UNIVERSITY OF ST.

THOMAS OF MOZAMBIQUE
BUSINESS SCHOOL
Computer Science

2024
First Semester 3rd year

Applied Ethics
Ethics
Student: Erick Wasonga lecture: Joseph Wamalwa

Maputo. (31/03/2024)
Table of Contents
Divine Command Theory..........................................................................................................................................1
Limitations of Divine Command Theory...............................................................................................................1
Natural Law Theory..................................................................................................................................................2
Criticism................................................................................................................................................................2
Deontological Theory................................................................................................................................................3
Kant’s theory is divided into two parts:.................................................................................................................3
Criticisms of Deontological theory........................................................................................................................3
Utilitarian Ethics.......................................................................................................................................................4
Criticisms..............................................................................................................................................................4
Divine Command Theory
 The Divine Command theory argues that what is right or wrong or what is good or evil, is
completely a matter of God’s will and command. In other words God is the one who decides
what is ethical and everyone ought to follow what God’s will demands.
 Essentially , if God commands something, it’s right to do it, and if God prohibits something, it’s
wrong to do tithe central idea behind the Divine command theory is that God’s will is the
fundamental to morality, since God is the creator, he and only him is responsible for morality’s
existence.
 And if for God everything is possible he alone is knows everything. (Omniscient): He doesn’t
need a different standard other than himself to determine morality.

Some Greek Philosophers such as Socrates however raised their arguments against this theory .In a
dialogue called Euthyphro, Socrates questioned his fellow citizens:

1. Does God love a good action because it is good, or is good action because it is loved by God?
 This dilemma challenges Divine command theory by questioning whether what is morally correct
is arbitrary to God’s choice, or whether not these things have greater external truth. This means
that this view could mean that God’s choices are arbitrary and not based on logic
 This view could also mean that morality is entirely dependent on God’s whim, and that there is
nothing that is inherently good and bad. This means that something like murder could be
considered good or bad, depending on what God says.

The Divine command theory be dismissed entirely however without creating problems for the Concept of
God. First if morality isn’t depend on God in any way, then it raises the question of what is
morality based on. Second it could create problems for the idea of Gods an all-powerful and all-
knowing being.

The theory further argue that the morality of human acts depends on, not on God but: the object, the end,
and the circumstance. According to the theory goodness and evil are always associated with human acts.

Limitations of Divine Command Theory

 Due to different religions around the world, it raises the question whose interpretation of God are
we referring to.
 If we leave it to the hands of people to say that their God is the one correct, then we bring about
Moral relativism (There is no Objective morality).This means that the truth is relative to a
particular religion/society. Moral relativism does not take into account difference in cultures.
Natural Law Theory
This theory is closely related to Divine command theory and is often considered as a rescue to the Divine
Command Theory. The Theory argues that humans poses in themselves a sense of right and wrong that
governs their moral reason and behaviour and that this sense of universal rezoning is inherent in each and
every person and is not determined by ones culture or religion.

Ethics based on this theory argues that there are moral laws written into human nature and that they are
discernible by everybody. This means that ethics ought to tell us what is good and what is evil/how to
behave, all we have to do is examine our nature as human beings to see what is essential for us to
function well.

Cicero was one of the defenders of this theory and he argued that natural law transcends time and place.
It is external and imperishable, the same way today and tomorrow. Due to its universality natural law
ought to be the same for all humans. (Natural laws are laws which people are subject regardless of race,
gender etc.).

Criticism
The theory raises the question:

1. Where does the definition of human nature come from?

2. Natural law’s claim is that reason is the guide to knowing what’s natural and consequently what is
good.

3. Reason alone is not enough to tell us what is good and what is not.
Deontological Theory
 Deontological theory can also be referred to as Kantian Ethics. Deontological is another way of
saying duty –based. Immanuel Kant argued that rational beings should act accordingly and
follow moral law. This means that there are many elements that are involved in moral behaviour
such as habits, feelings intents and consequences, Kant is not conserved with these and neither
does he deny that they are important, his task was to find one source for moral obligation for both
believers and non-believers. According to Kant the principle of moral obligation is is the Good
will.
 Kant’s theory argues that the only ultimate good is a good will .Which brings the question what is
good will ?A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes ,it is good because
of and in itself.

Our intentions in doing an act affects the ethics of an act:

 This means that your will determines the morality of an act and not the outcome .Kant’s duty –
based theory did not agree with utilitarianism , Kant said that “you can’t just look at behaviour or
outcomes to see if an act is right or wrong.

Kant’s theory is divided into two parts:

1. Categorical Imperative –Kant believed that this was the only extremely important principle of
morality .Kant’s argument is that this supreme principle that is accessible to everyone by
something called rationality or reason, this is what separates humans from animals.

By using our rationality Kant expects us to only act in a way in which you would want everyone to act
the same.

2. Humanity Formula-According to Kant, the inherent value (their human dignity) of Humans
renders them priceless .All other entities possess value, this are instrumental values and they can
be replaced by equivalents. Animals and objects are merely tools to an end.

For Kant moral acts are the ones that don’t diminish the humanity of others, but instead actively help to
increase that humanity.

Treat humanity as an end in itself and never as means .What Kant means by this is that it is wrong to
treat ourselves or others as a means of getting what we want.

Criticisms of Deontological theory

The theory is focused on duty and doesn’t focus on outcomes

What can sometimes make people happy might not make other people happy too.
The theory is based on humans deciding what is good and evil, the theory falls into moral relativism
(there is no objective morality).
Utilitarian Ethics
 Utilitarian ethics is more concerned with seeing the consequences of an action or the outcomes of
the action. Thus utilitarian is sometimes referred to as consequentialist theory.
 The two major consequentialist theories are egoistic consequentialism and utilitarian
consequentialism. Both the theories agree that humans ought to bring the good of an action. But
egoistic consequentialism is more concerned with the action that will benefit the person taking
the action even if it mean hurting others while utilitarian’s argue that an action should be taken
with the aim of benefiting everyone involved.(greatest good for the greatest number).

Utilitarian’s believe that a person’s action aren’t based on their intentions but rather the consequences
they produce.

 This means that an action that maximizes happiness for the majority and minimizes pain for
the majority.

Additionally, the utilitarian’s argue that the worse the consequences, the more utilitarianism forbids you
from taking the action. Thus utilitarianism prioritizes the ethical wellbeing of a society as a whole rather
than focusing on individual desires or interests unlike deontological theory.

According to utilitarian’s what counts as good is the number of peoples desires that are satisfied in an
outcome versus the number that will be frustrated.(Greatest good for the greatest number).Or how much
beauty or knowledge is applied in an action.

Criticisms
It is too demanding: Something that is hard to follow.

The theory makes it hard to know if our actions will cause pain to the greatest number: Some preferences
of our actions might cause pain.