Furthermore, there is no necessary reason why two commands, one demanding and another prohibiting murder, cannot be contradictory. As the naturalistic fallacy states, any ethical truth vocalised by divine whim must therefore be subjective and arbitrary. Under the unmodified DCT, an example of ethical voluntarism, morality derives solely from God’s imperative. My task is not to substantiate any particular theological position, but to demonstrate that the modified DCT is a cogent theory within a Judeo-Christian framework.Ĭonception (a), comprising an unmodified DCT is morally and logically problematic. In defending this thesis, the validity of theism and biblical inerrancy will be assumed.
Conversely, I maintain that the modified DCT prevails over conceptions (a) and (b) in providing an objective, morally robust and internally consistent theory founded upon God. Critics may contend that allegedly immoral and inconsistent divine commands, such as the injunction to kill witches despite another injunction prohibiting murder, constitute a threat to the theory. Despite this, I will propose that a third alternative exists, a modified Divine Command Theory (DCT), which splits the horns. This essay will concur that both horns of the dilemma result in unpalatable conclusions. The two conceptions provided by the text are roughly as follows: For some writers, the ancient ‘Euthyphro Dilemma’ poses an insurmountable objection to such theories. It is commonly held that meta-ethical theories which ground morality in God are indefensible.
0 kommentar(er)
