Ethc 101 Discussion Board Reply Grading Rubric Criteria Leve ✓ Solved

Ethc 101discussion Board Reply Grading Rubriccriterialevels Of Achieve

Analyze and compare utilitarianism and divine command theory, discussing their main principles, strengths, criticisms, and how they can influence moral decision-making. Include historical and contemporary perspectives, citing credible sources to support your analysis.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Utilitarianism and divine command theory are two significant approaches in ethical philosophy that offer contrasting perspectives on what constitutes moral actions. This paper explores their core principles, evaluates their strengths and weaknesses, and discusses their implications for moral decision-making. By analyzing their historical development and contemporary relevance, we can better understand how these theories influence moral reasoning and behavior.

Introduction to Utilitarianism and Divine Command Theory

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical framework that evaluates the morality of actions based on their outcomes, specifically focusing on maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. Rooted in the works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism advocates for actions that produce the greatest good for the greatest number (Mill, 1863). Bentham introduced the concept of hedonic calculus, a method to quantify pleasure and pain, emphasizing the need to consider the intensity, duration, and number of individuals affected by an act (Bentham, 1789). Utilitarianism considers happiness as the ultimate intrinsic good, advocating for moral decisions that lead to positive consequences.

In contrast, divine command theory posits that morality is grounded in the commands of a divine being, typically God. This meta-ethical perspective holds that moral rightness is determined by divine edicts, and moral obligations stem from God's will (Adams, 1979). The theory emphasizes obedience to divine commands as the pathway to moral virtue and often asserts that moral laws are independent of human opinions or societal conventions. Different formulations exist, with some philosophers like Linda Zagzebski asserting that moral goodness also depends on God's motivations and character, not just commands (Zagzebski, 2004).

Principles and Strengths

Utilitarianism's central principle is the maximization of happiness. Its strength lies in its flexibility and capacity to weigh actions based on objective criteria, providing a clear framework for decision-making in complex situations. It encourages impartiality, treating everyone's interests equally, and can be applied to various contexts, from personal choices to public policies (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019). Its quantitative approach allows for systematic evaluation of outcomes, promoting societal well-being.

Divine command theory's primary strength is its foundation in divine authority, which provides a clear and absolute moral standard. It offers a transcendent basis for morality that does not depend on human judgments or societal consensus. This theory aligns moral duties with spiritual and religious convictions, fostering moral obedience and personal virtue. It can also provide moral clarity in situations where outcomes are uncertain or subjective, emphasizing the importance of integrity and obedience to divine will (Craig, 1990).

Criticisms and Weaknesses

Utilitarianism faces criticism for its difficulty in quantifying happiness and comparing different individuals' pleasures and pains. Critics argue that the calculus can be impractical and that moral decisions might justify morally questionable actions if they produce the greatest happiness (Williams, 1973). Additionally, utilitarianism is accused of neglecting individual rights and justice, potentially endorsing actions that are morally problematic if they maximize overall welfare (Driver, 2014).

Divine command theory is challenged by the Euthyphro dilemma, which questions whether moral actions are good because God commands them or if God commands them because they are inherently good. This raises issues about moral autonomy and the independence of moral standards from divine authority (Plato, c. 380 BCE). Critics also argue that divine command theory may lead to morally counterintuitive commands and that it relies heavily on religious faith, which may not be universally accepted or accessible to all (Euthyphro, Plato).

Implications for Moral Decision-Making

Both theories influence moral reasoning differently. Utilitarianism guides decisions by assessing outcomes, emphasizing empirical evaluation and moral impartiality, which can lead to utilitarian calculus in policy and everyday ethics (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019). Divine command theory encourages adherence to divine laws, fostering moral consistency rooted in religious beliefs and spiritual commitments (Craig, 1990). In practice, these perspectives can complement each other, with divine commands providing moral principles and utilitarianism aiding in evaluating their practical consequences.

Conclusion

While utilitarianism offers a pragmatic approach emphasizing consequences and happiness, divine command theory provides a transcendent foundation based on divine authority. Both have their strengths: utilitarianism's flexibility and emphasis on collective welfare; divine command theory's moral clarity and spiritual grounding. However, their weaknesses, such as quantification challenges and reliance on divine authority, highlight the importance of critical ethical reflection. Integrating insights from both perspectives can enrich moral decision-making, fostering ethically responsible behavior aligned with both societal well-being and spiritual principles.

References

• Adams, R. M. (1979). Finite and Infinite Good: A Framework for Ethical Theory. Oxford University Press.
• Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Clarendon Press.
• Craig, W. L. (1990). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Crossway Books.
• Driver, J. (2014). The History of Utilitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/
• Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019). Consequentialism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (E. N. Zalta, Ed.).
• Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press.
• Zagzebski, L. T. (2004). The Dilemma of Moral Motivation. Cambridge University Press.