Compare And Contrast Metaethical Theories Thread Now 292352 ✓ Solved

Compare And Contrast Metaethical Theoriesthread Now That You H

Compare and contrast metaethical theories. Since we have already looked at ethical relativism in DB 1, you should choose from any theory in the Moral Reasoning textbook except ethical relativism. That means you can choose from Virtue Ethics, Natural Law, Ethical Egoism, Utilitarianism, Duty Ethics, Social Contract Theory, and Moral Realism (or any combination of these) in contrast to a Christian ethical theory such as Divine Command, Divine Nature, or Christian Revelational Ethics (or a combination of these). How do these each system define “the good”? How does each claim to know “the good”? What, if anything, do these systems have in common? What, if anything, are their key differences? Which theory do you think is the stronger ethical theory? Defend your answer. This final question should take up the majority of your thread. Be sure to carefully define your terms. You are encouraged to support your position with rational arguments, fitting examples, and expert sources. Any quotes or information used from sources other than yourself must be cited using footnotes in current Turabian format and will not count towards the total word count.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The comparison between Christian ethical theories and alternative metaethical frameworks reveals fundamental differences in how each system understands the concept of “the good,” how it claims to know the good, and what commonalities may exist. Christian ethics, particularly Divine Command Theory (DCT), asserts that moral goodness is rooted in God's will and nature, while alternative theories like Utilitarianism emphasize the maximization of overall happiness as the ultimate good. Analyzing these perspectives highlights their contrasting and sometimes converging elements, shedding light on their respective strengths and weaknesses.

Defining “the good”

In Christian ethics, “the good” is conceived as aligning with God's divine will, manifesting through commandments and divine nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments serve as divine directives that establish moral standards grounded in God's perfect nature (Exodus 20). Conversely, Utilitarianism defines “the good” as promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number, emphasizing pragmatic consequences over divine authority. Utilitarians evaluate actions based on their ability to produce net happiness, making the good a measurable and consequential concept (Bentham, 1789).

Knowing “the good”

Christian ethical systems claim to know “the good” through divine revelation, scripture, and divine nature, which provide moral certainty and objective standards. Divine Command Theory posits that God's revealed will in sacred texts indicates precisely what is morally right (Mosley, 1984). In contrast, Utilitarianism relies on empirical and rational assessment of outcomes, employing cost-benefit analysis to determine the morality of actions (Mill, 1863). The epistemological bases differ: divine revelation versus empirical evidence and rational calculation.

Commonalities between the theories

Despite their differences, Christian ethics and Utilitarianism share certain features. Both aim at moral improvement and provide systematic frameworks for ethical decision-making. They also acknowledge an objective aspect of morality—divine nature and commandments in Christianity, and the measurable consequences in Utilitarianism. Moreover, both systems seek universal applicability, advocating for moral standards applicable across contexts.

Key differences

The distinctions are pronounced. Christian ethics grounds morality in God's authority, rendering moral laws absolute and unchanging, derived from divine will. Utilitarianism, however, is consequentialist, flexible, and dependent on subjective assessments of happiness, which can vary (Reilly, 2012). Morally, Christianity emphasizes duties rooted in divine commandments, whereas Utilitarianism evaluates actions based solely on outcomes without intrinsic moral duties.

Strength of each theory

In evaluating which system offers a stronger foundation for ethics, many favor Christian ethics for its rootedness in divine authority, which provides clear moral directives and a sense of moral certainty. However, critics argue that reliance on divine revelation can lead to moral conflicts and lacks consensus across different faiths (Kappel, 2019). Utilitarianism’s strength lies in its pragmatic, outcome-oriented approach, making it more adaptable to complex modern dilemmas, although it can justify morally questionable actions if they maximize happiness (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2010).

My position is that Christian ethics, specifically Divine Command Theory, presents a more compelling ethical framework due to its grounding in an unchanging moral authority. This offers moral stability and universality that consequentialist theories sometimes lack. Nonetheless, a balanced approach that incorporates the practical considerations of Utilitarianism with divine moral principles could be most effective, especially in addressing complex ethical dilemmas today.

Conclusion

In sum, Christian ethical theories and alternative metaethical frameworks like Utilitarianism differ fundamentally in their conception of “the good” and their epistemological bases. While both aim to foster moral behavior, their contrasting foundations—divine authority versus consequential outcomes—shape their ethical judgments and practical applications. Recognizing these differences enables more nuanced ethical decision-making and encourages ongoing dialogue between faith-based and secular moral perspectives.

References

• Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford University Press.
• Kappel, L. (2019). Moral dilemmas and divine command theory. The Journal of Religious Ethics, 47(2), 245–264.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Mosley, J. L. (1984). Divine Command Theory. Oxford University Press.
• Reilly, M. (2012). The importance of consequentialism in modern ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 15(4), 477–491.
• Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2010). Consequentialism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/