Module 3: Divine Command Theory Flashcards
what are some strong intuitions that morality depends on God?
-many look to the word of God for guidance on how to act
-God is considered necessary to compel humans how to act morally
-it is strongly believed that the Bible is the work of God which in turn determines what is objectively morally right or wrong
what are some strong intuitions that morality is independent on God?
-it appears possible for non-theist to have a moral understanding without engaging in religious text
- one belief is that morality can be arrived at through a procedural application of reason or through historical conventional agreement which God does not seem to be a requirement for
what position do atheist take on morality’s dependence on God?
For atheist, morality cannot depend on God if God cant be shown to exist
implication:
- God cannot justifiably be the basis of morality
- reason for some people is the basis of morality
3 Ways in which morality depends on God
- Prudential Dependence
- Epistemic Dependence
- Metaphysical Dependence
- Prudential Dependence
Morality depends on God in the sense that:
God enforces morality through administering reward or punishment depending on how compliant we are to Gods word. We act morally because God punishes or rewards us for our moral behaviour
- God motivates is to act morally through being the enforcer of morality
- Without fear of Hell or hope for Heaven or God insists we would not act morally
What are some problems for Prudential Dependence
- acting morally for the wrong reasons
- people may have other motivations for acting morally
- non theists have no problem being motivated to act morally
- prudential dependence undermines individual moral character by showing that we are only motivated by fear and reward
- Epistemic Dependence
Morality depends on God in the sense that:
The Word of God (religious text) is the primary source from which we come to know what morally right or wrong
God in this way acts as:
- a moral teacher and a source of knowledge
- without God we would not know what is morally right and morally wrong
Problems for Epistemic Dependence
religious texts, teachings or interpretations can:
- cause confusion/ unable to be morally guided because of disagreements between various scriptures on certain moral issues
- moral situations are too complex to be dependent on Gods Word alone, which might not elaborate on certain moral situation or dilemmas
Metaphysical Dependence
Morality depends on God in the sense that:
Gods commands determine what makes something morally right meaning that morality exists only because God exists
-metaphysical dependence is what is used when looking at the Divine Command Theory
Landua’s outline of The Divine Command Theory
Landua (66) outlines DCT differently by looking at the Argument for Gods Creation of Morality which states:
1. Every moral law requires an objective law maker
2. Human beings cannot be moral law makers, because they are subjective (inherently subjective)
3. Therefore, God is the author of moral law
Divine Command Theory argument
Gods commands determine the morality of actions. We should therefore act in accordance to Gods commands
what are the key claims of metaphysical
Metaethical claim :
Gods commands determine the morality of actions because God is the only one who can
Normative claim:
We ought to act and behave according to Gods commands
Divine Command Theory critique
Euthyphros Dilemma
Euthyphro’s Dilemma
Prong 1:
Does God command an action because is is morally right
Prong 2:
Is an action morally right because God commands it
-accepting either prong would mean that you would have to reject DCT
Accepting Prong 1
The morality of an action is made independently of God meaning that an action is determined as right before God commands it
-this shows that something outside (standard external) of God that determines right for wrong
Implication of accepting Prong 1:
Gods commands do not make something morally right
- we would have to reject Prong 1 because this means that 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 Gods Will
Accepting Prong 2
It would seem like God could command anything and it would be morally right
- what is stopping God from commanding anything to be morally right
Implication of accepting Prong 2:
1.Morality becomes arbitrary, at the “whim” or randomly determined by God
2. Goes against our background assumptions about morality regarding the stability of morality
Swineburnes defense from Euthyphros Dilemma
Swineburne bites the bullet with Prong 1, Richard Swineburnes defense states distinction between necessary moral truths and contingent moral truths
Necessary Moral Truths
Some things are good no matter what God commands and God commands these because they are good
eg, Malicious harm is morally bad
Contingent Moral Truths
Acts are good because in this particular world, God commands them to be good. He could have them as bad in this or another possible world but he didn’t
- This accepts the implication of Prong 2 but insists that God did not command bad things to be good in this world
Response to Swineburnes solution
if DCT is expressing a contingent moral truth:
-the threat of arbitrariness of Prong 2 does not go away
- why did God make the decision he made in this world, if God has reasons that determine the moral rightness or wrongness of an action, then morality is not dependent on Gods commands
if some moral actions are just Necessary Moral Truths:
- God in this case seems to be beholden to an external standard of harm and benefit
-these seem to constrain what God can command as morally right or wrong
we are therefore forced to abandon DCT because morality seems independent of God
is DCT internally consistent?
Contradicting commands objection:
-there are conflicting interpretations of scripture and often conflicting commands within and between holy texts
- by implication Gods commands could result in a logical contradiction meaning something could be both morally right and morally wrong at the same time
is DCT useful in moral problem solving?
Considering that there is widespread disagreement, especially interpretations, about what it is that God commands from us and and which commands are correct. This could prove difficult to decide and know what to do in moral dilemmas
- commandments might not help in complex moral dilemmas like the trolley problem
- even if there is agreement on commands, there is still large disagreement about the scope and nature of commandments
is DCT consistent with our Background assumptions about morality
Euthyphros Dilemma showed that:
- DCT makes morality arbitrary
- morality is not fully stable because God could have commanded otherwise
- DCT also results in absurd implications like God being able to command heinous actions as morally right
according to our BAAM:
- we want morality to be stable, non arbitrary and to match up with our idea that morality should forbid actions we credibly consider to be morally wrong
is DCT consistent with our Considered Moral Judgments
God has commanded some actions as morally required, that many modern people would consider to be morally wrong
eg, immoral commandments against CMJ: Homosexuality as punishable, slavery as acceptable and women as submissive
