Divine Command Theory Lecture Notes

Divine Command Theory: Core Thesis

  • Morality’s ultimate ground = God’s will.
  • Right / wrong and good / bad are defined exclusively by God’s commands.
    • Obligatory  ⟺  God commands\text{Obligatory} \iff \text{God\,commands}
    • Forbidden  ⟺  God commands not\text{Forbidden} \iff \text{God\,commands\,not}
    • Permissible  ⟺  God is silent\text{Permissible} \iff \text{God\,is\,silent}
  • Works both as a theory of obligation and of value.
    • Value formulation: Good  ⟺  God commands us to promote/preserve\text{Good} \iff \text{God\,commands\,us\,to\,promote/preserve} ; Bad  ⟺  God commands us to prevent/destroy\text{Bad} \iff \text{God\,commands\,us\,to\,prevent/destroy}

Religion–Morality Identification

  • Historically, religion and ethics have been treated as synonymous:
    • To be irreligious ⇔ to be amoral (common popular inference).
  • Reasons the public fuses them:
    1. Every religion supplies a moral code (e.g.
    • Ten Commandments list thou shalt/shalt not\text{thou\,shalt} / \text{shalt\,not}).
    1. Religions attach rewards/punishments (earthly & supernatural) that motivate compliance.
    2. Media treat clergy as “moral experts,” reinforcing monopoly claim.
    3. Science is viewed as value-neutral (concerned with facts), so religion seems to own the value-domain.

Practical Use of the Theory

  • Identify God’s will via: sacred texts, revelation, authoritative testimony.
  • Not merely the surface act; emphasis on spirit in which commands are obeyed.
  • Reveals moral values that might remain hidden (e.g.
    charity, neighbor-love).

Motivations for Accepting Divine Command Theory (DCT)

  1. Provides an objective metaphysical foundation—anchors morality in a real, transcendent source.
  2. Links moral action to reward/punishment—solves “why be moral?”.
  3. Satisfies theistic accountability: humans are answerable to God.

Standard Objections (Pre-Euthyphro)

  • Plurality Problem
    • Multiple religions → contradictory divine commands.
    • Even within one tradition, interpretative disputes cause conflicts (e.g.
      “steal to save wife’s life?”).
  • Silence on Contemporary Issues
    • Scriptures rarely address insider trading, stem-cell research, etc.
  • Problem of Evil
    • If God is all-good & all-powerful, why evil? (Deferred to later unit.)

The Euthyphro Dilemma

  • Origin: Plato’s dialogue. Socrates asks:
    • “Is the holy loved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is loved?”
  • Leibniz restates for DCT:
    • Are acts good because God wills them, or does God will them because they are good?
Two Options
  1. Dependence Thesis (Option 1)
    • God’s command creates rightness.
  2. Recognition Thesis (Option 2)
    • God commands an act because it is independently right.
Clash with Core Theistic Attributes
  • Theism usually affirms:
    • Omnipotence (all-powerful creator).
    • Omniscience (knows all truths).
    • Perfect rationality & wisdom.
    • Perfect moral goodness.
Problems for Option 2 (Recognition)
  • Morality exists independently ⇒ God not creator of moral order.
  • God’s will seems constrained ⇒ limits omnipotence.
  • Therefore abandons DCT—makes morality god-independent.
Problems for Option 1 (Dependence)
  • Arbitrariness Objection
    • If nothing grounds God’s choices, commands are without reason ⇒ conflicts with divine wisdom.
  • Anything-Goes Objection
    • God could demand atrocities; they’d become obligatory.
  • Divine Goodness Objection
    • “God is good” reduces to circular: “God commands preserving God,” empty of content.

Classical & Contemporary Replies

William of Ockham (14th c.)
  • Concedes atrocities would be right if commanded, but asserts God’s character guarantees He won’t.
William Lane Craig’s “Third Way”
  • Proposes escape from dilemma:
    • God’s nature = the standard of goodness (essentially loving, just).
    • Commands flow necessarily from that nature.
  • Critiques:
    • How verify God’s nature is good without an external metric?
    • Dilemma resurfaces: Are the divine attributes good because they are divine, or vice-versa?
Mark Timmons’ Split-Level View
  • Dependence in creation: God creates world ⇒ creates pre-conditions for morality.
  • Independence in application: Once created, necessary moral truths (analogous to 2+2=42+2=4) hold regardless of further divine say-so.
    • Maintains omnipotence by limiting it to all-possible-but-not-logically-impossible.
  • Objections:
    • “Is-Ought” gap: How emerge moral oughts from brute “is” facts?
    • Still leaves us needing ethical theories for concrete duties.

Illustrative Scenario: Sick Wife & Theft

  • Man considers robbing liquor store to buy life-saving medicine.
    • Command “Do not steal” vs.
      “Do not kill.”
    • DCT yields conflicting imperatives; text alone offers no resolution.

Implications & Next Steps

  • DCT remains philosophically alive but burdened with significant logical tensions.
  • Even modified versions force us to address unresolved questions:
    • Authoritative interpretation,
    • Contemporary applicability,
    • Non-arbitrariness.
  • Necessitates exploring alternative moral frameworks (next: Ethical Relativism – culture-based morality).
Summary of Key Terms & Symbols
  • iff\text{iff} = “if and only if” (necessary & sufficient).
  • Obligation (duty) vs.
    Value (goodness).
  • Theism: belief in omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect deity.
  • Euthyphro Dilemma: ancient challenge questioning whether morality is commanded or acknowledged by deity.