For this order I just need you to do the ANNOTATIONS of the Bibliography. The writter that work on it did a good essay but the annotations were not done poorly. I will include the readings and video of the file used for the essay and I will also include the essay with it references but you only write the ANNOTATIONS of the Bibliography.
In 500 words or more (no less), explain how one might apply the meta-ethics of Divine Command Theory to an egoist theory, a consequentialist theory, and a deontological theory. You may use examples, but you will still need to include a full scholarly definition of each, with commentary. You may use any scholarly source other than a dictionary, to include online video lectures. You may use Wikipedia as a starting point, but be aware that Wikipedia is not a scholarly source and therefore can never be quoted in your paper or counted as 1 of your 5 bibliographic citations. You will need to include inline citations in your essay (last name, date, pg#) and must still cite any sources beyond the five required that you use to write your paper in the references section of your essay. If you include an inline citation, there must be a corresponding entry in the reference list or bibliography. You can find tools and examples of APA citation formats at the Purdue University Online Writing Lab.
You are required to submit a separate annotated bibliography. Using the resource center and the scholarly research tools I listed in the course introduction, for your research. With that information, create an annotated bibliography with 5 sources related to the ethical theory of the week.
READINGS:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/
Required Reading: Religion & Morality
Watch::
The completed Essay:
Divine Command Theory
Students Name:
Name of Institution:
Date of Submission:
Divine Command Theory
Theological voluntarism or divine command theory is a theory on meta-ethics which argues that the status of an action as being morally sound is judged based on whether God commands it. It argues that moral deeds are determined by the commands God makes, and for people to become moral, they have to adhere to such commands (Quinn, 2013). The followers of polytheist and monotheist religion in modern and ancient times agree on the essential nature of God’s commands towards morality. It teaches that ethical or moral truth cannot exist without God and that His divine commands determine the morality of actions. Adherents of this theory believe that the obligation of morals involves obeying all the commands from God (Harrison, 2015). In simple terms, morally right actions involve the desires of God.
To apply this theory on egoist, consequentialist and deontologist theorists require understanding the standpoint of the morality of actions. Egoist theory is a normative position on ethics that agents of morals ought to behave based on self-interest (Rachels, 2012). It holds that any action that is done to benefit the person doing it is considered to be ethical. Applying divine theory to the adherents of egoism theory would involve finding out what they believe about God and morals. The reason is that egoist people are self-centered as they believe that what they do is morally good, provided it benefits them. One has to make them understand that the actions may not be pleasing God or maybe hurting others. They have to learn that hurting God and fellow others cannot be morally upright even when they see benefits (Broad, 2014). If basing the understanding of self-interest or self-centeredness from the bible teachings, it is clear that the behavior is in itself not morally right. The idea involves making egoist people learn about making God and others happy so that they may consider changing their minds. They have to read the bible and learn what God says about Himself and other people that He created.
Consequentialism theory normatively holds that the outcome of people’s behavior is based on the judgment that the act is wrong or right. From the standpoint of consequentialism, ethically right action is the one that produces consequences or outcomes considered to be good (Kalajtzidis, 2013). Applying divine theory, in this case, means making the consequentialist theorists learn that not all outcomes of an action are morally correct even when they please the doer or other people. They have to include what they believe about God, the creator, to the action to determine how right or wrong it is, regardless of the outcome (Rachels, 2012). One has to take them back to the action and not the effect. They need to know what God says about the action since He is interested in behavior and not necessarily the outcomes.
Deontological theory or duty-based, rule-based, and obligation-based theory holds that an action’s morality should be based on whether it is wrong or right under a set of rules but not its outcome or consequences (Alexander, & Moore, 2007). Applying the divine command theory on deontologists is easy since they believe that rules define the rightfulness or wrongness of actions. It would mean giving them God’s rules and defining what they mean about human actions. They will easily belief after they learn that God’s rules exist and should be followed when doing actions.
References
Quinn, P. L. (2013). Divine command theory. The Blackwell guide to ethical theory, 81-102.
The reference gave a summary of the theory.
Harrison, G. K. (2015). The Euthyphro, divine command theory, and moral realism. Philosophy, 90(1), 107-123.
The reference expounded on the divine command theory.
Broad, C. D. (2014). Five types of ethical theory. Routledge.
The source was broad enough and looked at the theory from different perspectives.
Rachels, J. (2012). Ethical egoism. Ethical theory: an anthology, 14, 193.
The source discussed the issue of ethics from a broad perspective.
Driver, J. (2011). Consequentialism. Routledge.
The source looked at consequentialism.
Kalajtzidis, J. (2013). Ethics of social consequences as contemporary consequentialist theory. Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 3(3-4), 159-171.
The source summarized the topic on the interrelation between ethics and society.
Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2007). Deontological ethics.
It looked at deontological ethics.
