1. State the problems associated with DCT and naturalism in a manner that demonstrates your philosophical growth over the course of this term. 2. Feel free to speculate (if you wish) on the popularity of certain non-philosophical approaches to faith and morality, in such a way that you make clear the standards of this discipline and what you think may account for this gap.

1. **Problems Associated with Divine Command Theory (DCT) and Naturalism** Throughout this term, my understanding of the philosophical implications of Divine Command Theory (DCT) and naturalism has deepened significantly. DCT posits that moral values are grounded in the commands of a divine being, suggesting that what is morally right is determined solely by God's will. One of the primary problems with DCT is the Euthyphro Dilemma, which questions whether something is good because God commands it or if God commands it because it is good. This dilemma raises concerns about the arbitrariness of morality under DCT; if morality is merely a reflection of divine will, it could imply that any action, even those we consider heinous, could be deemed morally acceptable if commanded by God. On the other hand, naturalism, which posits that moral values can be derived from natural facts and human experiences, faces its own set of challenges. One significant issue is the "is-ought" problem articulated by David Hume, which highlights the difficulty of deriving prescriptive moral statements (what ought to be) from descriptive statements (what is). This gap raises questions about the objectivity and universality of moral claims made from a naturalistic standpoint. Additionally, naturalism often struggles to account for the motivational aspect of moral behavior; understanding moral facts does not necessarily compel individuals to act morally. Through engaging with these theories, I have come to appreciate the complexity of moral philosophy and the interplay between divine authority and human reasoning. The challenges posed by both DCT and naturalism illustrate the ongoing struggle to find a coherent and universally applicable foundation for morality. 2. **Speculation on Non-Philosophical Approaches to Faith and Morality** In contemporary society, there is a noticeable trend toward non-philosophical approaches to faith and morality, such as emotional or experiential frameworks, which often prioritize personal feelings and subjective experiences over rigorous philosophical inquiry. This shift may be attributed to several factors, including the increasing emphasis on individualism and personal authenticity in modern culture. Many individuals find solace and meaning in faith and morality through personal experiences, community practices, or emotional resonance rather than through abstract philosophical reasoning. The popularity of these non-philosophical approaches may also stem from a general skepticism toward traditional philosophical discourse, which can be perceived as overly complex or disconnected from everyday life. In a world where practical concerns often take precedence, many may gravitate toward moral frameworks that offer immediate emotional satisfaction or community belonging rather than engaging with the more challenging and sometimes disheartening philosophical debates. However, this trend raises important questions about the standards of philosophical inquiry. Philosophy demands critical thinking, logical consistency, and a willingness to engage with difficult questions. The gap between philosophical rigor and popular non-philosophical approaches may indicate a need for philosophers to communicate their ideas more effectively and to demonstrate the relevance of philosophical inquiry to everyday moral dilemmas. Bridging this gap could foster a more nuanced understanding of faith and morality that incorporates both philosophical depth and personal significance, ultimately enriching the discourse in both realms.