Divine Command Theory
In Good Minus God, Antony (2011) examines morality through the prism of the Divine Command Theory and Divine Independence Theory. Both theories approach morality as life framework but suggest the different interpretation of its origin and motivation of moral actions.
The similarity and differences between the Divine Command Theory and the Divine Independence Theory are understood when examining the major ideas underlying both. The former theory suggests that “Whatever the gods love – that’s pious” (Antony, p. 5); for example, it is moral to take care of children because the God approves it. Unlike the Divine Command Theory, the Divine Independence Theory suggests that the goodness of an action “is independent of, and antecedent to God’s willing it” (Antony, p. 6).
Proponents of this theory do not torture prisoners, enslave people, or support genocide because they consider it to be immoral in itself, rather than compliant to the divine will.Although proponents of both theories elect to do moral things, their motivation is very different. Supporters of Divine Command Theory act morally because they expect a specific reward – “the guarantee of redemption” (Antony, p. 8), “the promise made by many religions, that God will forgive you if you are truly sorry…” (ibid). In turn, proponents of Divine Independence Theory elect to act morally, because they know that choices that they make contributions to the value of their entire life.
Summing up, it is suggested that Divine Command Theory and Divine Independence Theory are similar in terms of their promoting morality. However, their proponents consider different sources of morality, and their decision to do moral things has a completely different motivation.
Antony, Louise M. Good Minus God. NY Times, 2011. Web. 9 September …