Ethical Theories

A paper on Divine Command Theory, Utilitarianism, and Morality.

Morality is a divisive concept that, if universally defined, would end many debates, crimes, and justice systems entirely. Whether an action is morally “right” or “wrong” is challenging to specify, though many scholars and philosophers have tried. With the existence of moral judgments, individuals are held to a higher responsibility, as their individual actions define their moral value and worth. An action can be viewed on its own, for its merit and effects, but the agent behind the action can be examined for intent and means in turn. Morality plays a large role in the examination of actions, and the attempts to define moral actions have shaped many large societal values and judgments. With a widening philosophical world comes a broad spectrum of moral values, two examples being Divine Command Theory and Utilitarianism.

Divine Command Theory is an examination of morality on the basis that God commands morally correct actions, condemning immoral acts in turn. The theory is often regarded as one of the first true ethical theories, as many figures in religious history were bound to its values, even before it was given a name. Religious texts such as the Bible, Torah, or Qur’an, hold value for those who align with the values of Divine Command Theory, as the word of God, in whatever form it is presented, defines morality. In a paper on the theory, Robert Merrihew Adams examines how Divine Command Theory intersects with moral wrongness, stating that: “[It] is the theory that ethical wrongness consists in being contrary to God’s commands…” In this definition, an action can be defined as morally right or wrong in accordance with an assessment of God’s will and commands.

Utilitarianism is a theory proposed by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham in the mid-1800s. The theory presents happiness as the ultimate goal of any action, examining situations under the belief that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” As a moral boundary, this theory has less definition than most, seeing as actions’ outcomes must be observed, rather than the actions themselves. Utilitarianism doesn’t seek to critique the agent, who could have intended any number of negative things with their action, but instead focuses on the net happiness gained by any particular event. A morally correct action defined by this theory could have a variety of intents or motives, so long as it creates more happiness than was previously present.

To contrast these theories, we may examine any number of historical actions, one of which being colonization with religious intent. The people carrying out these actions, if observed within Divine Command Theory, could be argued to be moral, even while they cause harm and cultural erasure to other groups, simply due to the fact that they are acting in what they believe to be God’s will. Under a Utilitarian view, however, this action is less easily defined. A targeted community could be devastated by these actions, but the majority involved, the offending group, could be gaining pleasure by “improving” the lives of the people they’ve targeted. Mill’s definition of happiness as “pleasure and the absence of pain” comes into play here, where the early changes made to a colonized community’s daily life could be considered moral, as the oppressive intent behind these actions isn’t relevant so long as a comparative number of people gain pleasure from the act. Divine Command Theory completely ignores the group in question, because in the case that the instructions to colonize do come from God, the harm that they may cause is irrelevant. Moral theories such as these are directly involved in the judgment of actions, but no theory is perfect, least of all either presented here. Both theories propose solutions to the definition of morality but fail to highlight the full effects of actions, choosing to define morality under imperfect and incalculable lenses.