For thousands of years, God has been considered an indisputable fact. Even today, many intelligent philosophers bend over backwards to preserve as much of the Judeo-Christian picture of God as possible in a way that is compatible with their argument. Modified divine command theory is no different. It offers an explanation of how God's command defines morality while attempting to evade the problems that arise from a traditional view of this theory, namely the Euthyphro dilemma. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Divine command theory is an ethical theory rooted in religion. It states that morality depends on God and that we are morally obligated to obey his commands. To accept a theory like this we must first establish the premise that there is sufficient evidence to believe in God (who we will define as having three traditional characteristics: omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience). However, I believe there is, in fact, further evidence to the contrary. While there are many ways to prove this, I would like to highlight the logical problem of evil as proof of the contradictory nature of said God. If we assume that God exists and is loving, omnipotent, and omniscient, we wonder why He would allow His faithful children suffer. One defense of God holds that we must experience suffering to appreciate the pleasures of life. However, this statement is insufficient as it fails to explain the disproportionate amount of suffering compared to people's moral character. Furthermore, it is rendered invalid as it contradicts the idea that heaven is a pure heaven that exists independently of hell. While there are many other claims and refutations to be made on this topic, since the problem of evil is not the primary focus of this article, I will go ahead and hope to have at least somewhat established that the existence of God cannot be taken as a given, due in part to the contradictory nature between His defining characteristics and earthly human experience. However, even if we choose to accept the existence of God, there are still problems with the modified divine command theory, even if it manages to somewhat circumvent the Euthyphro dilemma. This dilemma is posed by Plato in his text Euthyphro. He, in the voice of Socrates, asks "is the pious loved by the gods because he is pious, or is he pious because he is loved by the gods?" When analyzed from a monotheistic point of view, we are faced with the same dilemma. There is a disjunction: either God commands us to perform certain actions because they are morally right, or actions are morally right because God commands them. There are objections to both routes. If God commands certain actions because they are morally right, then morality is independent of God. However, if actions are morally right because God commands them, then morality is arbitrary. If we assume that actions are made ethical by God's will, we may know the origin of morality, but we have no clear system for understanding how to be moral. In other words, we cannot determine ourselves whether an action is morally correct or not without a command from God, so the standard of morality is ambiguous. Furthermore, God, an omnipotent being, certainly has the power to change your mind. Therefore, morality becomes unstable rather than based on characteristics that are measurable to humans, such as how much suffering an action generates. Our goal is to understand the basis of morality and develop a rule on which to base our actions, however this theory offers no further clarification and is rather “intellectual.