Divine Command Theory

[Mímirswell]

Divine Command Theory

Divine Command Theory is any branch of ethical inquiry that takes as it's basis that things are morally good or bad, or morally obligatory, permissible, or prohibited, solely because of a Deity(singular or otherwise)’s will. At face value, this appears to be a solid foundation for ethical thought and in fact it still is a major condition of many individual's morality. However, the DCT has faced opposition in the form of Euthyphro.

The Euthyphro dilemma
The Euthyphro dilemma is based off a discussion of what it means for an act to be holy in Plato's Euthyphro. The Euthyphro is a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, set outside the court-house in Athens. In the course of their discussion he attempts several different analyses of piety, but none of these analyses stands up under scrutiny.

Among Euthyphro’s attempted analyses of piety is one that has been taken to be an unsophisticated form of divine command theory. At one point in the discussion, Euthyphro affirms that “the pious is what all the gods love, and the opposite, what all the gods hate, is the impious”. The line of questioning by which Socrates undermines Euthyphro’s theory has been the inspiration for many modern critics of divine command theory proper.

The crux of this argument is this question, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” This question has given rise to an argument that is now known as the Euthyphro dilemma, and which forms the first major rebuttal to the divine command theory. Each of these two possibilities, the argument runs, leads to consequences that the divine command theorist cannot accept. Whichever way the divine command theorist answers this question, then, it seems that his theory will be refuted.

The modernised version of the question asked by Socrates is this: “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”

If the former answer is chosen then it results in the Independence Problem

Independence Question:
If morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then it seems that they must be morally good prior to God’s willing them, otherwise God would not will them. If morally good acts are morally good prior to God’s willing them, though, then they must be morally good independent of God’s willing them.

If the latter answer is chosen then it results in several different problems

Arbitrary Question:
The divine command theory appears to render the content of morality arbitrary. If divine command theory is true, it seems, then what is good and what bad depends on nothing more than God’s whims. Whims, though, even God’s whims, are not an adequate foundation for morality.

Emptiness Question
If divine command theory is true, then God’s will is the standard of moral goodness. To say that God is good, then, would be to say that God is as he wills himself to be. To say that God’s commands are good would be to say that God commands what he wants to command. To say that God’s actions are good would be to say that God doesn’t forbid himself from doing anything that he does. There is surely, however, more to moral goodness than this.

Abhorrant Command Question
The problem of abhorrent commands is the problem that divine command theory appears to entail that even morally abhorrent acts such as rape, murder and genocide could possibly be morally good. In fact, on more than one occasion God has commanded these very acts. Are they justified?

So the question then to the Ethos is: Do you believe in the Divine Command Theory and if so; how do you resolve these issues?

[Sher Khan]

Hear, hear! We need more topics like this around the Thema Devia.

Without much thinking, I would assume that acts are morally good because they are willed by God, but I'll start with both assumptions.

With the independance question, the issue deals with morality prior to the will of God. The assumption made, however, is that there exists a period before God's Will, or that God's Will on a certain moral topic has a definite beginning. Does it? I would answer that God's Will is something continuous along with God himself - his Will is Himself. If God is believed to be the Eternal, then perhaps there never was a beginning to his Will - or at least in our universe or reality.

The Arbitrary and Emptiness question are fine as they are, I think, so I'll deal with the bigger problem of the Abhorrent Question. Are acts of abhorrent morality done by God justified? I would believe so - if we begin this part of the dilemma question with the assumption that goodness, piety, and morality are caused by God's Will. If it is his will, it becomes justified simply because there exists no sense of morality above or before him.

If there exists a point in time where morality exists before the Will of God existed, then I guess it's not justified according to this 'absolute morality' that precedes God's Will.

These are just my opening thoughts, and I hope to develop them as this discussion matures.

[Mímirswell]

Hear, hear! We need more topics like this around the Thema Devia.

Thank you for your kind words.

Without much thinking, I would assume that acts are morally good because they are willed by God, but I'll start with both assumptions.

With the independance question, the issue deals with morality prior to the will of God. The assumption made, however, is that there exists a period before God's Will, or that God's Will on a certain moral topic has a definite beginning. Does it? I would answer that God's Will is something continuous along with God himself - his Will is Himself. If God is believed to be the Eternal, then perhaps there never was a beginning to his Will - or at least in our universe or reality.

Your arguing against the independence question rather than attempting to answer it. Which is fine but is a circutious response of which I cannot sufficiently examine. Answering in the negative of the Independence question leads you to the following three which you fortunately answered anyhow.

The Arbitrary and Emptiness question are fine as they are, I think

Remember your arguing for a foundation of morality. If God's whims define morality, then the foundation is unstable as God can change his commands whenever. On the argument of emptiness; it renders tautologies of God meaningless. Statements such as “God is good” are trivial, true but meaningless as God is good solely on the basis of willing it so rather than because he actually cares for Humanity, etc.

so I'll deal with the bigger problem of the Abhorrent Question. Are acts of abhorrent morality done by God justified? I would believe so - if we begin this part of the dilemma question with the assumption that goodness, piety, and morality are caused by God's Will. If it is his will, it becomes justified simply because there exists no sense of morality above or before him.

If there exists a point in time where morality exists before the Will of God existed, then I guess it's not justified according to this 'absolute morality' that precedes God's Will.

Perhaps, but you wish to worship a God that would condone such acts as the torture of a fellow man?

[Sher Khan]

Your arguing against the independence question rather than attempting to answer it. Which is fine but is a circutious response of which I cannot sufficiently examine. Answering in the negative of the Independence question leads you to the following three which you fortunately answered anyhow.

Ah, sorry about that. Let me try that one more time.

Independence Question:
If morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then it seems that they must be morally good prior to God’s willing them, otherwise God would not will them. If morally good acts are morally good prior to God’s willing them, though, then they must be morally good independent of God’s willing them.

I actually think the logic in this question is fine. If something is good prior to God's Will, then it's good regardless of God's Will acting on such morality. I would ask, though, if something is morally good prior to God willing the act, how do we find this out? Is there a way to determine an action's morality before humanity started attributing the act to God's Will? If there exists no evidence that certain morals precedes God (perhaps preceding scripture, but I don't know about preceding God Himself) then this question/concept must not be true. Thus, I would assume the second option - God's Will is the cause of morality - to be the better answer.

I guess it's still not much of an answer, huh?

Remember your arguing for a foundation of morality. If God's whims define morality, then the foundation is unstable as God can change his commands whenever. On the argument of emptiness; it renders tautologies of God meaningless. Statements such as “God is good” are trivial, true but meaningless as God is good solely on the basis of willing it so rather than because he actually cares for Humanity, etc.

If morality depends solely on the whim's of God, then it may very well be unstable. I would answer back that either God's Will is unstable, or perhaps man's interpretation of God's Will is unstable. The first might be true, and the second is definately true.

As for the tautology of God, I would have to agree, based solely on this discussion so far. It's redundant to say God is good when good is assumed to be of God in the first place. I would say 'good' is simply our word for defining the will of God.

Perhaps, but you wish to worship a God that would condone such acts as the torture of a fellow man?

Hmm, a hard question, huh? If someone believes that the God one worships is the only God in existance or the only one with actual power over reality, then it doesn't seem much of a choice is possible (correction, it's very possible, but upon pain of everlasting torture).

I guess what I'm saying is, if God condones such acts, and if He is the Almighty, then what else could you do? I guess you could reject Him altogether - noble endeavor in the face of some form of cruelty (but again, 'evil' since it's against the Will of God). However, if God is the Omnipotent Creator, rejection would carry with it consequences (as far as religion teaches us).

[Mímirswell]

I actually think the logic in this question is fine. If something is good prior to God's Will, then it's good regardless of God's Will acting on such morality. I would ask, though, if something is morally good prior to God willing the act, how do we find this out? Is there a way to determine an action's morality before humanity started attributing the act to God's Will? If there exists no evidence that certain morals precedes God (perhaps preceding scripture, but I don't know about preceding God Himself) then this question/concept must not be true. Thus, I would assume the second option - God's Will is the cause of morality - to be the better answer.

I guess it's still not much of an answer, huh?

In a previous answer, I said that cultures outside of Judaism independently developed morality. How would you explain man's assumption of morality then?

If morality depends solely on the whim's of God, then it may very well be unstable. I would answer back that either God's Will is unstable, or perhaps man's interpretation of God's Will is unstable. The first might be true, and the second is definately true.

If either is true then it's an ill suited basis for developing Ethical guidelines regardless if the Divine Command Theory is true.

As for the tautology of God, I would have to agree, based solely on this discussion so far. It's redundant to say God is good when good is assumed to be of God in the first place. I would say 'good' is simply our word for defining the will of God.

Hmm, a hard question, huh? If someone believes that the God one worships is the only God in existance or the only one with actual power over reality, then it doesn't seem much of a choice is possible (correction, it's very possible, but upon pain of everlasting torture).

I guess what I'm saying is, if God condones such acts, and if He is the Almighty, then what else could you do? I guess you could reject Him altogether - noble endeavor in the face of some form of cruelty (but again, 'evil' since it's against the Will of God). However, if God is the Omnipotent Creator, rejection would carry with it consequences (as far as religion teaches us).

You just established an independent basis of morality. The possibility to reject God's notion of good for your own belief in good; even if by definition of the DCT, it must be 'evil.'

Surely DCT is relevant to interpretation therefore DCT is an abstract concept.

I acknowledged there were multiple versions of the DCT but the very crux of the argument is being evaluated and thus it's not open to interpretation. (Or at least meaningful interpretation; either God's commands are moral because it's the will of God or they are moral independent of his will)

[Denny Crane!]

I acknowledged there were multiple versions of the DCT but the very crux of the argument is being evaluated and thus it's not open to interpretation. (Or at least meaningful interpretation; either God's commands are moral because it's the will of God or they are moral independent of his will)

Eh? and how do you decide what is gods will? Its not like there is a big hand in the sky shaking its finger at you pointing you in the right direction. Gods commands are textual and therfore open to interpretation therefore the will of god is the will of the religous body or teacher.

But however I will leave this until such time as your current line finishes and its up for discussion.

Peter

[Chiron202]

I would say this: I have a problem with some of the premises involved. Piety and holiness are a description of one's relationship/feelings towards God. When one has a pious relationship with God, moral behavior is a result, and so piety and morality can be confused. Morality is strictly a result of piety, not synonymous with it. Those who are atheists who are seen to be moral without being pious are simply following the example set forth by their pious neighbors. And any religion can lead one towards moral behavior, because God is present in the world, we have a basic idea of what is right and what is wrong, we feel wronged when people do certain things to us. So because of God's trancendant presence/impact on everything, his morality is felt, even in the "impious." God and morality are not separate as the query supposes. God neither chooses what is moral, nor did morality exist as something that God must work in and around. God is morality. It is part of his very nature. This is not to say that he is subjected to morality, but that without him, morality wouldn't exist. (This is hard to explain thouroghly so I'll leave it at that unless it is challanged, which it will be...) This is part of the nature of hell, which is a place of punishment in that the punished are totally removed from God's presence. You think this world can be bad, with limited exposure to God, think of what a place that is totally removed from God's grace would be like.

That's all I have, and I'm sorry I didn't answer the questions so much as argue with them, but there is no way out of these, and other, well developed philisophical questions without challenging the suppositions, otherwise they wouldn't have lasted as long as they have.

[Mímirswell]

I would say this: I have a problem with some of the premises involved. Piety and holiness are a description of one's relationship/feelings towards God. When one has a pious relationship with God, moral behavior is a result, and so piety and morality can be confused. Morality is strictly a result of piety, not synonymous with it. Those who are atheists who are seen to be moral without being pious are simply following the example set forth by their pious neighbors. And any religion can lead one towards moral behavior, because God is present in the world, we have a basic idea of what is right and what is wrong, we feel wronged when people do certain things to us. So because of God's trancendant presence/impact on everything, his morality is felt, even in the "impious." God and morality are not separate as the query supposes. God neither chooses what is moral, nor did morality exist as something that God must work in and around. God is morality. It is part of his very nature. This is not to say that he is subjected to morality, but that without him, morality wouldn't exist. (This is hard to explain thouroghly so I'll leave it at that unless it is challanged, which it will be...) This is part of the nature of hell, which is a place of punishment in that the punished are totally removed from God's presence. You think this world can be bad, with limited exposure to God, think of what a place that is totally removed from God's grace would be like.

That's all I have, and I'm sorry I didn't answer the questions so much as argue with them, but there is no way out of these, and other, well developed philisophical questions without challenging the suppositions, otherwise they wouldn't have lasted as long as they have.

Ad hoc ergo propter hoc.

Man in the absence of the Christian God (or any singular Deity or Pantheon) has seen other cultures demonstrate morality. Unless you believe in the Greek Pantheon, the very origin of this argument is independent of your religion of choice. Ergo, the conclusion you provide is invalid.

[Chiron202]

Ad hoc ergo propter hoc.

Man in the absence of the Christian God (or any singular Deity or Pantheon) has seen other cultures demonstrate morality. Unless you believe in the Greek Pantheon, the very origin of this argument is independent of your religion of choice. Ergo, the conclusion you provide is invalid.

Didn't I address this, I'm fairly positive that I did, and I'm re-reading it , and yep, I did. The early Christian Church struggled with philisophical ideas of the time creeping into the teaching of the church. Some thought that truth could not be found outside of the church and scripture, but Augustine reasoned that truth can be found apart from the church, in the works of philosophers because God permeates the world, and they too have a piece of the divine spark. This would apply to "other cultures demonstrate(ing) morality" as an example of Gods creation exhibiting, in an inferior way, parts of his nature. (Which, again, I addressed, if you read closely at all you'll see I prempted your point.) So obviously, and admittedly, I"m not taking this from a philisophical/strictly logical stance at all. So your citation of the logical fallacy is a flawed way of combating my theology. See The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 299, 300, 301.And though I am not cathlolic, this position is held by christians everywhere. (That human reasoning/morality can only be understood in a context of Gods grace and permission.) Hierfür... My theological argument is specifically not dependent on the truth of every religion. And your analysis to my conclusion is unreasoned.

[Mímirswell]

Didn't I address this, I'm fairly positive that I did, and I'm re-reading it , and yep, I did. The early Christian Church struggled with philisophical ideas of the time creeping into the teaching of the church. Some thought that truth could not be found outside of the church and scripture, but Augustine reasoned that truth can be found apart from the church, in the works of philosophers because God permeates the world, and they too have a piece of the divine spark. This would apply to "other cultures demonstrate(ing) morality" as an example of Gods creation exhibiting, in an inferior way, parts of his nature. (Which, again, I addressed, if you read closely at all you'll see I prempted your point.) So obviously, and admittedly, I"m not taking this from a philisophical/strictly logical stance at all. So your citation of the logical fallacy is a flawed way of combating my theology. See The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 299, 300, 301.And though I am not cathlolic, this position is held by christians everywhere. (That human reasoning/morality can only be understood in a context of Gods grace and permission.)

Sorry; I should of clarified and I apologize. The Common cause you are positing is a trivial dependence, hence my stating ad hoc, ergo propter hoc. By this standard, as God created everything and thus the whole of mathematics, science, and philosophy are dependent on God for the same reasons. However, all of these sciences, despite being dependent on God for their existence, can and have been studied without ever having to refer to God yet Morality cannot according to you (without being vastly "inferior"). How is it that the "divine spark" is sufficient alone for all reasoning save morality?

Hierfür... My theological argument is specifically not dependent on the truth of every religion. And your analysis to my conclusion is unreasoned.

My argument was discovery independent of Religion, not a dependence on the truth of every religion. The difference is substantial.

[Chiron202]

Sorry; I should of clarified and I apologize. The Common cause you are positing is a trivial dependence, hence my stating ad hoc, ergo propter hoc. By this standard, as God created everything and thus the whole of mathematics, science, and philosophy are dependent on God for the same reasons. However, all of these sciences, despite being dependent on God for their existence, can and have been studied without ever having to refer to God yet Morality cannot according to you (without being vastly "inferior"). How is it that the "divine spark" is sufficient alone for all reasoning save morality?

I agree with you that the studies of the hard sciences do not directly come across God in their material, but in my experience, (reading biographies and so on, hardly a ovverreaching source but it wil have to do) leads those who pursue those feilds to at least struggle with the questions of philosophy and theology, like the existence of a divine creator. Some are lead to a beleif in God, whatever form that takes, others to hopeful atheism, and others to outright atheism. It would be hard to say that were it not for limited exposure to religion the scientists would not have thought of the wonders and implications of their work, but such a situation has hardly existed in history to my knowlege. (please correct if mistaken). A trite example of a well known scientist would be Einstieins musings about God. Their are many others, and it seems to be a truism that if you are a serious science researcher, its hard to not think about religious overtones that might be in your work, regardless of how much the work itself speaks directly of it, our human natures (the divine spark) lead us to think of such things because of it.

As for morality, I realize I wasn't clear myself on this bit. (Apologies) Morality can be found without piety to a Christian God. It is just greatly aided by putting faith there. Any man, can be a very moral and upstanding man, reagardless of his religion. It just seems that morality itself seems to be inextricably tied to religion, so that even atheists would have to admit that their notions of morality are centered in religious traditions. This is where I would say that morality is tied to the "divine spark," and that the "little piece of God in all of us," to put it in a very simplistic way, pushes us towards religious questions and moral behavior.

I hope i'm being clear, but I'm tired so I never really know.

My argument was discovery independent of Religion, not a dependence on the truth of every religion. The difference is substantial.

Point taken.

[Denny Crane!]

Surely DCT is relevant to interpretation therefore DCT is an abstract concept. I#ll come back to this later but that is my initial thought.

PEter

[Ummon]

He who is pious, is pious because he loves the gods, and thus the gods love him. Loving the order of things, which often causes suffering, is wisdom which in the end always brings happiness. Even in poverty, and illness, understanding the necessity of the order of nature and striving to get the best out of it for oneself and everyone, is the supreme amount of human accomplishment, even in the consciousness of one's efforts limited nature. In the end, there are real, positive effects in this kind of behaviour which though, rest assured, will be put to test on a daily basis.