Inductive and Deductive Arguments and the Divine Command Theory

Student Name
Professor
Course Code
Date
Philosophy Ethics Paper
The primary forms of reasoning, inductive and deductive, imply the processes via which an individual creates an inference and how they believe their inferences to be authentic. Deductive arguments are tailored to prove an inference, while inductive arguments emphasize predicting the conclusion. An inductive argument is considered strong or weak based on whether its inference constitutes a potential rationale for the premise in question. A valid deductive argument is one that takes an archetype that makes it infeasible for its premises to be authentic, thus making the conclusion false. Otherwise, the deductive argument would be termed invalid. A deductive argument would be termed sound when and only when it is valid, and its premise is entirely authentic. On the other hand, a sound deductive argument is characterized by a series of valid deductions from authentic premises to an authentic inference. All premises should be authentic to effectively transform any valid deductive argument into a sound deductive one (Wilson). In this context, it is only necessary to establish some avenues to determine the subcategory of traditional formal proofs characterized by holistically authentic premises.
The divine command theory is an ethical theory anchored on the premise of standard characteristics of ethical demands and the fact that it depicts God’s commands. The theory holds that God’s commands comprise the utmost sources of moral duties and expectations or that God’s will constitutes the fundamentals of moral codes. The divine command theory incorporates several merits and demerits, but it is considered the most approbative theory because its central ideas are based on positive philosophy. The theory also guides and controls individuals’ actions to ensure they achieve high moral expectations. In addition, the theory prohibits people from engaging in socially unacceptable behaviors such as tell...