I am writing to you concerning the recent conversation on whether appealing to God or the scripture offers moral justification. The gist of the discussion was to determine whether “because God says so “is an explanatory moral reason and (2) that “because scripture explicitly says so” is an enumerative moral reason when considering a gay and lesbian relationship. On the face of it, I might agree with you that gay and lesbian relationship based on the justifications that; (a) “because God says so” and (b) “the scripture clearly says so.” However, when an old argument referred as the Euthyphro Dilemma is taken into account in Psychology Assignment Help, the response differs. According to Euthyphro Dilemma, the assertion, “since God says so” does not provide any substantive explanation of what makes a certain practice good or bad. The claim that gay and lesbian relationships are wrong because God forbids the practices offers a moral reason. However, this claim fails to provide the type of moral reason it upholds and whether the justification is valid. To justify that God prohibits the same-sex relationship becomes an explanatory moral reason only if it explains what makes such behavior good, bad or right or wrong (James, 2009).
To ascertain whether the same-sex relationship is wrong because God forbids it, consider the following assumptions. First, let us assume that God exists and has several attributes, such as supreme creator, omnipotent and omnipresent as accorded by different religious groups, for instance, Christians and Muslims. Based on these attributes one can determine whether by God forbidding same-sex relation is a satisfactory response. As well, it is important to assume that God commands only behaviors that are good and any conduct that God forbids is bad. If we stick to the assertion that there is a God who commands good things and forbids bad conducts, then one could ask the question whether a certain behavior is good simply because God commands it or God commands a particular behavior since it is good. In other words, the prevailing assertion is whether the commands of God are what make a certain behavior good or not (James, 2009).
The first assertion implies that God’s commands are what affirm good or bad conducts. In such a case, if God forbids same-sex relation, this not only asserts that such a relationship is bad also what makes it unacceptable. God, therefore, exists as the creator of morality whose instructions determines the good and bad conducts. Thus, since God says so becomes an explanatory moral reason. The second assertion is that the instructions of God, or rather the scriptures are not what affirm good or bad conducts. If God commands or rather prohibit same-sex relation, then there is a need to have an explanation about what makes it bad to engage in gay and lesbian relationships. God in this view, however, becomes an ideal correspondent of morality because He knows what is good or bad autonomously and commands his people accordingly. The assertion that ‘since God says so” turns out to be an enumerative moral reason (James, 2009).
Therefore, one should reject the assertion that same-sex relationship is wrong because the scripture explicitly says so since it is an explanatory moral reason. Instead, one should consider same-sex relationships as wrong because God says so and therefore an enumerative moral reason.