The name “divine command theory” can be used to refer to any one of a family of
related ethical theories. What these theories have in common is that they take
God’s will to be the foundation of ethics. According to divine command theory,
things are morally good or bad, or morally obligatory, permissible, or
prohibited, solely because of God’s will or commands.
Divine command theory is often thought to be refuted by an argument known
as the Euthyphro dilemma. This argument is named after Plato’s Euthyphro, the
dialogue in which it has its origin (though the argument isn’t actually stated
there). The Euthyphro dilemma begins by posing a question: Are morally good acts
willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because
they are willed by God? Whichever way the theist answers this question, problems
are thought to follow.
If the theist gives the first answer to the Euthyphro dilemma, holding that
morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then he faces
the independence problem; if morally good acts are willed by God because they
are morally good, then they must be morally good prior to and so independently
of God’s willing them. This is clearly inconsistent with divine command theory;
the divine command theorist must give the second answer to the Euthyphro
dilemma.
If the theist gives the second answer to the Euthyphro dilemma, holding that
morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then he faces
the emptiness problem and the problem of abhorrent commands.
The emptiness problem is that on the divine command analysis of moral goodness,
statements like “God is good” and “God’s commands are good” are rendered empty
tautologies: “God acts in accordance with his commands” and “God’s commands are
in accordance with his commands”.
The problem of abhorrent commands is that divine command theory appears to
entail that if God were to command abhorrent acts—malicious deception, wanton
cruelty, etc.—those acts would become morally good.
Divine command theory is by no means the only ethical theory in the Christian
tradition, so the theist need not be overly concerned even if these objections
were thought to be successful. There are, however, theological reasons why the
theist might be attracted to divine command theory and so want to defend it. God
is claimed to be the creator of all things, and therefore the creator of our
moral obligations. God is claimed to be sovereign, to have the authority to tell
us how we are to live our lives. There are also a number of biblical examples of
God commanding acts that would otherwise be thought to be morally wrong, acts
such as plundering the Egyptians [Exodus 11:2] or preparing to sacrifice one’s
son [Genesis 22:2], thus rendering them morally good. These considerations can
most easily, though not only, be accommodated within a divine command theory of
ethics.
Book Recommendations
Neil Levy
Moral Relativism: A Short Introduction
Oneworld Publications Ltd (2002)
ISBN: 1851683054
Details at: Amazon.com Amazon.ca Amazon.co.uk
Robin Gill (ed)
The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics
Cambridge University Press (2000)
ISBN: 0521779189
Details at: Amazon.com Amazon.ca Amazon.co.uk
Michael Martin
Atheism, Morality and Meaning
Prometheus Books (2003)
ISBN: 1573929875
Details at: Amazon.com Amazon.ca Amazon.co.uk
Gregory Koukl & Francis Beckwith
Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air
Baker Book House (1998)
ISBN: 0801058066
Details at: Amazon.com Amazon.ca Amazon.co.uk
|
