Thoughts on Divine Command Theory

Thoughts on Divine Command Theory

In our Ethics for Life textbook author Judith A. Boss states the following:

"Divine command theory claims that morality is dependent on or relative to God’s commands and, therefore, can change from time to time and person to person. Civil religion, which blends religion and cultural relativism, is a variant of divine command theory. It claims that God’s commands are relative to a particular nation or culture. Natural law theory, in contrast, maintains that morality is based on universal, unchanging principles and that God commands or approves something because it is right prior to the command.

Natural Law and divine command

The problem I have with this statement is it provides no description of what divine command theorist believe about the nature of God. Natural Law claims "universal, unchanging principles" and according to natural law theorist, God approves a universal or principle before a command.  Natural Law seems to be a separate ideal from God that God approves.

 The Jewish and Christian views accept that the divine and perfect nature proceeds God's commands and gives moral perpetuity and authority to the divine commands.  In other words from a divine command perspective, God's nature is eternal, pure, good, and unchanging therefore like the natural law theory, God's commands are "universal and unchanging".  However, unlike natural law, the universal, unchanging principles are inherent in God's nature not separate from God. Since God's nature is unchanging the divine commands do not change. God's commands flow from a perfect, just, holy, and righteous character that cannot change and will not change.  Therefore divine command is not a relativist ethical theory.

Who is God's judge?

The textbook states," There are no independent, universal moral standards by which to judge God’s commands."

This statement seems to ignore the very definition of God or who God is perceived to be.  God by definition is eternal and the creative source of all beings, objects, knowledge and wisdom. God is, to use Aristotle’s concept, the unmoved mover of all things. To clarify, God is the uncaused cause of all things.  Look at it this way: you want to borrow a lawn mower to mow your yard, so you ask your neighbor if you may borrow her lawn mower, your neighbor states it is not hers to lend and that you will have to ask the other neighbor. You proceed to ask all other neighbors only to be told the same, It is not ours to lend, you will have to ask another neighbor.  In order for you to finally get permission to borrow the mower there will have to be an "Owner" of the lawn mower that can give you the authority or permssion to borrow the lawn mower to mow your yard.  God is the final authority or "independent standard" by which we get the lawn mower. Without an owner there is no lawnmower to lend.

If there was a principle or standard outside of God, that God acquiesced to then he would not be God by definition, the standard or principle itself would be God.  Also the author does not see that even if we say there is another universal standard, lets say natural law, then by what independent or universal moral standard do we judge natural law?

The problem for natural law is increased because human reason is not eternal, transcendent, inherently moral, or uncaused, so how can finite natural law or human reason trump its eternal maker as the final authority of what is good or evil? It cannot. This also begs the question, who endowed humans with reason in which we find this moral law?  If natural reason has an inherent law, we know that laws and ideas are not physical properties but properties of mind, so if reason has an originator this creator must have mind or intelligence which proceed creation, therefore this mind has precedent and authority over human reason or natural law.

Was Abraham's God a relativist?

The textbook seems to be comparing the 2001 Muslim terrorist who murdered 2000 US citizens and Andrea Yates who murdered her children with Abraham in the book of Genesis.  Is this a fair comparison or a hasty generalization of divine command theory? Let’s look at each of the situations:

Muslim terrorist:

1.       Terrorist claim the Koran gave them moral authority to kill unbelievers.

2.       Qur’an states that “. . . anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes it shall be as if he murdered all the people” (5:32)

3.       Terrorist did not claim to hear voices or a voice commanding them to kill.

4.       They believed they had a moral duty to murder infidels according to the Koran, but violated the divine command in the Koran. 

5.       Muslims do not believe that God speaks directly to people because the Koran is the exact words of God therefore God does not need to speak any further because Mohammed was his final prophet.

6.       There was no known mal-psychological history or issues with the terrorist.

7.       Only 10% of Muslims believe such murder is sanctioned by the Koran.

8.       They were successful in committing murder

Andrea Yates:

1.       Known to have previous psychological issues with depression, postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. 

2.       Attempted suicide on several occasion and was prescribed strong anti-psychotic medications, including Haldol.

3.       Believed she was possessed by the devil and by killing her children was saving children from hell because she was a "bad mother". 

4.       Andrea did not hear voices from God but did hear voices from devil telling her to kill her children. 

5.       Was told by minister and minister's wife that she was evil and going to hell if she did not change (preacher was self-proclaimed prophet).

6.       Andrea successfully murdered her children

Abraham:

1.       No documented mental disorders.

2.       Polytheistic background (belief in many gods).

3.       Was held in high esteem among the surrounding people and Kings and considered a prophet among some;

4.       Possessed no known authoritative scriptures that determined his latter view of one God.

5.       At 75 years of age Abraham was told by God:

 “I will make you into a great nation,

    and I will bless you;

I will make your name great,

    and you will be a blessing.[a]

3 I will bless those who bless you,

    and whoever curses you I will curse;

and all peoples on earth

    will be blessed through you.

6.       We do not know how Abraham received this command only that he believed this is what God wanted him to do. 

7.       There is no dispute that Abraham's inclination that he would become a great nation was correct. 

At a later age Abraham believed God said the following:

"Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah.

Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

1.       Abraham believes God is asking him to sacrifice his son, but since God, according to Abraham cannot lie, he knows that somehow God will either stop him or raise Isaac from the dead.

2.       Child sacrifice was not uncommon among the polytheistic religions surrounding Abraham.  It is believed that God is demonstrating or teaching Abraham that he is not that kind of God. 

3.       This God had already promised that Isaac would be Abrahams Heir.

4.       This God had protected him in previous dangerous circumstances and affirmed his divine will to not punish the good with the evil

5.       Later in the Jewish Decalogue, human sacrifice is strictly forbidden with a promise of severe judgment if children are sacrificed.

6.       Abraham is stopped by God and does not kill Isaac. 

I have demonstrated the obvious differences between the examples given in the textbook and I think the textbook is incorrect to make a moral equivalency among the 3 separate events by possibly distorting or failing to accurately report Andrea Yates condition.

As stated previously, Abraham had no previous authoritative knowledge concerning God’s commands other than that he was to go to another country, also Abraham did not kill Isaac, and Jewish law forbids sacrificing children to any god.

Andrea Yates mental illness was well documented, she was on numerous medications, and she did not believe God wanted her to kill her children, but that the devil was demanding her to kill her children. Andrea Yates believed she was a horrible parent and she killed her children so they would go to heaven because she was such a poor mother they would end up in hell.  She received no divine command to murder her children.

The Islamic terrorist interpreted the Koran in a way that justified their murderous crimes. A large majority of Muslims believe the terrorist acted contrary to the Koran.  The terrorist did not hear voices from God or the devil but were influenced by certain Islamic Imam's (teachers)

Each of these examples are so different in circumstance and outcome that they cannot be used to make a singular point about the relativistic nature of divine command theory. Some either outright violated their religious teaching or were stopped by their God from following through with the moral violation.

Do we need God to justify ethics?

The textbook states, "God cannot be used as a fundamental criterion for moral goodness, nor is God necessary for morality. Instead, the claim that what God wills is good is dependent on a previous belief that there exists a being worthy of worship. Thus, rather than God being the foundation of morality, a belief in God is dependent on our already having a concept of moral goodness."

The author’s reasoning fails to explain how humans obtained the knowledge of moral goodness. If God created the world (how it was done is irrelevant), then it is rational to conclude that a rational, moral creator instilled in creation the knowledge of moral goodness. If, as the textbook claims we would have to obtain this knowledge from elsewhere, it would appear they are simply trading one god for another.  Moral knowledge must be true or false, if true it must be grounded in a source outside of nature since nature is finite and had a beginning. The source must therefore be transcendent (outside of creation), eternal, and unchangeable.  Since we have concluded previously that these are characteristic of the definition of God, then God must be necessary for "universal, unchanging principles".  This does not imply that we must believe or accept this God, only that the existence of this God is logically necessary in order for ethics to be "universal and unchanging principles".