Divine Command Theory Vs Deontological Ethics

Within the umbrella of Deontological Ethics, which depends on a basis of principles is a theory called, Natural Law Ethics. Thomas Aquinas, well-known philosopher was the founder of this theory. Within the Natural Law Theory, each person is born with an intrinsic “set of laws governing conducts” (Feinberg & Feinberg, 2010). These particular laws, Feinberg claims are related to the purpose for which the subject was created. Since nature does not change, these ethical norms are absolute and never change. Therefore, whatever is immoral goes against the basic laws of human nature. Romans 2:15 says, “show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing …show more content…
28), or the Divine Command Theory. “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it” is the anthem of this ethical viewpoint. Basically, God is our ultimate authority, and what He wills determines right from wrong. The big question, however, is “Does God command us to do what is right because it is right, or is something right because God commands it” (Dr. Sullivan)? This paradox has been answered from two perspectives: extreme divine command and modified divine command theory. Extreme sees God as legalistic, and that things are right because He commands it. Whereas, modified DCT believes the opposite, and that morality is embedded in God’s …show more content…
So the question from Wilken’s books stands to reason, “Could God command cruelty” (p206)? Another issue could be its disregard for reason. In Divine Command Theory, man is simply to obey what God commands based on blind faith, shoving reason under the rug, which provides no justifiable reason to believe in this theory. Next are relationship systems, these theories are consequential, which means they focus on outcomes. This umbrella covers classic utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham and John S. Mill believed that what was moral depended on what outcome made the most people happy. Happiness is central to our existence as humans, they claimed. This theory is valuable in the fact that outcomes do indeed matter. The decisions that we make have consequences, so doing something with the most positive outcome is critical. Another possible strength is that we use this process every day. In every day decisions, we as humans make big choices based on how it will affect us. Despite these facts, there are three major issues with the Utilitarianism view. First, it is subjective. Second, it cannot predict the future. Third, Aristotle’s theory does not protect