The Divine Command Theory

[encephalon]

Imagine you're the only person in the world, and you've written a grand and infinitely detailed novel to keep yourself busy. You've employed a character cast of billions, each independent and equally crafted with care. The setting is a continuous sequence of tragedy after tragedy, and the plot is cryptic and insoluble to all but yourself. You reveal the theme to the characters through a book within your book and call it the Bible, and state in a verse you whimsically have titled "Romans 2:15" that the "moral law [is] within us"--"us" collectively referring to your characters. Your characters know you as God, and many even devote their entire lives to deciphering the theme you've developed for them. In the meantime, you starve hundreds of their children a day, a teenager is killed every eight minutes by a gun and you allow half the earth--made for all of your characters--to be owned and usurped by 1% of the population. You're completely rational, all-knowing, all-able, all-caring and the characters have nobody to blame but themselves for the pains they face every day. You're just the creator; ignoring the impossibility of such a circumstance, assume that your characters act apart from your control--save the Bible, in which you tell them how they should act, and your word is the sole fulcrum for weighing rightness and wrongness. If they don't follow your moral guidelines, then they're responsible for whatever travesty awaits them.

Such is the world of Robert Mortimer--your personal favorite character in the book--and as unfortunate as he may find it(or you may find it), one or the other of the following statements is true in a logical reality:

1. Mortimer does not exist, nor does the setting he experiences.

2. You do not exist, being the God whose sole command is morality in itself.

Disregarding the fact that storybook characters indeed do not exist and alas!--you are not God, one must inquire upon the reasoning behind Mortimer's theory before adequately reaching such a dismal conclusion. Mortimer believed that the Christian religion was the revelation of the nature of God. Given this basic assumption is correct, one can infer what God is like; more specifically, one can infer from the Christian faith what can be done to please or displease God. From this deduction and the revelations set forth in the Bible, Mortimer argues that one can find an objective set of ethical standards to which all men should adhere, based upon the command and will of God alone. An action A is obligatory if and only if God commands that we A; An action A is forbidden if and only if God commands that we not A. Therefore if God commands we not kill, we refrain from doing so. If he commands we kill, then we murder.

God is viewed as perfect in all things in Judeo-Christianity. Accordingly, being of total perfection requires of God the following:

1. Omnipotence, or an "all-powerful" quality

2. Omniscience, or an "all-knowing" quality

3. Full Rationality; that is, all of God's actions are done with perfect reason.

4. Perfect Moral Goodness; including perfectly just, completely merciful and fully benevolent to the highest degree.

In addition, God is the creator of all things. He may bring about anything possible, and may have created an entirely different world than that which he did.

At first inspection, the average person may find no fallacies in Mortimer's argument; indeed, most faiths of the world adhere to a similar stance in regards to their own religion and holy book despite the hidden discrepancies. In fact, many arguments exist to accept the theory at face value. One such theory is the linguistic argument: the basic premise of which revolves around the definition of the term "obligatory" being "commanded by God." Another argument is the argument from moral objectivity, which claims that the only moral theory capable of providing an objective basis for ethical decisions is the divine command theory.

A religious argument exists for the theory as well. In this argument, Mortimer states (with little theological debate) that God is undoubtedly the creator of all things. If God did not create moral standards by command alone, then those moral standards must exist apart from God. If such a circumstance were to be true, then God would not be the creator of all things, and therefore the Christian faith erroneous. Strangely, this argument reveals the most conceivable scenario for a morality based on God's word.

These arguments aren't without opposition, of course. The meaning of "obligatory" in its strictest sense is arbitrary--many words have entered our language, disappeared, and entirely changed meaning in a matter of one-hundred years. Language is conceptual, not rigidly definitive--not to mention that other languages exist apart from English. Furthermore, the argument from moral objectivity is premature: the statement that moral objectivity cannot be achieved otherwise is not falsifiable to date, and there is little evidence to suggest that any such statement could be proven in the future. The religious argument is fallacious as well: the argument is entirely self-serving, and can only be accepted by those who wish to accept the divine command theory in conjunction with the Christian faith already. Such an argument has little sway over one who accepts another doctrine, or no doctrine at all.

Not only do the arguments for the divine command theory suffer great failures of persuasiveness, but also the foundation of the theory itself carries with it many contradictions. For instance, one might encounter the Euthyphro dilemma in the form of a simple question: are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because God commands them to be?

Upon giving the first answer, a theist will encounter the independence problem. If God wills an act because it is good, then that act is good apart from god. In such a case, that moral act must have been good before God commanded it, resulting in a direct conflict not only with contemporary Christian doctrine but also the basis of the Divine command theory. Therefore, one must conclude that the second option of Euthyphro's dilemma is best suited as an answer.

However, upon choosing the second option the theist discovers more serious problems, one of which being the emptiness problem: if something is good simply because God commands it, then stating "God is good" translates to "God acts in accordance to his own commands." This not only undermines the meaning of morality, but also destroys any sense of reason or rational thought on God's behalf. The theist will also encounter the abhorrent commands problem, where God could command acts of rape, murder, incest, cruelty, deception and a host of other atrocities and the acts would have to be deemed morally good(which truthfully wouldn't conflict with biblical events, but instead the Christian concept of God).

Even without the Divine command theory, severe faults exist in the Judeo-Christian concept of God alone, given the current state of reality. If a universe itself works on a logical basis, and anything abominable happens to anyone, God cannot be perfect. If said God were omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then that God must logically be dedicated to disallowing any atrocities from happening. Thankfully, you are not writing your novel under the constraints of rationality, and may in fact do whatever you want to do to your characters. Accordingly, the author of this world--our objective reality--cannot be rational at all, let alone fully perfect.

In sum, Mortimer's Divine Command Theory cannot be used as an objective basis for making rational moral decisions without sacrificing or altering God(as defined by Christian faith); and if God were to be sacrificed by the theist, then less reason would exist for that individual to accept the Divine Command Theory. One must accept that if such a God exists, an objective moral code must exist apart from God, and that God commands as he does based upon this reference.

Sadly, such a revelation would require many of your theist characters to rethink their God as the sole creator of all things--but honestly, at a rate of a teenager every eight minutes and an alarming number of starving children in your world--how much did they matter to you, anyhow?

[redwind]

An intriguing argument indeed.

Some thoughts.

"If God did not create moral standards by command alone, then those moral standards must exist apart from God."

Insofar as we take 'God' to be a reality, moral standards cannot logically exist apart from God. Firstly, moral standards cease to exist when the relational context - 1.God and the 2.entity on whom its 3.morality is imposed - on which it depends on for its existence, ceases to exist. What is 'good' assumes a context within which it can exist as such, even though 'arbitrary'. The subtraction of either 'God' or the 'entity'(humanity) from this relational context renders the idea of 'moral standards' superfluous.

When the existence of 'God' is taken to be true, then the existence of moral standards apart from God assumes that the former exists despite God which in turn negates the idea of a God that is omni###.


"Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because God commands them to be?"

If God is taken to be the 'Ultimate Good', regardless of our understanding what this 'good' is in its entirety at any particular point in time, then one can view the Laws emanating from God as, analogusly, the 'word made flesh' (or vice versa). If God wills atrocities, then God logically ceases to be the 'Ultimate Good'. The dillema posed by the aforementioned question is derived from the structure of the question which presents two alternatives as if there are none other. For instance, the question could be structured as such :

"Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because God commands them to be, or, are they morally good because they are willed by a morally good God?"

The first question is based on an assumption that God is capable of willing that which is not 'morally good'. The second assumes the value of omnipotence in defining that which is 'morally good'. The third considers the possibility of a God that issues moral standards from the fount of its omnibenevolence.


"If said God were omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then that God must logically be dedicated to disallowing any atrocities from happening. "

If God is taken to be a real entity capable of exerting power, then its omnibenevolence called into question by its failure to assert omnipotence in the event of 'evil' is acquitted by its omniscience. (insofar as 'omni' here refers to being unlimited in ways that humanity is.)

[Socialist Dave]

The answer to all of that is FREE WILL. The reason why there is pain in and suffering in the world is because there is people who can inflict it. That is the reason we can be held accountable for our actions. It really pisses me off that pople feel that they can insult christianity, and it be called free speech, but insult islam(or any other relgion for that matter) and it be called secterian(not sure if I spelt that right). Should this really be in the news anyway?

[encephalon]

The answer to all of that is FREE WILL. The reason why there is pain in and suffering in the world is because there is people who can inflict it. That is the reason we can be held accountable for our actions. It really pisses me off that pople feel that they can insult christianity, and it be called free speech, but insult islam(or any other relgion for that matter) and it be called secterian(not sure if I spelt that right). Should this really be in the news anyway?

This isn't news. It's articles.

And the "free will" argument is handled in the essay: being omniscient, god would know that evil would come of the free will he endows; being omnibenevolent, he would have to stop it; being omnipotent, he'd be able to do so.

This applies to Islam as much as it does to christianity.

[Socialist Dave]

Fair enough, I was a bit grumpy when I wrote that. But still, I think that no religion can ever be disproved (excluding the ancient roman and greek religions etc.). Personally, Pascal's wager (Can't be fucked to type that out now) is what swings me in favour of being a theist. Also, I think the divine command thoery has been disproved, by free will. I won't go into my personal belifs now but with the day of judgement belif I think that clears up why we have free will. Anyway the divine command theory is only belived by fundamentalist idiots.

[Archpremier]

Omnipotence is impossible anyhow, no matter what you are.

A parable:
If god is omnipotent, this means that he can do ANYHTING and that HIS WILL IS TRUTH.
He can create and obliterate what he wishes in any manner he wishes, yes? So, can he create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

[Black Dagger]

Fair enough, I was a bit grumpy when I wrote that. But still, I think that no religion can ever be disproved (excluding the ancient roman and greek religions etc.)

How have these religions been disproven?

[Black Dagger]

but you would have to disprove the most significant person/event in humanity...

A more interesting point? The " most significant person/event in humanity" has never actually been proven. Yet most people assume it as a virtual fact- through ignorance.

[encephalon]

Only one poor carpenter changed this not some conquerer like alexander..

wrong.

Peter I changed the world for good and his successive rulers, not Jesus And, even if it were Jesus, this literally means nothing.. half of the things we experience today are directly traced to someone who was historically insignificant in their own era. It's called complexity, not God.

[mr_alex]

christianity is a factor that can never be disposed of. ever.

[Seeker]

Knowing these things consider the following:
a) If God were all good, he would destroy evil.
b) If God were all powerful, he could destroy evil.
c) Evil has not been destroyed YET.
d) Therefore, evil will be destroyed one day.

Not quite.

a) If God were all good, he would never have allowed even a single instance of evil to exist.
b) If God were all powerful, he could prevent all evil.
c) If God were all knowing, he would be aware of evil before it manifest.
d) Evil acts have been commited.
e) Therefore, God is either not all good, not all powerfull, or not all knowing.


Free-will does not counter The Problem of Evil. An all-powerfull being could set up an eternal chain of events in wich, even left free to choose, everyone would choose good over evil. If such were not the case, then evil becomes manditory to the definition of "free will", creating a contradiction. Free will itself is evil and God is subjecting us to it.

Also, if I were to take random quotations out of an allegorical book of my choosing and make them factual, it would be "fact" that a man by the name of Gregor Samsa spontaneously turned into a cockroach.

it will be better than it would be in the beginning.

Proving that God is not all powerful. The end state is something He was incapable of creating at the beginning. If He was capable of creating it, but chose to let us all suffer instead, then He is not all good. If He did not foresee the suffering that would occur if He did not bring about the end state all at once, then He is not all knowing.