Theists one who believes in Gods existence Ethical Objectivity states a moral law can be true independently of what anyone, anywhere thinks of them

Theists one who believes in Gods existence Ethical Objectivity states a moral law can be true independently of what anyone, anywhere thinks of them



one who believes in Gods existence

Ethical Objectivity

states a moral law can be true independently of what anyone, anywhere thinks of them


one who doesn’t believe in God’s existence

The argument from atheism

Ethics is only objective if God exist but God doesn’t exist. Therefore ethics cant be objective.

The Divine Command Theory

States an act as morally right as long as God commands it to be

What is the issue? Give an overview of the topic, how it deals with the relation between divinity/morality

Does ethical objectivity require God? Shafer-Landu states that most people think if moral rules are objective then they are authored by God. This includes theists many of whom that only believe in God because they believe in ethical objectivity and don’t have another way of defending that idea. It also includes atheists who embrace moral skepticism, only because they think the only escape from it is God, who atheists obviously reject.

The Argument from atheism
A. Give the argument
B. Why, according to Shafer-Landu, is it unsound?

A. The argument from atheism says ethics is objective if God exist, but God doesn’t exist. Therefore, ethics isn’t objective.
B. It is unsound because the reasoning that supports this purpose is one atheists wont accept. The reasoning stipulated that laws require lawmakers, and that objective laws required God. Since atheists deny God’s existence they must either reject the existence of any objective laws, or reject the claim that laws require lawmakers. Since they can easily accept that there at least some objective laws, they should deny that laws require authors. Therefore there is no reason to suppose that objective moral rules require God.

The conversation
A. Socrates and Euthyphro–the major points
B. Explain the shift from polytheism to monotheism

A. In one of Plato’s dialogue, a man named Euthyphro confidentially tells Socrates of his impending lawsuit against his own father, because he allowed a slave to die of exposure, which is murder and piety requires a conviction. This caused Euthyphro and Socrates to discuss the nature of piety that would have lasting circumstances in the history of western thought. Euthyphro would later be remembered for causing the dilemma Socrates sets the title character: is an action pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious?
B. Shafer-Landu shifts from polytheism to monotheism by focusing on rightness rather than piety and narrowing it down to one God for the arguments sake.
If God loves actions because they are right then his power would be undermined. Gods love isn’t what makes an action right. Actions could still be right independently of God’s love. Therefore God isn’t author of moral law, but rather one who greatly appreciates it.

The dilemma/definitions
A. Divine Command Theory
B. Ethical Objectivism

A. The Divine Command Theory states an act is morally right as long as God commands it to be. Basically it has us picture a God who controls our in game in his entirety, making up all the rules, and giving no reason for doing so.
B. While The Divine Command Theory states an act is moral as long as God commands it, Ethical Objectivism claims that there are correct moral standards that are true independently of what anyone, anywhere, thinks of them. These moral values belong there by nature. Math, logic, and natural sciences could all be examples for those that aren’t human nor divine artifacts. Although that doesn’t necessarily prove ethical laws are objective, it does show God doesn’t need to exist in order to establish objective laws.

The dilemma/implications
A. Criticisms of Divine Command Theory
B. Scripture implies right hand side?

A. If God’s say-so is what make actions right or wrong, then we have to ask: does God command and love things for reasons, or just arbitrarily? If arbitrarily is the case then this is hardly a God worthy of worship. If there were no moral rules or reasons prior to what God commands, then there is nothing could rely on to justify his theory. Without ethical objectivism and relying on The Divine Command Theory, God could of easily flipped the script between good and evil.
B. Shafer-Landu suggests that even theists should resist the idea that God is the author of moral law. A perfectly good God would command actions because they are right, but in order for that to happen there must be an authorless moral code that is not authored from God but recognized by God. God’s existence will always be an on going debate, but whether God exists or not doesn’t effect ethical objectivism. No matter God’s role in morality, whether it be “the author” or “the perfect enforcer” ethics can still be objective.

Do you need the solution to this question?

Click the link below to ask for an answer.

Get help with your essays and assignments

Order custom essays from top writers and get a professional paper delivered to your email on time.

Do my Paper