Divine Command Theory - Lecture 1 Notes

Ethics involves rules, norms, and principles guiding human behavior, especially towards others.
Ethical theories aim to explain why these rules exist and why we should follow them.
The course has focused on theories that question the character of ethical rules.
Metaethical questions address the nature of these rules.
Skepticism is a recurring theme, and the course is moving from high to low skepticism.

Non-cognitivism:
- Most skeptical view.
- Ayer: Moral propositions are not propositions at all; they are emotional utterances.
- Moral statements are meaningless and cannot be true or false.
- Objective moral truths cannot exist.
Relativism:
- Moral truths exist but are dependent on individual or cultural beliefs.
- Skeptical about objective (mind-independent) moral truth.
- Harman: Wrongness is in the observer, not the event itself.
- Based on cultural groups or subjective individuals.
- Arguments for relativism (diversity, demonstrability, divine authority) have flaws.
- Relativism may be poorly thought out, but this doesn't definitively disprove it.
Divine Command Theory:
- Moral rules are based on God's commandments.
- Allows for the possibility of objective moral truth.
- Less skeptical: Moral truths are mind-independent but not independently knowable.
- Skeptical aspect: Humans need divine instruction to know moral truths.
- Metaphysically, there are objective moral truths, but epistemologically, humans must rely on God to know them.

Moral rules originate from God's commands.
Merit: Morality is objective and universal.
Basic idea: Actions are moral because God commands them.
Limited Claim: Some holy text or practice contains the only moral obligations.
Even theists don't believe that the Bible captures every moral rule.
Standards of right and wrong are provided entirely by God through religious texts or divine revelations.

Moral Ground Version:
- Right action is right because God commands it.
- God causes the rule to be the rule through command.
- Problem: In the Judeo-Christian tradition, God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good, but according to the moral ground view, you can't apply standard of good and bad to the behavior of God. God can't himself be either good, or bad. So, God is either all knowing and all powerful, but neither good nor bad just does stuff, and all the stuff God does tells us what good is, or there are some independent standard according to which we could measure the goodness of God's actions. But if that were the case, then the moral ground version can't be true. That is God can't be all powerful in the sense that God serves as the basis, the lone and sole basis for standards of right and wrong behavior.
- Problem: Morality is wholly arbitrary, similar to non-cognitivism. If God changes commands, morality changes.
Divine Index Version:
- God knows but is not responsible for moral rules.
- God has privileged access to moral truths.
- God is an intermediary, interpreting the universe and providing clear instructions.
- God knows that $2 + 2 = 4$ independently, and moral truths are likewise independent.
- Skeptical because human capacity to directly know moral truth is limited.

Interpretation and application of religious texts or revelations are required.
Which religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) and which book or prophet should be followed?
How should commands be interpreted? What does it mean to \"honor your mother and father?\" What is the scope of the commitment required to fulfill in the context of the commandment honor thy mother and father?

Even with divine commands, moral reasoning and justification are necessary.
Explicit moral rules are required, supported by arguments beyond appealing to a single deity.
Separation of church and state allows individuals to understand their religious beliefs in their own way.
Saint Thomas Aquinas recognized that morality cannot simply be a function of a particular religious text.