Divine command theory Module three Philosophy: Ethics

Strong intuitions that morality depends on

God
Throughout history, morality and God have been strongly linked.
 Many look to God and the Word for guidance on how to act morally.
 God is considered necessary to compel humans to act morally.
 There’s a strong belief amongst theists that the Bible/Qur’an/Torah is the word of God which in turn
determines or provides us with what is objectively morally right or wrong.
 There’s also the idea that without God, there could be no (stable) morality because humans need
someone to enforce morality and we need some sort of objective basis for a morality that can apply to
everyone.

Strong intuitions that morality is independent

of God
Some intuitions challenge the claim that morality depends on God.
 It still appears possible for non-theists to have a moral understanding and orientation without
engaging or believing in God and religious text.
 One belief is that morality can be arrived at through a procedural application of reason or through
historical conventional agreement.
 So, God and religion seem not be necessary for us to do what’s morally right.
 For atheists, morality cannot depend on God if he doesn’t exist. By implication, for non-theists, God
cannot justifiably be the basis of morality.
 As you will see in Kant’s ethical theory later in the course: Reason, for some, is the basis of morality.
Still having a moral sense without appeal to God suggests that there could be another basis for
morality which is not God.

How could morality depend on God?

Morality’s dependence on God can be expressed in three main ways:
1. Prudential Dependence
2. Epistemic Dependence
3. Metaphysical Dependence

Metaphysical dependence is the metaethical claim in favour of the Divine Command Theory.

Prudential dependence
God enforces morality through administering reward or punishment depending on how compliant we are
to God’s word. We act morally because God punishes or rewards us for our moral behaviour.

As such, God’s existence compels us to act morally. Therefore, if you don’t follow God’s word, God will punish
you. If you follow God’s commands, you will be rewarded.

So, Morality depends on God in the sense that God motivates us to act morally through being the enforcer of
morality. Without God and the fear of Hell or hope for Heaven he instils, we would not act morally.

Problems with prudential dependence

 Acting morally for the wrong reasons? We shouldn’t do something wrong because it is wrong,
and not because of the threat of punishment?
 People may have other motivations for acting morally.
 Non-theists have no problem being motivated to act morally without fearing damnation: they
don’t believe in it.
Divine command theory Module three Philosophy: Ethics
 As Landau points out, this kind of dependence significantly undermines individual moral character
by showing that we are only motivated by fear and reward, which essentially has nothing to do
with whether we consider the actions themselves to be right or wrong.

Epistemic dependence
The Word of God (religious text) is the primary source from which we come to know what’s morally right
or wrong.

Here, God is a moral teacher and source of moral knowledge.

So, Morality depends on God in the sense that without God and God’s word, we would not know what’s
morally right and morally wrong.

The Central idea is that God is the source of moral guidance and knowledge for people.

Problems with epistemic dependence

 Which of God’s Words should we look at to understand what’s morally right or wrong (related to the
disagreements between various scriptures on certain moral issues).
 Moral situations are exceedingly complex, and the Word of God might not have information on how
to act in particular issues like moral dilemmas.
 Remember the atheists? They seem to be able to know what’s morally right or wrong without
engaging scripture

Metaphysical dependence
God’s command determines what makes something morally right.
As such, an act is morally required in so far as God has commanded it as so.
So, Morality depends on God in the sense that something is morally right or wrong because God says so
simpliciter.

This is the dependence we are interested in when looking at the Divine Command Theory.

The divine command theory

The Divine Command Theory puts forward a metaethical claim capturing the metaphysical dependence of
morality on God.

For DCT: God’s commanding it so makes something morally right. Therefore, according to the Divine
Command Theory:
An action is morally right if God commands it.
An action is morally wrong if God forbids it.
An action is morally neutral/permissible if God neither commands or forbids it.

Landau (see page 66) outlines the DCT differently by looking at the Argument for God’s Creation of
Morality, which states:
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.
Divine command theory Module three Philosophy: Ethics

Critiquing the DCT

Posing Euthyphro’s Dilemma to the proponents of DCT
Forces us to reconsider the relationship between morality and God. Give us two options (Prongs) – have to
accept one or the other. Each has it’s own implications.

In Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue, Socrates questions Euthyphro on the nature of Piety. Socrates raises a dilemma
which is a direct challenge to the Divine Command Theory...
“Is the pious loved by the Gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the Gods?”

Modernised Euthyphro’s Dilemma:

Prong 1 – “Does God command an action because it is morally right”
Prong 2 – “Is it morally right because God commands it?”

Implications of accepting Prong 1

If we accept God commands something because it is morally right
Forced to reject the idea that God is the source of moral rightness and wrongness – some external standard
determines right or wrong.

Gods commands do not make something right or wrong – forced to reject the DCT. Actions have been already
determined as right or wrong independent of God’s commands

Morality not metaphysically dependent on God, but may be still epistemically dependent on God – still a moral
guider/ imparts his wisdom upon us.

If we accept God Commands something because it’s morally right:

 There is seemingly a standard external to God which makes something morally right or wrong.
 Shows that there may be something outside of God that determines right or wrong. i.e., there are
reasons making something right that God appeals to in order to command something.
 The action has already been determined as right, and God commands it after the fact, because of
this.

The implication of accepting Prong 1 is that God’s commands don’t make something morally right.
Therefore, if prong 1 is correct, we must reject the Divine Command Theory!
Why? Because morality will not be metaphysically dependent on God.
Instead, God would be commanding something because it has already been determined as morally right
independent of God’s command.

Implications for accepting Prong 2

DCT : if God commanding something makes it right. DCTs are committed to defending the second prong.
 Seems like God could command anything and it would be morally right

Implications of accepting prong 2:

1. Makes morality arbitrary: What is morally right could equally have been morally wrong if he said so.
Whim of God. We want morality to be stable.
2. The fact that anything could be morally right just because God commanded it goes against our
background assumptions about morality that some actions are wrong no matter what.
Divine command theory Module three Philosophy: Ethics

Attempt to Save DCT from Euthyphro’s Dilemma: Richard Swinburne’s

Solution
God would never command something that is bad as morally right
The second prong represents contingent moral good
Swinburne is trying to say that we can accept both prongs of Euthyphro’s dilemma without rejecting the DCT.

To defend Prong 2, you might want to insist that God would never command something that is bad as
morally right:
Swinburne states that there are necessary moral goods and contingent moral truths.
Necessary moral truths:
Some things are good no matter what God commands, and God commands these because they are Good.
E.g. Malicious harm is morally bad, just as a matter of logic.
This “bites the bullet” with prong 1.
Like logical truths. Something we can’t imagine to be otherwise

Then contingent moral truths:

Acts are good because in this particular world, God commands them to be Good. He could have
commanded them as bad in this or another possible world, but he didn’t.
E.g. Perhaps God could have commanded serial murder as morally right, but he didn’t in this world.
This accepts the implication of Prong 2 (that God could have commanded anything to be right or wrong) but
insists that God did not command bad things to be good in this world.

Problem with Swinburne’s Solution

If DCT is expressing a contingent moral truth: The threat of arbitrariness does not go away:
Why is serial murder bad in this world and good in another world?
What makes God make serial murder bad in our world?

And if God has reasons, perhaps it is these reasons that determine the moral rightness or wrongness of an
action, not his commanding.

But this would mean that after all, God doesn’t make something right or wrong. It’s the reasons that do!

Also, God in this case seems to be beholden to an external standard of harm and benefit, and these seem to
constrain what God can command as morally right or wrong.
Back to square one! (Forced to abandon DCT because morality seems independent of God).

Is DCT a good moral theory?

Is DCT internally consistent (does the DCT key claim lead to any contradictions)?
There may be issues with the claim that God’s command makes something right...
The “Contradicting Commands” Objection:
There are conflicting interpretations of scripture, and often conflicting commands within and between holy
texts.
For example, Deuteronomy 20:10-18 vs. Isiah 58:6 on the keeping of slaves.
By implication, God’s commands could result in a logical contradiction, where something is both morally
right and morally wrong at the same time.

Is DCT useful in moral problem solving?

 Considering that there is widespread disagreement (especially in interpretations) about what it is
that God commands from us and which commands are correct, it might be difficult to know what to
do.
 Even if there is agreement on the commands themselves (at least between the Judeo-Christian and
Islamic religions), there is still large disagreement about the content and nature of the
commandments.
 Commandments might not help in some moral dilemmas. E.g., Trolley Problems. So, perhaps DCT
is not very helpful in moral problem solving.
Divine command theory Module three Philosophy: Ethics
Is DCT consistent with our background assumptions about morality?
Euthyphro’s dilemma shows that we should doubt this significantly.
Remember: We want morality to be stable, non-arbitrary, and to match up with our idea that morality
should be able to successfully forbid an action that we credibly consider to be morally wrong.
As we saw with the Euthyphro’s dilemma:
 God’s command making something morally right threatens to make morality arbitrary.
 There are also issues with morality not fully stable because God could have commanded otherwise.
 We also saw that DCT results in absurd implications like God being able to command heinous
actions as morally right.

Is DCT consistent with our considered moral judgments?

Seemingly, God has commanded some actions (as morally required) that many modern people would
consider to be morally wrong.
For example, interpretations of God’s commands as against homosexuality, pro-slavery, anti- abortion and anti-
women’s rights.
“Immoral” Commandments against Considered Moral Judgments:
 Homosexuality is to be punished by death (Leviticus 20:13)
 Slavery is acceptable under certain conditions (Deuteronomy 20:10-18)
 Women should never hold authority over men (1 Timothy 2:12)
What we find is that God’s commands could be against our considered moral judgments. Ergo, we have
less reason to believe God’s command makes an action morally right.