Theme 1 - Meta-Ethics (Ethical Thought)
Divine Command Theory:
Intro:
● meta -ethical theory = where does goodness/ morality come from (God)
● Absolutist - standard of right and wrong
● God is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being and the creator of the
world
● All scripture God has given must be followed
● His divine law is objective so DCT takes on a literal interpretation of scripture as they
believe what God says is perfect
● Places religious commands at the centre and God as the originator and regulator of
morality therefore obliged to follow God’s command
Strong form DCT: every minute detail that God said must be followed e.g can’t wear clothes of
multiple fabrics - Leviticus 19:19
Weak form DCT: minute details are unimportant
Robert Adams’ development:
● Morality isn’t just based on God’s command
● It is intrinsic to His omnibenevolent nature
● Moral goodness isn’t arbitrary or cruel as God’s nature is intrinsically loving
● Not logically impossible for a loving God to command cruelty - it’s unthinkable
● Morality is an essential characteristic of God so anything moral reflects God’s character
● ‘Any action is ethically wrong if it’s contrary to the commands of a loving God’ - Adams
AO2:
Euthyphro Dilemma:
1st horn:
- If morality comes from God then does God love good because it is intrinsically good in
itself
- Good exists outside of God’s control
- Therefore God isn’t omnipotent and morality doesn’t come from God
Robert Adam’s DCT:
+ Morality isn’t just based on God’s command
+ Morality is intrinsic to His omnibenevolent nature
+ So good acts are good because it involves following in God’s characteristics of being all
loving
2nd Horn:
- If morality comes from God then good is good because God says that it’s good
- So ‘immoral’ acts can become moral if God ordered it
- God’s command is arbitrary and not morally objective as there is no definitive right and
wrong
,Robert Adam’s DCT:
+ God can’t command anything arbitrary because goodness is intrinsic to His nature
+ Cannot command cruel acts
Prophet Ibrahim/Abraham:
- God commanded Ibrahim to kill his son Ismail for the sake of God
- God commanded a cruel act as killing him would have brought pain to Ibrahim
- Shows God’s orders can be arbitrary
Mackie’s inconsistent triad:
- If God is omnipotent but evil and suffering still exist - God isn’t omnibenevolent (why
would a loving God allowing people to suffer)
- If God is omnibenevolent but evil + suffering still exist - God isn’t omnipotent (If God had
the power why wouldn’t He prevent suffering)
Leibniz:
- If goodness only comes from following God’s command then it has no intrinsic value
- someone doing a good act is only doing it because God commanded rather than
because it’s morally right
- If God commanded one act but wills another to do the opposite - both would be
considered morally good which is rationally absurd
+ God doesn’t command good acts to be done because He commanded them to
+ Commands to do good acts as a means of benefiting others
+ Achieving a positive end goal of heaven that people go to after living a life of good acts
Richard Dawkins Second Argument:
- Morality developed from evolution not religion
- The need to survive promoted selfless and kind acts
- ‘Kin altruism’ - organisms protect their kin
|
+ Doesn’t explain morality to the extent that humans have today
+ Explains why we are moral but doesn’t explain our choices
+ People choose to be moral out of gratitude towards God and understanding of afterlife
, Virtue Theory:
Intro:
● Meta ethical = where does goodness/ morality come from (balance of virtues)
● Normative = interested in what we ought to do
● Aims to achieve complete wellbeing - focusing on intention of act
● Inspired by Plato + Aristotle’s Eudaimonia - introduced the Greek virtues of patience,
temperance, courage and justice
● Encourages establishing good character through good words and habits
● Even though virtues and vices are definitive - VT is relativist
Eudaimonia:
● Eudaimonia is the outcome of being a virtuous person
● Goal of VT is to create a good, happy and fulfilled life
● Intellectual + moral virtues - e.g wisdom, courage, compassion, honesty
● Doctrine of the Mean = to be virtuous, a balance of the 2 extremes (excess and
deficiency) is needed
● Sophron = someone who lives in the mean (virtue) without effort
● Enkrates = someone who is tempted but strong willed to live in the mean
● Akrates = overcome by temptation and weak-willed
Jesus:
● Introduced the beatitudes in the sermon on the mount
● Virtues identified by Jesus: poor in spirit, mourning a meek, hunger for righteousness,
mercy, purity of the heart, peacemakers, persecuted for righteousness - Matthew 5:3-12
● Beatitudes are a model of social and spiritual justice in society
● The Beatitudes offer a roadmap on how to live a pleasing life to God. They
encourage humility, compassion, and a strong desire for justice. By following these
teachings, Christians can strive to live a life that is not only pleasing to God but also
makes a positive impact on those around them.
AO2:
+ Allows people to develop their character
+ Understand how to do moral acts with or without an external structure
- Virtues are arbitrary, imprecise and vague
- Deals primarily with the individual so is hard to generalise or apply to society as a whole
+ VT teaches people to be good people by developing their character to be a good person
and therefore be a positive role model to assist others
+ VT agrees with the idea that being a good person is better than stop doing good deeds
for the sake of yourself
Culturally relative:
- What one culture may portray a virtue as differs to another
- E.g modesty in the Middle East in comparison to the West
- This means that VT is subjective as it depends on the interpretation of the individual
Virtues are universal:
+ Virtues are universal principles that are intrinsically good
+ Cultural differences aren’t relevant as they will still lead to the benefit of the society that
they are applied in
Divine Command Theory:
Intro:
● meta -ethical theory = where does goodness/ morality come from (God)
● Absolutist - standard of right and wrong
● God is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being and the creator of the
world
● All scripture God has given must be followed
● His divine law is objective so DCT takes on a literal interpretation of scripture as they
believe what God says is perfect
● Places religious commands at the centre and God as the originator and regulator of
morality therefore obliged to follow God’s command
Strong form DCT: every minute detail that God said must be followed e.g can’t wear clothes of
multiple fabrics - Leviticus 19:19
Weak form DCT: minute details are unimportant
Robert Adams’ development:
● Morality isn’t just based on God’s command
● It is intrinsic to His omnibenevolent nature
● Moral goodness isn’t arbitrary or cruel as God’s nature is intrinsically loving
● Not logically impossible for a loving God to command cruelty - it’s unthinkable
● Morality is an essential characteristic of God so anything moral reflects God’s character
● ‘Any action is ethically wrong if it’s contrary to the commands of a loving God’ - Adams
AO2:
Euthyphro Dilemma:
1st horn:
- If morality comes from God then does God love good because it is intrinsically good in
itself
- Good exists outside of God’s control
- Therefore God isn’t omnipotent and morality doesn’t come from God
Robert Adam’s DCT:
+ Morality isn’t just based on God’s command
+ Morality is intrinsic to His omnibenevolent nature
+ So good acts are good because it involves following in God’s characteristics of being all
loving
2nd Horn:
- If morality comes from God then good is good because God says that it’s good
- So ‘immoral’ acts can become moral if God ordered it
- God’s command is arbitrary and not morally objective as there is no definitive right and
wrong
,Robert Adam’s DCT:
+ God can’t command anything arbitrary because goodness is intrinsic to His nature
+ Cannot command cruel acts
Prophet Ibrahim/Abraham:
- God commanded Ibrahim to kill his son Ismail for the sake of God
- God commanded a cruel act as killing him would have brought pain to Ibrahim
- Shows God’s orders can be arbitrary
Mackie’s inconsistent triad:
- If God is omnipotent but evil and suffering still exist - God isn’t omnibenevolent (why
would a loving God allowing people to suffer)
- If God is omnibenevolent but evil + suffering still exist - God isn’t omnipotent (If God had
the power why wouldn’t He prevent suffering)
Leibniz:
- If goodness only comes from following God’s command then it has no intrinsic value
- someone doing a good act is only doing it because God commanded rather than
because it’s morally right
- If God commanded one act but wills another to do the opposite - both would be
considered morally good which is rationally absurd
+ God doesn’t command good acts to be done because He commanded them to
+ Commands to do good acts as a means of benefiting others
+ Achieving a positive end goal of heaven that people go to after living a life of good acts
Richard Dawkins Second Argument:
- Morality developed from evolution not religion
- The need to survive promoted selfless and kind acts
- ‘Kin altruism’ - organisms protect their kin
|
+ Doesn’t explain morality to the extent that humans have today
+ Explains why we are moral but doesn’t explain our choices
+ People choose to be moral out of gratitude towards God and understanding of afterlife
, Virtue Theory:
Intro:
● Meta ethical = where does goodness/ morality come from (balance of virtues)
● Normative = interested in what we ought to do
● Aims to achieve complete wellbeing - focusing on intention of act
● Inspired by Plato + Aristotle’s Eudaimonia - introduced the Greek virtues of patience,
temperance, courage and justice
● Encourages establishing good character through good words and habits
● Even though virtues and vices are definitive - VT is relativist
Eudaimonia:
● Eudaimonia is the outcome of being a virtuous person
● Goal of VT is to create a good, happy and fulfilled life
● Intellectual + moral virtues - e.g wisdom, courage, compassion, honesty
● Doctrine of the Mean = to be virtuous, a balance of the 2 extremes (excess and
deficiency) is needed
● Sophron = someone who lives in the mean (virtue) without effort
● Enkrates = someone who is tempted but strong willed to live in the mean
● Akrates = overcome by temptation and weak-willed
Jesus:
● Introduced the beatitudes in the sermon on the mount
● Virtues identified by Jesus: poor in spirit, mourning a meek, hunger for righteousness,
mercy, purity of the heart, peacemakers, persecuted for righteousness - Matthew 5:3-12
● Beatitudes are a model of social and spiritual justice in society
● The Beatitudes offer a roadmap on how to live a pleasing life to God. They
encourage humility, compassion, and a strong desire for justice. By following these
teachings, Christians can strive to live a life that is not only pleasing to God but also
makes a positive impact on those around them.
AO2:
+ Allows people to develop their character
+ Understand how to do moral acts with or without an external structure
- Virtues are arbitrary, imprecise and vague
- Deals primarily with the individual so is hard to generalise or apply to society as a whole
+ VT teaches people to be good people by developing their character to be a good person
and therefore be a positive role model to assist others
+ VT agrees with the idea that being a good person is better than stop doing good deeds
for the sake of yourself
Culturally relative:
- What one culture may portray a virtue as differs to another
- E.g modesty in the Middle East in comparison to the West
- This means that VT is subjective as it depends on the interpretation of the individual
Virtues are universal:
+ Virtues are universal principles that are intrinsically good
+ Cultural differences aren’t relevant as they will still lead to the benefit of the society that
they are applied in
