divine command theory

What is DCT?

What are the strengths of DCT?

• Clear moral rules → DCT provides absolute, objective guidelines for right and wrong, avoiding confusion or moral relativism.

• Authority of God → If God is all-knowing and perfectly good, His commands can be trusted as the ultimate moral authority.

• Motivation to act morally → Believers may be more motivated to do good if they see it as following God’s will, with eternal rewards or consequences.

• Equality before God’s law → Everyone is judged by the same standard, so morality applies universally, not just to certain groups.

• Links morality to religion → For religious believers, it grounds morality in their faith, giving meaning and purpose to moral living.

• Sense of accountability → Knowing God is “watching” can encourage people to act morally even when no one else is around.

What are the weaknesses of DCT?

• Euthyphro dilemma → Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? This challenges whether morality truly depends on God.

• Morality seems arbitrary → If “good” is just whatever God commands, then even cruel acts (like genocide in the Old Testament) would count as moral.

• Problem of pluralism → Different religions claim different “commands from God,” so it’s unclear which moral code is the true one.

• Dependent on belief → For non-believers, God’s commands hold no authority, making the theory less universal in a pluralistic world.

• Undermines genuine morality → If people act morally only to obey God or gain reward, their actions may be motivated by fear or self-interest rather than compassion.

• Challenges God’s goodness → If God commands things that appear unjust or cruel, it questions whether He is truly perfectly good.

Richard Dawkins says God is:

• Jealous and proud → God is insecure, demanding constant loyalty and praise.

• Petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak → He punishes harshly, without mercy, and insists on complete obedience.

• Vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser → He orders violence and destruction against entire peoples.

• Misogynistic, homophobic, racist → He discriminates, showing prejudice against  women, sexual minorities, and other groups.

• Infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal → He sanctions or causes the deaths of children, whole nations, and even His own son.

• Pestilential, megalomaniacal → He spreads plagues and acts with extreme arrogance, craving total power.

• Sadomasochistic → He both inflicts suffering and demands suffering from followers.

• Capriciously malevolent bully → His actions seem cruel, unpredictable, and domineering

Dawkins description of God is a problem for DCT because….

• if God really acts in the harsh and unfair ways Dawkins describes, then following His commands would mean accepting things most people see as wrong, like genocide or discrimination, as “good.” 

 

• That makes morality feel arbitrary—good or bad would just depend on what God says, even if it goes against our deepest sense of right and wrong. If God can seem cruel or unjust, it’s hard to see why His commands should be the ultimate standard for morality.

R.A.Sharpe says…

• Helping out of compassion → This is real morality, motivated by care and empathy.

• Helping just for God’s reward → Motivation shifts from morality to self-interest.

• Problem → Actions are no longer about right or wrong, but about personal gain.

• Point → Divine Command Theory risks reducing morality to obeying God for benefits rather than acting out of genuine goodness.

R.A sharpes ideas are a problem for DCT:

This is a problem for Divine Command Theory because it makes morality seem less about doing what is right for its own sake and more about obeying God to gain a reward or avoid punishment. If someone helps a stranger purely because they believe God will reward them, their action is motivated by self-interest rather than compassion or a genuine sense of morality. This undermines the idea that Divine Command Theory provides a solid foundation for ethics, since true morality should be about caring for others or recognising what is right, not simply following orders to benefit oneself.

Frans de Waal says 

• Morality came before religion → Humans had empathy, fairness, and cooperation long before organised religion.

• Religion codified morality → It didn’t create morality but reinforced it, especially in large societies where belief in God acted as a “watcher.”

• Evidence from secular societies → Places like Northern Europe show people can live morally without religion.

• Caution → We’ve never seen a society with no religion at all, so it’s not certain morality can exist completely without it.

Frans de Waals ideas create a problem for DCT because:

This is a problem for Divine Command Theory because if morality existed before religion, as de Waal argues, then morality cannot depend entirely on God’s commands. If people can act morally through empathy and cooperation, and if secular societies can still function with strong moral values, it suggests that morality is rooted in human nature and social evolution rather than in divine authority. This undermines the idea that God must be the ultimate source of morality.

Pluralism means 

The idea that many religions exist side by side, each with its own truths and practices, and modern society reflects this by recognising and respecting a diversity of beliefs.

pluralism is a problem for DCT because :

This is a problem for Divine Command Theory because if there are many different religions, each claiming that their God’s commands are the true basis of morality, it creates confusion and conflict over which commands people should actually follow. In a pluralistic society, it’s hard to argue that one religion’s moral code is the only valid one.

The Euthyphro Dilemma

• 

Arbitrariness Problem

• If X is right because God commands it, then morality is arbitrary (God could command anything, even trivial acts like wearing odd socks).

• God could make horrific acts good (e.g. Abraham and Isaac).

• Supported by Kierkegaard → “suspension of the ethical”: whatever God commands is right, even if it conflicts with intuition.

Emptiness Problem

Saying “God is good” is circular: good = whatever God commands.

Independent Standard Horn

• If God commands X because it is right, morality exists independently of God.

• Makes morality meaningful, avoids arbitrariness.

• Problem: suggests morality is above God → challenges God’s omnipotence.

Robert Adams’ Modified DCT

• God would never command cruelty because He is omnibenevolent.

• Morality is not arbitrary, grounded in God’s loving nature.

• Criticism: Some of God’s biblical commands still don’t seem “good.”