Preface:
This was one of my writing assignments in my Philosophy 1000 class. I discuss three philosophical theories of morality and my personal viewpoint of them.
Normative Ethics vs. Divine Command Theory and Cultural Ethical Relativism
Normative ethics studies the set of moral principles that people ought to have. Divine Command Theory is the view that God’s commands are what make particular actions right or wrong. The issue with this theory is that it presents a problem for doing normative ethics. The problem with normative ethics, while assuming Divine Command Theory, is that only God can say what is right or wrong and he has already done so. With this theory, there is no reason to discuss or argue what ought to be done if all one has to do is pray or read the bible. Euthyphro’s dilemma is about Socrates challenging Euthyphro’s beliefs about piety. Socrates states that either right actions are right because God says they are right, or God says they are right because they are, in fact, right. These statements that Socrates makes lead us to conclude that if Divine Command Theory is true, then God is irrational because he has no reason behind what he chooses to be right or wrong. Cultural Ethical Relativism is the view that what is right, wrong, good, or bad is relative to cultures or societies. The truth or falsity of ethical judgments depends on the majority attitude in the culture. Right or wrong simply means that it is approved by a particular culture. Relativism of any kind also presents a problem for normative ethics. Cultural Ethical Relativism specifically opposes normative ethics because one cannot judge the morals of any culture while obeying this type of relativism, whereas normative ethics judges and questions the morality of everyone’s actions in all cultures. There are a few specific bad consequences of accepting Cultural Ethical Relativism, one of which is that this relativism implies that the right way to determine whether an action is morally permissible is to take a poll. Another problem of Cultural Ethical Relativism is that if it is true, then the idea of moral progress or reform is incoherent. The reasons for rejecting these two ideas opposing normative ethics, such as Divine Command Theory and Cultural Ethical Relativism, that God is irrational, that we cannot judge other cultures’ morals, and that there is no moral progress in these cases seems very legitimate. To say that God is irrational in Divine Command Theory makes sense because one naturally believes there is logic behind each moral. Also if God says what is right because it is right, then that means there is a natural code of morality in the world, which is what I believe to be true based on evidence of human nature and what actions create health and happiness in the world. To imply that we cannot judge the morals and actions of another culture, or even our own culture, does seem problematic because of the fact that we as people do naturally judge others on the basis of our own moral beliefs. I believe that the reason for people to naturally judge the actions of others is, again, that there are true natural morals for people to live by in order to have the most successful existence possible. Lastly, the problem of having no moral progress is difficult to accept with my belief of natural moral standards that apply to anyone and everyone, because if one is to assume that there is no progress, then one must assume that morals simply change in societies or individuals but are of equal value and legitimacy. Whereas if my belief is true, all moral views are not created equal; some are, in fact, correct and others are misguided. I am aware of an argument against my natural moral belief, which is that people simply prefer certain lifestyle choices over others and not everyone agrees on what type of lifestyle choice is best for them. My response would be that they may most likely be assuming this lifestyle with specific morals which may or may not be correct because they have either not found or let themselves test out the moral lifestyle which is correct. People do not enjoy being told what to believe and what to do, so even if someone who has realized the correct morals makes an effort to help them realize the best way to live, the person will reject the ideas simply out of pride. This does not mean there are no right or wrong moral values.
This was one of my writing assignments in my Philosophy 1000 class. I discuss three philosophical theories of morality and my personal viewpoint of them.
Normative Ethics vs. Divine Command Theory and Cultural Ethical Relativism
Normative ethics studies the set of moral principles that people ought to have. Divine Command Theory is the view that God’s commands are what make particular actions right or wrong. The issue with this theory is that it presents a problem for doing normative ethics. The problem with normative ethics, while assuming Divine Command Theory, is that only God can say what is right or wrong and he has already done so. With this theory, there is no reason to discuss or argue what ought to be done if all one has to do is pray or read the bible. Euthyphro’s dilemma is about Socrates challenging Euthyphro’s beliefs about piety. Socrates states that either right actions are right because God says they are right, or God says they are right because they are, in fact, right. These statements that Socrates makes lead us to conclude that if Divine Command Theory is true, then God is irrational because he has no reason behind what he chooses to be right or wrong. Cultural Ethical Relativism is the view that what is right, wrong, good, or bad is relative to cultures or societies. The truth or falsity of ethical judgments depends on the majority attitude in the culture. Right or wrong simply means that it is approved by a particular culture. Relativism of any kind also presents a problem for normative ethics. Cultural Ethical Relativism specifically opposes normative ethics because one cannot judge the morals of any culture while obeying this type of relativism, whereas normative ethics judges and questions the morality of everyone’s actions in all cultures. There are a few specific bad consequences of accepting Cultural Ethical Relativism, one of which is that this relativism implies that the right way to determine whether an action is morally permissible is to take a poll. Another problem of Cultural Ethical Relativism is that if it is true, then the idea of moral progress or reform is incoherent. The reasons for rejecting these two ideas opposing normative ethics, such as Divine Command Theory and Cultural Ethical Relativism, that God is irrational, that we cannot judge other cultures’ morals, and that there is no moral progress in these cases seems very legitimate. To say that God is irrational in Divine Command Theory makes sense because one naturally believes there is logic behind each moral. Also if God says what is right because it is right, then that means there is a natural code of morality in the world, which is what I believe to be true based on evidence of human nature and what actions create health and happiness in the world. To imply that we cannot judge the morals and actions of another culture, or even our own culture, does seem problematic because of the fact that we as people do naturally judge others on the basis of our own moral beliefs. I believe that the reason for people to naturally judge the actions of others is, again, that there are true natural morals for people to live by in order to have the most successful existence possible. Lastly, the problem of having no moral progress is difficult to accept with my belief of natural moral standards that apply to anyone and everyone, because if one is to assume that there is no progress, then one must assume that morals simply change in societies or individuals but are of equal value and legitimacy. Whereas if my belief is true, all moral views are not created equal; some are, in fact, correct and others are misguided. I am aware of an argument against my natural moral belief, which is that people simply prefer certain lifestyle choices over others and not everyone agrees on what type of lifestyle choice is best for them. My response would be that they may most likely be assuming this lifestyle with specific morals which may or may not be correct because they have either not found or let themselves test out the moral lifestyle which is correct. People do not enjoy being told what to believe and what to do, so even if someone who has realized the correct morals makes an effort to help them realize the best way to live, the person will reject the ideas simply out of pride. This does not mean there are no right or wrong moral values.