Tulod, Byron Jon

Seminar 3

2016400264, 2-E, Th, 7:30 8:30

September 1, 2016

Man as Intrinsically Moral

ABSTRACT
This paper tackles the morality of man and God, focusing on Divine Command Theory which
identifies rightness being commanded or willed by God. Basic principles and one of the
arguments against the said theory are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Many theorists have developed theories to understand and define the ability of people to
reason morally. Moral reasoning is defined as the thinking process where the objective is to
determine whether an idea is right or wrong and involves the formation of values on which
someone bases their decisions. Theorists have different views on moral reasoning and the factors
that contribute to an individuals level of reasoning capabilities.
The determination of what might be considered right and morally acceptable, personally,
as we approach adulthood, is one of the most difficult stages in life. There might be instances
that are more obvious to some and will get the same reaction afterwards but we are left with a
question as to why these acts are good and moral. The real question is whether morally good acts
are willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are
willed by God?
The aforementioned question will be specifically addressed by the Divine Command
Theory of Morality on which many philosophers have argued as far as morality and moral
behavior. Further, it will provide us a foundation to prove that man is not made as intrinsically
moral but rather, he is made based on Gods morality.
DISCUSSION
Basically, Divine Command Theory is the view that morality is somehow dependent upon
God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to Gods commands. Divine Command
Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of

God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or requires. The specific
content of these divine commands varies according to the particular religion and the particular
views of the individual divine command theorist, but all versions of the theory hold in common
the claim that morality and moral obligations ultimately depend on God.1
In other words, this theory states that actions are considered morally good because they
are commanded by God. Since God created the heavens and Earth, according to various religions
past and present, God must have created the good will and moral acts. This, for me, as a believer
of God, seems legitimate in all aspects of thinking, but what about the people around the world
that do not believe in God or a God? Are they subject to the same way of thinking that the we
believers are? After all, the Divine Command Theory is clear and concise about what constitutes
a good, moral act and where it came from.
However, there are some people that would argue against the said theory, that is, morality
cannot be dependent on the will of God. That is, man is intrinsically moral. A particular arguer
would be Kai Nielsen who advances an argument for the claim that religion and morality are
logically independent. In his Ethics Without Religion, Nielsen admits that it may certainly be
prudent to obey the commands of any powerful person, including God. However, it does not
follow that such obedience is morally obligatory. For a command of Gods to be relevant to our
moral obligations in any particular instance, God must be good. And while the religious believer
does maintain that God is good, Nielsen wants to know the basis for such a belief. In response, a
believer might claim that she knows God is good because the Bible teaches this, or because Jesus
embodied and displayed Gods goodness, or that the world contains evidence in support of the
claim that God is good.2 However, these responses show that the believer herself has some
logically prior criterion of goodness based on something apart from the mere fact that God exists
or that God created the universe. Otherwise, how does she know that her other beliefs about the
Bible, Jesus, or the state of the world support her belief that God is good? To make her
arguments simple, Nielsen basically contests that we simply do not have evidence for the
1 Divine Command Theory, retrieved September 1, 2016 from
http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/
2 Ethics Without Religion, Kai Nielsen, Ohio University Review 6, 1964, 48-51, 57-62.

existence of God. As a consequence, believers claim that human nature is truly fulfilled in
relationship to God is groundless.
CONCLUSION
Regardless of what one makes of this, a broad perspective when approaching this
particular subject should be taken into consideration as there will always be connections between
theories, religions and moral issues. In other words, it is a matter of beliefs. But from a personal
standpoint, I believe that God was the soul Creator of the world and that we should look to him
to find out the divine meaning of life and how to respond and act to achieve his mission for me.
As much as human beings are rational, and that we can follow our instincts and live a life of
moral goodness, I still believe that there is a higher rational Being who made us rational to be
able to fulfill our moral obligations which consist in obedience to His commands.