claims provided for and against the Divine Command Theory have both “speculative and realistic” significance (Zagzebski, 2004, p. 8). Such is labeled speculative in a sense that it allows man to think for the nature of morality and at the same time seek for the truthfulness of God’s existence. And such is said to be realistic due to the fact that most religions, like Christianity, Protestantism, and Islam are all basing their codes of conduct on what is written and decreed in their respective holy books.

Objections to Divine Command Theory Applying the Divine Command theory, it seems that “morality is arbitrarily structured (Zagzebski, 2004, p. 27). If this theory really is true, does this mean that actions become moral because God wills them to be? Or is it the case that actions are moral that is why God wills them? This is the dilemma. Plato’s response to such dilemma can be deduced based from his book where Socrates had dialogue with Euthyphro (Zagzebski, 2004, p. 31). His question seemed to revolve on the same question or dilemma presented

above. What is the nature of moral actions and moral values? Believers of God would definitely say that actions become moral because it is willed by God.

However, by saying it, it can also appear that all actions can be morally justified if they are willed by God. Thus, if God commands us to inflict pain or suffering to other individuals then it would be morally right because it is God’s commandment. Yet, Divine Command theorists would say that it is not the case. Nonetheless by sticking to what the initial claim that the Divine Command theory suggests, morality really appears to be arbitrary. Hence the goodness of actions is also arbitrarily represented.

But in order to resolve the conflict about God’s predisposition to make all actions morally justifiable, Divine Command theorist say that God commands such actions because they are morally right. By arguing like this, it would seem to be a very plausible defense for the believers of God to say that God would not make evil actions to be morally right (Zagzebski, 2004, p. 24). However, by positing such argument, it poses other dilemmas. If God wills actions because they are morally right then God is not really the foundation of actions.

At the same time, if one would allow such argument, he would also have to accept the fact that God is also subjected on an outside law by which He bases His wills. This would literally mean that “there is something [a governing mechanism] that which is higher than Him (Zagzebski, 2004, p. 35). ” This would undermine God’s character as absolute sovereign and absolute power. Therefore,

God is not really the one who makes moral actions moral but he only wills these actions because they are morally right by themselves.

Another point that can be raised regarding the Divine Command Theory is the fact that individuals have this predisposition of being egoistic. As, Thomas Hobbes argued, all actions of man are motivated by self-interest either he is conscious about it or not. In other words, man can used this theory to justify his unbecomingness and wrong doings. The Theory of Natural Law The Natural Law or the Law of Nature is a theory in ethics that suggests the subsistence of a law that is established by the nature itself and hence has legitimacy and soundness ubiquitously (Porter, 2004, p. 6).

This theory states that “all things are governed by the natural process set by the nature” itself (Porter, 2004, p. 46). The assumption is that there is a natural order that is designed to maintain order throughout the world and mankind. This natural process organizes and directs the causes and results of everything such that it can be inferred that causal relationships of every little thing are patterned on this natural order or natural process. By having this initial proposition, this would also include morality as a product of the natural process.

Goodness and evilness of actions are already defined by such natural process - likewise the concepts of right and wrong. By saying such, it is equivalent to say that actions are morally right because it is morally right in nature. In addition, all man would be expected to do what is moral because nature suggests that

they are the moral things to do. What is more evidently included in the discussion of the Natural Law is the fact that authority derived from a person or a supernatural entity would be insignificant in the discussion of the standard of morality.

It is for the reason that morality of actions is solely dependent on what nature suggests – that is doing what is inherent or natural thing to do in specific situations. Thus when a person perpetrated a wrong action then it would be logical to say that he acted against his natural predisposition to do good rather than do evil. “The Theory of Natural Law is a plausible basis for the analysis and examination of the Human law (Porter, 2004, p. 29). ” Human laws can be questioned based on its compatibility with the Law of Nature. Nonetheless, this can still be contested by appealing to the very idea of social contract.

Social Contract is an agreement made by the individuals who belong to a particular society in order to achieve the common good. It undermines the idea that all things are congruent with the natural process. The fact that such common good is still derived from the interest of the people, it would not entail that it is natural. If it is really natural then people should have not compromise their liberties just to arrive at such common good since everyone who naturally wants the common good would advocate it without participating in any agreement.

The Theory of Natural Law separates morality from religion in a sense that morality is not based or derived from any Divine Entity

or God. Standard of actions is not set by any supernatural being. As well as it is not dependent on the will of a God. By saying that moral acts and moral values are governed and set by the nature itself, morality directly frees itself from the sphere of religion in which all things are predetermined by an all-powerful God. Conclusion The nature of morality has long been the object of the ethical theorists.

They have been trying to unravel the force or the forces that govern human actions and how these actions should be evaluated. Therefore, laws and commandments are truly concepts and ideas that are inclusive with the idea of morality. However, not all laws are commanded or founded on morality. According to a philosopher of law, a legal obligation may not be a moral obligation as well as a moral obligation may not be a legal obligation. And so there is a separate sphere that divides law from morality and morality from law.

The Divine Command theory would really be problematic if morality would be dependent upon God’s will. It is where any one can justify his action as morally right by saying that it is God himself who tells him to do so. Hence, morality really is arbitrary. In the Theory of Natural Law, there is no higher entity or person that would say that particular actions are morally right. But instead actions are morally right because they are naturally morally right. In one way or another, the theory on Natural Law is sounder.