In order to analyze the argument presented by Russ Shafer- Landau against the divine command theory, it is important to first understand the concept of divine command theory. The author has presented the idea about the ethical objectivity of God which is against the Divine Command theory that says there are the existence of only one God and therefore the uncertainties about the skepticism that are moral in nature are halted for the time. The theory of divine command also focuses on the nature of the actions that they are correct and it is because of the command of God that is given to the human beings.
In the case when the divine command concept is placed within the heart of a person then the actions and behaviors performed by such people are placed on the model of ethics but these ethics are subjective and arbitrary. The ethics is an unlikely collection of ungrounded values of the morals (Shafer- Landau, P60). Russ Shafer- Landau has presented his ideas against this concept that the ethical subjectivity can be only related to the God. He says that this cannot be true because the command of God is anything but that is arbitrary in nature. The command of God cannot be doubtful or illogical.
There must be some reasoning behind the particular command of the God that could guide the human being. The other actions performed by the human beings are their own responsibility which cannot be blamed to God. The commands are the foundations or bases of the moral actions and morality that is the essence of the ethics and ethical subjectivity. The responsibilities of arbitrary actions are mistakenly performed by the people or it is their won will that triggers them perform such actions and the God is not responsible for those actions and behaviors.
The argument presented by the author Russ Shafer- Landau is that if the divine command theory is considered to be true then we must believe that the God has some kind of objective appearance. The divine command theory portrays that the God awakes in the morning, stretches and yawns and then decides to develop a face of morality and ethics that could be granted to a specific group of people or to whom he wants to give on random basis.
The author has demonstrated it in a way that God have divided the people randomly in A and B columns where he decides to put ethics and morality to one group and picks some people from the group to provide the morality. For some people, this concept presented by the author is a sin that we cannot create a picture of the God but it is what we get from the assumptions of the Divine Command theory. Russ Shafer- Landau raises a question that they command of God are given due to some reasons or they are simply arbitrary.
The reason and arguments provided by the author in ‘Does ethical objectivity require God? ’ raises several questions and provide a basis for provoking the thought process of the people who believe that God is responsible for all their actions and morality (Shafer- Landau, P60). Personal Identity and Immortality In the book, ‘A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality’, the author John Perry has compared the reasoning and concept regarding the personal identity and immortality by presenting the dialogues between two people talking about philosophy.
The statement of Weirob regarding the judgments of souls and personal identity reflects the argument against the inclusion of souls. Weirob says that if the judgments of personal identity are based on the actions and intuition of souls then the actions and mortality issues are baseless and illogical, because they have no foundation. There are no methods through which we can observe the foundations and rezoning of the contribution of souls in the performance and actions of people. We cannot measure and observe the similarities among the souls of people by any direct or indirect way or method (Perry, P12).
People criticize about the actions and behaviors of other people on the basis of their own reasoning and through process. This may not be true for other people because every person has their own thinking and their own views regarding this world. Miller justifies this concept by giving an example of the candy that there might be different fillings inside the two candies but people may infer their inside by looking at their outside view which is their wrappings. Their wrappings could be same but there might be differences in the center filings of these two candies which people cannot see.
This example draws attention towards the fact that the souls of people might be different which influence the people to carry out certain actions of morality or immorality. Weirob has presented this idea as he against the sameness of souls and it is impossible to infer about the souls of two people and provide the judgment on the basis of their outer appearance. Miller has also analyzed that the people may infer the sameness of souls based on the idea of the appearance of the people. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment are baseless and without any foundations.
There are some foundations based on the actions and appearance of the people and the criticism or judgment is associated with the factors analyzed by the people. John Perry has analyzed the argument of Miller by the example given by him. He says to Weirob about the position of him based on the prior judgment of Weirob. He was expecting Weirob to start a conversation on philosophy or arguments when he entered the room. In this way, the author has associated the concept of the sameness of souls and the judgment of personal identity that they have some kind of foundation on which the people may infer their views.
He examined that the psychological characteristics of a person helps in analyzing their traits and souls. He also analyzes that along with the psychological characteristics, the attitudes of people, memories, beliefs and prejudices play an important role in observing a person and provide judgmental views about him or her which is quite justifiable by the example given by Sam Miller. The argument extends with the argument that the personal identity observable by the appearance of a person is important in judging the soul of a person and to analyze the importance of assessing the sameness of the souls of people (Perry P12).