Divine command theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The divine command theory is the metaethical theory that moral values are whatever is commanded by a god or gods.

Divine command theory is widely criticized by what is known as the Euthyphro dilemma (after its first appearance in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro): "Is an action morally good because god commands it, or does god command it because it is morally good?"

1 Criticisms of divine command theory
2 Responses
3 Sources & reading
4 External links

[edit] Criticisms of divine command theory

The following are some of the standard objections to divine command theory:

It implies that morality is arbitrary. If divine command theory is true, morality is based merely upon god's whim. Thus, if god had willed cruelty and dishonesty to be virtues, and mercy and charity to be vices, then they would have been. The natural reply to this objection is that God would not have commanded such things because he would not command evil, but this response implies a circular definition as it is only God's command that makes them evil (see: circular definition).

It implies that calling God good makes no sense — or, at best, that one is simply saying that God is consistent: "God does whatever he commands".

It commits the naturalistic fallacy. Proponents of this criticism argue that while ethics can and should specify the non-moral properties that make things good, it is always a mistake to use non-moral terms in giving the meaning of the word 'good'. If I ask why I shouldn't commit murder, the divine command answer is: "because God commands you not to", but I can then ask why I should do what God commands. If the answer is that God created me, I can ask why I should obey my creator, and so on. This is not a matter of motivation, but of the explanation of the normativity of morality.

Finally, there is the question of how one comes to know the will of God. Most religions point to their scriptures for answers, but it is still possible to question whether these really state the will of God. Furthermore, few if any religions claim to have texts detailing their deity's will concerning every possible situation. These gaps often concern situations that the writers of ancient religious scriptures couldn't have foreseen, such as those involving advanced technologies, especially biological and medical ones. Because of these problems, critics claim that one can never be sure if a person, including oneself, who claims to know God's will actually does know, or is lying, mistaken, or mad (or indeed if God has subsequently changed his mind, though this possibility is ruled out by many notions of God)

[edit] Responses

In responding to these criticisms, many proponents of divine command theory "bite the bullet", agreeing with the point the critic is making but arguing that it is not a problem with the theory. For example, writers like William of Ockham argue that if God had commanded murder, then murder would indeed have been morally obligatory. Indeed, Ockham goes so far as to say that God could change the moral order at any time. Thus Ockham embraces divine command theory wholeheartedly; his view has been characterized as being that "God's command is good" is analytically true. He can be thought of as saying: "God could have commanded us to commit murder, and then it would have been obligatory — but he didn't, so it isn't ... so what's the problem?" It is also possible to bite the bullet regarding the naturalistic fallacy by arguing that defining morality in non-moral terms it not a fallacy at all.

Other writers disagree more directly with these criticisms. Duns Scotus is responsible for one approach that has been influential in modern times. He argues that, for one set of moral values at least, God could not have commanded otherwise because they are necessary (omnipotence, of course, means being able to do anything, but the logically impossible is essentially nonsensical, and not part of anything). Some moral values, on the other hand, are contingent on particular decisions of God, and thus he could have commanded otherwise. Thus, for example, that murder is wrong is a truth, and though God commanded us not to murder He couldn't have done otherwise, nor can he revoke his command; keeping the Sabbath day holy, on the other hand, is only contingently wrong, and god could have commanded otherwise, and could revoke his command. This is similar to a more recent approach developed by Richard Swinburne.

In developing what he calls a Modified Divine Command Theory, R.M. Adams distinguishes between two meanings of ethical terms like "right" and "wrong": the meaning that atheists can grasp (which in fact Adams explains in roughly emotivist terms), and the meaning that has its place in religious discourse (that is, commanded or forbidden by god). Because god is benevolent, the two meanings coincide; God is, however, free to command other than he has done, and if he had chosen to command, for example, that murder was morally right, then the two meanings would break apart. In that case, even the religious believer would be forced to accept that it was correct to say both that murder was wrong and that God commanded us to commit murder. Saint Thomas Aquinas claimed that God creates moral norms that reflect his own essence, meaning that his demands are not arbitrary. In this case, it would become necessary to examine the essence of God.

There have been two prominent responses to the problem of knowing God's commands. Some writers have argued that the metaethical divine-command theory leads to a normative theory which gives the required moral guidance; that is, God's command gives us the definition of "good" and "bad", but does so by providing practical criteria for making moral decisions. For example, John Gay argued that God had commanded us to promote human happiness, thus marrying divine command theory with a version of utilitarianism. Another response to the epistemological problem was made by the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham. He wrote, "We may be perfectly sure, indeed, that whatever is right is conformable to the will of God: but so far is that from answering the purpose of showing us what is right, that it is necessary to know first whether a thing is right, in order to know from thence whether it be conformable to the will of God." In other words, because God's will and what is right are identical, if we find out what is moral we necessarily discover what God's will is.

[edit] Sources & reading

Robert Merrihew Adams Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics (2002: New York, Oxford University Press) ISBN 0-19-515371-5
Paul Helm [ed.] Divine Commands and Morality (1981: Oxford, Oxford University Press) ISBN 0-19-875049-8
Brad Hooker "Cudworth and Quinn" (Analysis 61, 2001)
Philip L. Quinn "Divine command theory" (in Hugh LaFollette [ed.] The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory)
Michael Shermer Why People Believe Weird Things (2005: Henry Hold & Company, Inc.) ISBN 0-8050-7769-3
Eleonore Stump & Norman Kretzmann "Being and goodness" — in Thomas V. Morris [ed.] Divine & Human Action (1988: Ithaca, Cornell University Press) ISBN 0-8014-9517-2
R.G. Swinburne The Coherence of Theism (1977: Oxford, Clarendon Press) ISBN 0-19-824410-X (chapter 11)
C. Stephen Evans Kierkegaard's Ethic of Love: Divine Commands and Moral Obligations (2004: Oxford University Press) ISBN 0-19-927217-4