Through human history religion has played a big role to define what is the right and wrong way to act.
Even in actual days people relay on what religious texts, such as the Bible or The Quran,and its authorities, God, say in order to find out what is morally right – defined as a system of ideas of right and wrong behavior. The Divine Command Theory defends that in fact God commands what is morally right and forbids what is morally wrong. But is there really a connection between what is moral right and what those authorities command is morally right?Is rape wrong because God commands it or because there is a rational reason why it is wrong? Plato argues that The Command Theory is false whit his Euthyphro Argument, which rises a tiny dilemma: “Is an action morally right because God commands it, or does God command an action because it is right? ”. I claim that Plato argument is right, that in fact God is not the creator of morality. The Divine Command Theory is a kind of moral relativism: what is right or wrong is what the divine authority, God says is.
Even if God commands are complete irrational, if God says that rape is good, then going trough the streets raping people will morally right, even when we know the act causes psychological and physical damage on the victim, in other words we know there are reasons why rape is not morally right. Or if God said that two plus two is equal to eight, which is completely false since two units united with other two are four regardless of what God says. This makes all the commands of God arbitrary and eliminates the logical validity of God commands.Also, The Divine Command Theory assumes first that religious belief is needed for moral motivation, second that God is the creator of morality and third that religion rs an essential source of moral guidance Plato explains with his Euthyphro argument that second assumption is false.
The Euthyphro argument is the discussion between Euthyphro and Socrates about the essence of piety.During their dialog Both are waiting outside the Athenian court, Euthryphro to charge of murder against his father, and Socrates because he is being charged with impiety - defined as a lack of roper concern for the obligations owed to public religious observation or cult. They begin a discussion of piety – defined as the veneration or reverence of the Supreme Being, and love of his character; loving obedience to the will of God, and earnest devotion to his service. Then Socrates asks Euthyphro: “If something is right because God commands it, or does God command it because it because it is right? ”.
This questions lead us to think that the relationship between God and morality is not clear, because it creates a logical dilemma, thus contracting the Divine Theory.The argument - a series of statements, the last of which is called the conclusion, the others of which are called premises. - has 5 premises - a reason for accepting a particular conclusion -. First God is the one who does not lack something, perfect mean who is never wrong. Second, he assumes that God does exit. Third, either there are reasons why support His commands, or He lacks of reasons for His commands.
Four, if premise number three is true God lacks reasons from His commands.Five, if there are reasons to support God commands, this reasons are what make the commands right and not God. Six, either God lack reasons or The Divine Command Theory is false. If God lacks reasons He lacks rationality . Seven and last premise, God does not lack something.Conclusion, The Divine Command Theory is false.
The argument leave us with two different possibilities: Either God lack something, rationality, or God has reasons to support his commands which automatically make the reasons the supreme rule to make an act morally right and not God. Therefore, Plato is right.Another problem with The Divine Command Theory is that if there is only one God, and polytheist religions have Gods with different points of view/morals, then the only existent God has contradicting morals which makes his commands invalid due to ambiguity. In conclusion, the second assumption of the Divine Command Theory is false because God does not lack something or because he has reasons to support his commands, and we cannot prove the contrary with logical facts. Also, in order to portray God as not arbitrary we must assume His commands are supported on the best possible reasons.
