In this course we have encountered several moral theories, including Egoism, Divine Command Theory, Relativism, Natural Law Theory, Consequentialism, Kantianism, and Virtue Ethics. The task at hand is to determine which of these theories is best and to substantiate the reasons for this using specific criteria, meanwhile outlining the strengths and weaknesses of each moral theory. From the outset, it should be stated that a combination of multiple theories works best in practice and best accounts for the varieties of situations in life, personal backgrounds, and specific contexts in which people confront moral dilemmas.
However, the strength of a multi-form inclusion of theories does not prevent us from arguing for a specific position as best and attempting to defend that position as such. I will contend that Divine Command Theory provides the best single moral theory, based primarily on its approach to authority and the relative weaknesses of the other theories in accounting for this.
Since many of these theories were defined in my previous essays, I will not explain each of them at length or discussion the debates over how exactly the moral theory should be described. Divine Command Theory states that God, or some divine being, determines right and wrong and dictates this authoritatively and in an unnegotiable manner. People often confuse it with a deontological viewpoint but this is not entirely correct, since the theory of divine command actually holds that God determines right and wrong, whether that be via law, virtue or some other method of situational ethics (Timmons 2012).
The greatest alternative to Divine Command Theory is Egoism, which holds that instead of God or a divine being the individual person determines right and wrong. Each person holds moral authority and thereby no universal notion of good and evil exists; rather, to each his own. This theory fails to account for the moral instincts that characterize humans at large, who have largely agreed upon feelings and thoughts about right and wrong, despite exceptional deviations from this. For instance, egoism would hold that if someone wanted to beat a child on the street, then that is alright since that individual determines right and wrong. But the large majority of people would object to this activity, giving rise to questions of larger moral authorities at work.
Relativism falls to the same fate as Egoism, since it simply allows people to do what is right from their own perspective, though without the firm notion of self-interest that drives the egoist (Timmons 2012). Natural Law Theory, and similarly Kantianism, find ethical law writ within the human person and nature at large. The strength of these theories when compared to the previous relativistic modes of thought appear in their commitment to an absolute belief to right and wrong; activities and intentions are good or they are bad, perhaps also somewhere in between, but these ideas hold firm and are not determined by individuals. Nature itself determines them and individuals therefore discover them.
The weakness of Natural Law Theory, as well as Kantianism, is that it does not explain the source of moral authority. How can nature determine what humans should do? How can a categorical imperative exist at all times and in all places, if so much change occurs in the world and throughout time? Whilst these questions deserve a thorough consideration, I would suggest that they do not receive successful answers, or answers that redeem these theories from their problems. Nature simply is, and communicates what is happened and what has happened; it does not legislate what ought to be or what we should do. While human beings may share certain traits and moral intuitions, even a sort of shared absolute law as Kant would argue, the source of this shared norm or universal intuition does not receive an adequate explanation from these theories. We must appeal to something greater, something more authoritative and I would say creative. If a divine being created nature and human beings, with some level of similarity and moral intuition, then Divine Command Theory further promotes itself over and against these theories.
The two final theories to consider are Consequentialism and Virtue Ethics, both of which have much to commend themselves. Consequentialism accounts for each situation and the nuances of specific moral dilemmas. While at its worst this theory succumbs to relativism, at its best it simply applies moral norms to specific situations and maintains moral integrity and authority. Yet again, however, we must ask where these norms come from and who determines what is right and wrong in each situation. Similarly, virtue ethics holds that the good person does what is good and the bad person what it bad; furthermore, the supremely virtuous man or woman determines what is right and wrong. This theory also lends itself to malleability in situations and also accounts for someone’s personal character and background as a serious influence on moral activity, which I heartily agree with. However, it fails to acknowledge what virtues are best or normative and why a bad person is bad. Who or what determines this? If it is the “supremely virtuous person” then who has deemed that person as such?
Divine Command Theory offers a source and authority for the norms that Consequentialism and Virtue Ethics lack. It supplies a personal being behind which each of of the other moral theories can stand, especially when it is not understood in a strictly deontological way but rather considered as providing a source of moral authority that applies to each and every aspect of moral thought: the person, law, and situation. While not without its weaknesses—namely which divine being should we accept? How do they communicate to us? How do we know what they have said? And so on—its strengths offer a necessary element that responds satisfactorily to the shortcomings of the other moral theories laid out in this course.
