Essay On Divine Command Theory

Advocates that describe letting someone die as being more moral than killing someone often cite the trolley case as support for their argument, and use modus tollens. Where a trolley is coming down the track towards a group of five unsuspecting individuals, and you are in a position to pull a lever. Pulling the lever switches the tracks to just kill one unsuspecting person. Their argument is that if you pull the lever to switch the track to kill the one individual; then, by deciding who dies, you are morally worse than if you had done nothing. You don’t pull the lever, there for you are not morally worse having done nothing. This uses the form of modus tollens; If p then q, ~p, therefore ~q. Implying that letting an individual die is more
morally sound than intentionally killing them. The argument is valid, however from a utilitarian perspective it is not sound. Utility and disutility are the main factors when deciding whether an action is right or not, from a utilitarian perspective. The principle of utility is that action is determined right if the action produces more of an increase in happiness to all those affected by it than by any alternative action. If it does not adhere to this, the action is deemed wrong. Therefore the argument in the trolley case, that doing nothing is the morally better option than pulling the lever is not sound. By doing nothing the trolley will end up killing five unsuspecting people, rather than pulling the lever to just kill the one individual. Pulling the lever is clearly the better option because the loss of potential happiness from five individuals is much greater than the loss of happiness from one person. While pulling the lever does place the individuals death on your hands; the deaths of five individuals would produce much more disutility than then death of one. From a utilitarian perspective the choice is not that difficult, and is more of a measure of happiness in deciding what to do. Outside of the trolley case, utilitarianism would still be favor of killing an individual over letting them die. For example, terminally ill patients have a small amount of potential utility and happiness that they can produce. Accordingly, from utilitarianism says that they should be killed rather than let them die. While this seems like Utilitarianism is less about what an individual wants and more about having the most happiness of the whole; Utilitarianism is not in favor of deliberately killing individuals that have a terminal illness. However it is in favor of providing them with the choice of legally ending their lives. In cases where the patient is unresponsive and cannot speak for themselves, for a prolonged period of time, the utilitarian perspective is to kill them rather than keep them alive artificially. Keeping them alive artificially may prolong the inevitability of the sadness of the death to their loved ones. Nonetheless, it does nothing to increase the amount of happiness or utility they have the potential to provide. Additionally, keeping them alive may be consuming resources that could be used to save an individual, that is not terminal or in a prolonged coma state. From a utilitarian perspective killing someone is not morally worse than letting someone die. At variance with the utilitarian perspective, is the perspective of a divine command theory believer.
While in utilitarianism an action is held to be good according to the amount of utility and happiness it can produce; divine command theory believes that an action is only morally good if it is the result of the action being commanded by God. With respect to the argument of whether killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die; an advocate of divine command theory would state that as humans, we do not have the right the dictate whether a person lives or dies. Therefore letting someone die is most often morally better than intentionally killing someone, regardless of the circumstances. Except if God commands that said individual should die, only then is it morally better. In the trolley case, it would be better to do nothing from the divine command theory perspective. It may have even been meant to be that the trolley kill the five people rather than the one. So what right do humans have to interfere with things that have been set in motion, possible as God’s will. In spite of how atrocious it may seem, what is morally right is what God desires. Divine command theory sees utilitarianism as trying to play God, in determining what produces the most utility. Individuals do not have the wherewithal to decide another humans happiness potential, possibly not even their own. Death is only acceptable with it is God’s will, not a humans choice. It is important to note,
that it is also possible to be a divine command theory proponent and not believe in a abrahamic God. Belief in a god or not, does not deviate from the divine command theory belief that it is morally worse to purposefully kill someone, rather than simply letting them die. A higher power or God, is the only one with the right to when and how an individuals life will end. Humans’ do not have the right to decide their own mortality let alone the mortality of others, and by going against this, it is analogous to going against the will of God. Letting someone die, is usually the morally better option from the divine command theory perspective. In the case of terminally ill patients, it is viewed that they should be left to die naturally, rather than have the choice to end their suffering prematurely. Allowing assisted suicide is playing God, and this is morally much worse than suffering to the end. A divine command they believer may state that with todays medical advancements, the suffering of an individual can be controlled and reduced until they naturally pass away. Thus allowing for reduced suffering that utilitarianism is so committed to.