Essay: Comparing Utilitarianism and Divine Command Theory in Ethics

The essay compares two major ethical theories: Utilitarianism and Divine Command Theory. It begins by explaining Utilitarianism as a theory that promotes actions that maximize overall happiness, and it highlights the strengths of this concept and its weaknesses. In the second part of the essay, the author explains the Divine Command Theory and its role in shaping ethical decisions. The essay also presents the strengths and weaknesses of this theory, offering examples to illustrate the concepts. The essay concludes with an analysis of both theories, providing a valuable perspective on moral decision-making and the role of ethics in daily life. The paper draws on the key concepts of each theory to highlight the importance of making informed decisions and understanding how different ethical frameworks can shape our perspectives.

Running Head: ETHICAL THEORIES
ETHICAL THEORIES
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

1ETHICAL THEORIES
Question 1- Act Utilitarianism
One of the consequentialist theory known as Act Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that conveys
that an act of an individual in the moral aspect is only acceptable if it results to the best possible
outcome during the same situation. The basis of this theory is maximum happiness for maximum
number of people in the world that will only happen if our actions lead to positive results for
other individuals (Oakley 2014).
The example for this theory would be when a judge decides to not send a murderer to prison
because he thinks that he might not commit the same mistake again as he has learnt from his past
experiences. According to act utilitarianism his decision is ideal because it creates happiness for
the convict as he is being released.
The key strength of this example is that the murderer will get a new chance to learn from his
mistake and not feel negative if he was being sent to the prison as the crime has already been
committed and nothing can be done to solve the situation. The key weakness in this example is
that the murderer deserves to get punished for killing another person, but the flaw in the theory
allows him to be free for maximum happiness (Marques 2015).
Question 2- Divine Command Theory
Divine Command Theory is also known as theological voluntarism, which is a theory that is
solely based on religion and the commands of God. It implies that all actions done according to
the command of God is morally correct irrespective of the action. An action is morally accepted
only if it is a rule of God or done to please God. People with monotheistic or polytheistic belief
agree with the same concept of following God’s command to become morally acceptable
(Kheradmand and Tavakoli Bina 2014).

2ETHICAL THEORIES
An example of this theory would be when a person will follow the commandment of God to feed
the poor but due to his financial constraints he will do this by stealing another person’s money.
He wanted to feed the poor because it was the commandment of God. The key strength of this
example is that a morally acceptable deed is being for the welfare of a needy person and to find
mental please and strength by following the orders of God. However, the key weakness is the
part where he has to steal money to please God because the money that was stolen is the hard
earned of another individual that might be needed for his survival, which is unacceptable
(Simpson, Piazza and Rios 2016).

3ETHICAL THEORIES
References
Kheradmand, A. and Tavakoli Bina, M., 2014. A Comparative Study of the “Ideal Observer” in
Meta-ethics and the “Divine Command” Theory. Research Quarterly in Islamic Ethics, 7(26),
pp.7-26.
Marques, J., 2015. Universalism and Utilitarianism: an evaluation of two popular moral theories
in business decision making. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 8(2), p.3.
Oakley, J., 2014. Virtue ethics and utilitarianism. In The Handbook of Virtue Ethics (pp. 72-83).
Routledge.
Simpson, A., Piazza, J. and Rios, K., 2016. Belief in divine moral authority: Validation of a
shortened scale with implications for social attitudes and moral cognition. Personality and
Individual Differences, 94, pp.256-265.