Individual Reconstruction Assessment Divine Command theory is the view that righ
ID: 3499911 • Letter: I
Question
Individual Reconstruction Assessment Divine Command theory is the view that right actions are those commanded by God, and wrong actions are those forbidden by God. As individuals, make a formal reconstruction of the following argument. Either actions are morally right because God commands them or God commands actions because they are morally right. If God commands actions because they are morally right, then Divine Command Theory is false. "If actions are morally right just because God commands them to be so, then it is possible that any actions whatsoever could be morally right. The murder and rape of innocents, the oppression of the weak, the abuse of the poor--these and many other awful deeds would be morally permissible if God so willed. There would be no independent standard to judge that these acts are wrong, no moral reasons apart from God's will to suggest that such deeds are evil. God would be free to establish arbitrarily any actions whatsoever as morally right (18). Therefore, Divine Command theory is false. Your reconstruction should answer all of the following 1. What is the conclusion of this argument? 2. What sort of argument is this (Deductive, Inductive, IBE)? 3. Identify the premises of this argument. Set them out in order in a numbered list 4. Pick one supporting detail that appears in this argument something in the argument that is neither a premise nor a conclusion. What premise does this detail support? Why isn't it a premise on its own? 5. Is this argument cogent or valid (Pick the appropriate one given your answer to 2)? 6. Do you think that this argument is strong/sound (Pick the appropriate one. No need to defend your answer here)? 7. Predict how this assessment went for you. Do you think that your reconstruction was successful given the standards set out in the rubric? 8. What was you biggest challenge when completing this assessment?Explanation / Answer
Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary. Also, I have not answered 7 and 8 as you need an outlined rubric for the assessment.
(Answer) (1) The argument posted above to negate the divine theory is that if morality is based merely on God’s command, then God could command wrongdoings like murder as well and it would be considered moral. Therefore, the argument tries to conclude that the divine theory is false since any action could be assumed to be God’s will.
(2) The argument above seems like an IBE or abduction reasoning. This is where the Hypothesis A (divine theory) is inferred from the available reasoning B (morality is God’s command). Through this reasoning, one should infer the best hypothesis that explains the reasoning. In other words, the hypothesis directs the reasoning when it should actually be that the reasoning directs the hypothesis.
(3) (a) God’s law is moral.
(b) What is moral is good.
(c) What is moral is good because God commands it.
(d) If God commands murder, it might be moral too because God commands it.
(4) If actions are right because God commands them, then if God would command murder, it would be right. This is the argument proposed above. However, the statement starts with an “if,” so to say that it is hypothetical and so far there hasn’t been any command from God that says humans should murder and commit atrocities. There is absolutely no proof that God has commanded humans to do these bad things. Therefore, it is neither a premise nor an argument. In fact, the point isn’t even viable as it does not have supporting evidence.
(5) This argument isn’t valid. That is because it is poor research and analysis when one might use reasoning to purposefully land on a particular hypothesis. The person making this argument is simply trying to prove a hypothesis with hypothetical reasoning by assuming that God could command humans to commit murder and other acts. In research, the reasoning should be able to objectively prove or disprove our guesses or hypothesis. Whereas, the argument above goes backward and the hypothesis is used to formulate a biased reasoning through hypothetical evidence.
(6) IBE or inference to the best explanation arguments is generally not sound. That is because it involves making an inference and not really deducing or inducing through obvious data or hard evidence.