Post 133: Thoughts on Phil. - Divine Control Theory

Phil. as in Philosophy, my almost minor.

Divine Control Theory: 

Divine Control Theory states that things 

are morally good if they are commanded by God.

This theory states that things in themselves are not right or wrong. So, murder is not wrong until God says it is. This is all well and good on paper, but accepting it as true raises some complicated questions. The main question that hits me is whether an act committed by someone that believed they were acting on God's behalf is the same as someone actually doing it. 

For example, let's say a man is suffering from schizophrenia and he honestly and wholeheartedly believes that God is talking to him and has chosen him for a special mission to kill Tom Cruise for working on the Sabbath. If he goes and kills Tom Cruise (who I have nothing against it was just the first name that came to mind), would this act be morally good because the man who did it was told by God to do it? Even if he doesn't know that it wasn't really God? 

On the one hand, "thou shall not kill" is the 6th commandment. So, it seems like this might supersede other commands. But, most interpretations take this to mean "murder" not "kill" and distinguishes them as separate. Making most interpretations of this that "murder" is wrong and that murder is only committed through acts of the heart and are personal acts. 

Assuming that the man does not hate Tom Cruise, but is only following the voice that as far as he knows is God, it would not be murder according to this definition. And Exodus 35:2, could be said to condone Tom Cruise's murder as well, because it states that people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death. 

Does the fact that he is not actually being commanded by God change the virtue of the act? Especially taking into account that the Bible is thousands of years old and was written by 40 authors on three continents in three languages. It has been translated and re-contextualized and amended by many different people all of whom are assumed to be speaking on God's behalf. So, in order to be morally good, all these people must be right and trusted to have said exactly what God had intended, even with all the middle men it went through. But one man, listening to and trusting his own senses is deemed crazy. But even deemed crazy does not rule his action morally good or bad. 

Before moving on from the Bible, I would also like to point out that so much of it is ignored or reinterpreted while other parts are taken as literal. Other than the earlier example from Exodus condoning Cruise's murder, Exodus 21:7 condones selling one's daughter into slavery. 

So, assuming the man was sent to kill Tom Cruise for working on the Sabbath, would the act be justified even if it weren't God's voice, because it is still in the Bible?

And there are arguments that everything is God's will, so even if it weren't his words in the man's head, it would still be God's will that he heard them.

So, according to Divine Control Theory, are the man's actions morally wrong?

Addendum:

After a brief discussion in tutorial, I still haven't arrived at a specific conclusion. However, the tutorial did bring up some possible solutions. The two theories we discussed were very different. One suggested that there is a right and wrong, even if we don't know it. So, it doesn't matter what the man thinks, murder is wrong. Though, it doesn't really address the potential that it was still God's will that the man think he was being commanded to kill. Or, Exodus 21:7. 

The other is that we make right and wrong as a society. Which would mean that he would be wrong, because society would say it is wrong to kill, even if he heard voices telling him to kill. Though, either way, he would probably end up in an institution. 

Post 132: Thoughts on Phil. - Ring of Gyges

Phil. as in Philosophy, my almost minor.

The Ring of Gyges:

The Ring of Gyges is the story about a Shepherd who finds a 

magical ring that makes him invisible. He uses the ring 

to seduce the queen, kill the king, and take over the kingdom. 

Glaucon's argument seems heavily focused on the immediate consequences of an action. His example of the just and unjust man (unjust is loved by all and given all the rewards of being just while the just man is hated by all and suffers as if he was unjust) proves this because it relies entirely on the idea that because the unjust man is happier now, he will always be happier. Though, even in a situation where he is always happier, he may not know he will always be happier. Also it is suggested in later works that Plato's definition of a happy life is one of contentment and mediocrity.

This is suggested when he is talking about the perfect city as one where people are at a level, but they never move higher or lower. They just serve a single purpose that they are best at. So, if the two lives were graphed, with the just mean experiencing low highs and lows, while the unjust man has extreme highs and lows, then maybe Plato would argue their experiences were equal or even that the just man has a better life because he did even though he did not experience as high-highs, he also doesn't experience the dramatic shift to the low-lows.

Though, this could be argued, another question comes up for me regarding Glaucon's argument of things valued. Does something necessarily have to make someone's life better to be valued? Does someone's life being happier necessarily mean it is better? If someone smokes, they might be happier in the moment, but does it make their life better?

Glaucon's argument about the two men seems to rest on the idea that just living is better only if the man is happier than an unjust man. Is it not possible for the just man to still have a better life even if he is not happier? And even if he does, does that really mean being just isn't of value?

Someone might cheat to get ahead and beat all the other players in a game, but does that mean they will benefit in the long run?

In Glaucon's discussion of the Ring he doesn't take into account what could happen. Just because the Shepherd killed the King and tool over the kingdom doesn't mean he will always get away with it. Claudius killed the King, married the Queen, and took over Denmark in Hamlet and for awhile he got away with it, but in the end he loses everything. And because he had so much he more to lose. So who's to say the shepherd isn't going to eventually get caught?

I also disagree with his point that if someone were to turn it (the ring) down people would mock them for it behind their back. But since a lot of people assume that they could be just even with the ring, why would they mock someone for turning it down? When in mocking them they are doing it because they turned down the opportunity to be unjust.