week 2- Divine Command Theory

2 strong intuitions about God

Morality depends on God: look for guidance from god- god is necessary to compel humans to act morally- objectively right or wrong in book of religions eg bible

Morality independent of God: morality through procedural application of reason. Morality cannot be dependent on god if god hasn’t been proven to exist?

3 ways how morality could depend on god. Name

Prudential, epistemically, metaphysical

Prudential dependence?

God enforces morality through reward punishment system. We act moral.y bc God punishes or rewards us for moral behaviour. T4 in our best interest to act morally

Problem with prudential dependence?

Wrong reasons to act morally. Should want to act morally bc it’s right not fear.

What is epistemic dependence?

Religious text primary source of how we know what is morally right and wrong. Without God we wouldn’t know what’s morally right or wrong . God is source of moral guidance.

Problems with epistemic dependence?

Religious texts conflict at some points. Moral situations are complex and God might not have information on how to act in specific issues. Atheists seem to know what’s right and wrong without scripture?

Metaphysical dependence?

Gods commands determine what makes something morally right. T4 an act is morally required if God makes it morally right. God says so simpliciter. Known as divine command theory.

Difference between metaphysical and epistemic

E: how we figure out what is right or wrong.

M: what counts as morality is dependent on what God says

DCT premises

1- Every moral law requires an objective law maker, so everyone can be held to it objectively

2- Human beings cannot be moral law makers, because they are imperfect

3- God is the only entity that can be completely objective

4- Therefore, God is the author of moral law

Normative claims of DCT

An action is morally right if God commands it, An action is morally wrong if God forbids it, An action is morally neutral if God neither commands or forbids it.

Euthyphro’s dilemma 2 prongs

Prong 1- does God command an action bc it is morally right?

Prong 2- is an action morally right because God commands it?

Dilemma- which prong is correct?

Accept prong 1?

Prong 1- Does God command an action because it is morally right?

Action has already been determined as right and God commands it after the fact because of this. The action is morally right before then God commands it. External force. T4 accepting prong 1 means God’s commands don’t make something morally right. T4 reject DCT, bc morality not metaphysically dependent on God

Accept prong 2?

Prong 2- Is an action morally right because God commands it ?

But then God could command anything and it would be morally right so what’s stoping god from commanding anything to be morally right? T4 morality is arbitrary- what’s morally right could have equally been morally wrong if God said so. Reject, bc it goes against our background assumptions regarding the stability of morality

Defence against DCT?

Swinborne from prong 1

As follows: declares that there are necessary moral truths and contingent moral truths.

NMT: truth obtains regardless of the circumstances. cannot but be true. Some things are good no matter what God commands and commands these because they are good. Eg, a square is not round and being malicious is morally bad. Logic. So Gods omnipotence is not diminished. So he accepts that the conclusion may appear problematic. states there are some moral truths independent of God

Response to Swinburne?

Why is God constrained by the rules of logic

Swinburne rebuttal prong 2 ?

Uses contingent moral truths. CMT are moral truths that depend on how God designed the particular circumstances of this world. T4 acts are good bc in this particular world, god commands them to be good by shaping the state of affairs accordingly. He could have commanded them as bad in this or possible world, but he didn’t.

Basically, the idea is that that there are, on the one hand, necessary moral truths:

That which is true no matter what God commands, and God commands these because they are good.

That God cannot overrule them does not diminish his omnipotence.

So, we 'bite the bullet' but insist that accepting P1 is not in fact problematic.

But on the other hand, there are contingent moral truths:

Acts are good because in this particular world, God commands them to be Good by shaping the world in way which accords with the necessary moral truths. Thus, while he could have commanded them as bad by shaping the world or the moral circumstance differently in this world, he didn't.

E.g. Perhaps God could have commanded it is morally right to punch a baby, but he didn't in this world.

So, given that God does, although only the basis of contingent truths, shape was is morally right or wrong in this world, Swinburne would just want to show us things wouldn't be different for the circumstances of THIS world.

In this way, Swinburne thus accepts the implication of P2 - that God could have commanded anything to be right or wrong - but insists that God nevertheless did not command bad things to be good in this world.

Rebuttal to Swinburne’s rebuttal

If we accept contingent moral truths it’s still arbitrary- prong 2

What makes him make these things moral. Let’s say he does have reasons but then isn’t it the reasons that determine rightness and wrongness not God? Goes against DCT.

response to necessary moral truths?

Swinburne attempts to show some truths cannot be changed but that doesn’t mean God isn’t omnipotent because he can still do whatever is logically possible. So constraints shouldn’t deter us. But, God is still beholden to external reasons that seem to constrain his commands of right and wrong. So while it doesn’t threaten omnipotence, necessary moral truths still mean morality is independent of God

Assess DCT to 4 criteria of a good moral theory

Internal consistency- no, conflicting scriptures, could be morally right and wrong at the same time so contradicts

Useful- no since we don’t know which commands are correct

Background assumptions- euthphro’s dilemma. Not stable and we have and idea that morality is stable. Same with arbitrary and absurdity

Moral judgments- no, god says homosexuality is wrong which goes against instinct