The name "God Command Theory" can be used to refer to any of the various related ethical theories. What these theories hold in common is that they use God's will as the basis of morality. According to sacred command theory, things are morally good or bad, or moral obligations, simply because of God's will or command, are allowed or prohibited.
It is often said that the theory of God's command is being rebutted by Euthyphro's dilemma argument. This argument is named for Plato's Euthyphro derived from it (contrary to the general idea, this argument has not been explained there).
The dilemma of Euthyphro first doubts: Are they morally good So is God morally good, or are they God's will Will they be morally good? No matter how experts answered this question, we all are thinking about the problem.
If Theist gives the first answer to Euthyphro's dilemma, then it is God's will to maintain morally good behavior. Since they are morally good, they must be morally good and have to be independent of the will of God. This is obviously incompatible with God's instruction theory; sacred command theorist must give Euthyphro's dilemma a second answer
If Theist gives a second answer to Euthyphro's dilemma, morally good behavior is morally good, because they are God's will, and he is morally good, and he is arbitrariness, emptiness, and abnormal command issue I will face.
The problem of arbitrariness is that sacred command theory seems to be based on morality in God's quirkiness. If divine instruction theory is true, it seems that God's command can not be recognized by morality or morality. But how can this ethical arbitrary order be the foundation of morality?
The question of emptiness is that in the analysis of God's command of moral goodness, sentences such as "God is good" and "Order of God is good" can be given an empty tautology. "God's command follows His orders"
The problem of malicious instruction is that if you want to condemn malicious acts, such as malicious fraud, deliberate atrocities, or the like, sacred instruction theory seems to be meaningful.
Because sacred command theory is not the only ethical theory in Christian tradition, even if these objections are considered successful, you do not need to pay too much attention. But theologians are attracted to the instructional theory of God and therefore there is a theological reason to try to defend it. God is a creator of all things and is therefore claimed to be the creator of our moral obligation. God is claimed to have sovereignty and has the right to tell us the way to live your life.
Like the Egyptian looting [Exodus 11: 2] or preparing to sacrifice a man's son [Genesis 22: 2], the divine command of action that is considered morally wrong There is also an example. It is a good moral. These considerations are easiest, but they are not simply adapted to the sacred moral teaching theory.
Sacred instruction theory is the theory of meta-cognition only when the act is mandatory, as long as it is directed by God. The sacred command theory is often argued as confirmed by "Euthyphro's dilemma" (as it first appeared in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro). Philosophers often discuss sacred command theory as ethical theory based on pure reason, but that theory also raises questions about the relationship between reason and belief like Krkey. Guoer's philosophy is shown. He talked about Abraham's dilemma about a position beyond the moral realm of his son Isaac's "faith of leap".
The name "God Command Theory" can be used to refer to any of the various related ethical theories. What these theories hold in common is that they use God's will as the basis of morality. According to God's command theory, things are simply morally good or bad, moral obligations, permitted or prohibited, due to God's will or order. If Theist gives the first answer to Euthyphro's dilemma, then it is God's will to maintain morally good behavior. Since they are morally good, they must be morally good and have to be independent of the will of God. This is obviously incompatible with God's instruction theory; sacred command theorist must give Euthyphro's dilemma a second answer