Divine command theory deals with ethics by taking the position that morality stems from commandments given by God or other divine agents. When discussing morality, one may treat moral laws as either objective or subjective in nature. In order for moral laws to be objective, however, they must be grounded in a transcendent moral first cause. If morals are subjective, then they are merely value judgments made by individual rational agents and it becomes very difficult to justify them as being obligatory. There is a danger in societies adopting subjective moral values as the standard, as this can lead to lawless behavior when people decide that the laws of any given culture no longer have a moral foundation. Thus objective moral values are important for society to function, as the laws of the land will reflect the values of the culture. How do we then establish morals as objective and therefore obligatory in the sense that a duty is ascribed to them? In this paper we will examine Divine Command Theory (or DCT) and discuss two premises: 1) If God exists, He provides a foundation for objective moral values. 2) If God does not exist, then there is no foundation for objective moral values. The Divine Command Theorist states that God is the locus of moral values. Moral duties are obligatory because God commands them, and they are good because they come from Him. It is important to remember that modern philosophers who support “DCT” avoid the Euthyphro dilemma by saying that moral values are good not only because God demands them, but because they are a reflection of God’s inherent goodness or character. God commands us to love, and love is good not only because God commands it, but because love is part of God’s essential character. Thus the idea that God’s commands are arbitrary does not create a problem because God cannot act in a manner contrary to his essential nature. Likewise, the position that if God gives moral commandments because they are good, and is thus an executor of a moral law that is antecedent to Himself also falls apart, because the moral law is itself grounded in God’s character. So moral laws are obligatory and good because God commands them, and God commands them because they are good and are an expression of his essential nature. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and giving credit to Dr. William Lane Craig whom the article refers to, Divine Command Theory has the advantage not only of providing us with a metaphysical foundation for objective moral values, but also helps us in answering the question “Why be Moral?” If God exists and moral duties are part of a Divine Command, then we are ultimately accountable to God’s standard of morality. The concept of justice, therefore, is also given a metaphysical foundation. (Austin, Michael, Divine Command Theory, para. 8) If “DCT” is true, then, moral values are obligatory in the sense that there are eternal consequences for moral decisions. On a similar note, if God provides us with a metaphysical foundation for objective moral duties, He may also provide us with a foundation for metaphysics itself. Is the Universe not built on laws? As our knowledge increases, thanks in large part to scientific progress, we are discovering that the organizational properties of nature are orders of magnitude more complex than we realized in past centuries. The Universe in this sense is a profound reflection of logical laws. These laws serve to govern the natural, and also provide us with an illustration of causal relationships in the natural. Descartes deconstructed reality with his skepticism, and rebuilt it in accordance with two principles: that because he was capable of thought he was therefore an existent being, and that because certain thoughts had to originate from a mind other than his own, and those thoughts were of an infinite nature, and since he assumed that mind to be benevolent, that his perception of reality was the expression of the thought of an infinite being. (Meditation II, para. 3) Upon this thought Descartes was able to reestablish reality based on God’s goodness. One may wonder what this has to do with Divine Command Theory, and rightfully so. If objective moral duties are grounded in God’s essential character, which is benevolent, and these are established by laws that He commands. Then it stands to reason that everything God produces is also established by His command. Whatever He commands thus becomes law. It is then expected that the universe is established and organized based on the principles of law. C.S. Lewis writes “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature. They expected law in nature because they believed in a Legislator.” (Miracles, 1947) So, if the laws of morality have come from the same source as the creator and designer of the natural universe, then the Divine Command should fit perfectly within the parameters of the natural world. There should therefore be universal moral truths, established within reality. The discovery and acceptance of such universal truths must inevitably point one toward a transcendent source, yet not everyone would agree. Dr. Sam Harris has attempted to give us an alternative source for objective moral truths. He claims that what constitutes goodness is whatever is conducive to the flourishing and well-being of sentient beings. He then takes the position that this definition of goodness is empirically verifiable, and thus moral values can be apprehended by scientific thought. There is, therefore, no need to invoke any deity to establish objective moral truth. In fact Sam Harris goes so far as to claim that religious thinking can and does produce moral depravity, since Divine Commands might contradict what is conducive to the well-being of sentient beings. He uses the examples of atrocities committed by religious adherents in the name of God. (The Moral Landscape, 2010) In short, his argument is this: 1) Objective morals are those which are conducive to the well-being of sentient creatures. 2) Science is telling us what is conducive to the well-being of sentient creatures. Conclusion: Science can produce objective moral truth. Harris then proceeds to justify exchanging God’s command as the standard of objective morality for a new standard based on the well-being of sentient creatures. This isn’t new, in fact, it’s reminiscent in some ways of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and certainly has Utilitarian roots. Harris has gone the extra step in claiming that neuroscience will one day be able to tell us what the peaks of human well-being (which he takes to mean happiness) are in the context of a “moral landscape” which demonstrates that the peaks will be occupied by those who have engaged in morally “good” behavior. While the idea that what produces human well-being is morally good is not an alien concept, one must wonder on what basis Harris can show that these peaks of well-being are accessible by moral action. Further, if well-being is to be interpreted as happiness and contentment, then one is forced to deal with several problems such as why should we define well-being as happiness, or why should we think that conscious states such as happiness and contentment are materially, and thus empirically, defined. For instance, if neuroscience is able to identify physical brain-states that are representative of conscious states such as happiness, does this then mean that the applied sciences are capable of materially producing said brain states? Does that constitute a moral good? If drug addiction produces a material brain-state of contentment, does that make addiction morally good? Another downfall of the moral landscape is that it is logically incoherent and does not match up with the world we live in. If the peaks of human well-being are accessed by morally good actions, then why do we see those very peaks occupied by evil people? It would seem that the moral landscape is not actually moral at all. What then is the only option left to those who would deny Divine Command Theory? It seems that one can only perceive morality as objective, or subjective. If morality is subjective, then who can we accuse of evil? On what authority can we convict anyone of morally reprehensible action? In order to establish law in society, we must establish the objective nature of moral duties. This can only be done by appealing to an authority that is transcendent to man. What becomes of us, then, when we deny God’s existence? The foundation of objective morality crumbles away, and we descend into a kind of moral free-fall. The atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche recognized the vast implications of eliminating God from our thinking. In “The Parable of the Madman” he expresses the confusion and anguish of God’s “death” in the human psyche. In the parable, the Madman exclaims: “Whither is God? he cried; I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning?” (The Gay Science, pp. 181-182) Nietzsche understood the consequences of his atheism. He understood that the foundations moral truth, even epistemology itself, were anchored in the divine. Consequently, he spent the last years of his life confined to his bed, plagued with the madness brought on, most likely, by his nihilism. In this paper we have discussed the Divine Command Theory. The advantages of “DCT” have been laid out, and some opposing views have been argued. It has been shown that to dismiss objective morality and the existence of God has real consequences to our approach to ethics and epistemology, even metaphysics. Divine Command Theory is not only a very strong approach to objective morality, it may be the only coherent one. Works Cited Austin, Michael. Divine Command Theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. . Descartes, Rene. Meditation II. Meditation II. Oregon State University. Web. 22 Aug. 2014. . Harris, Sam. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. New York: Free Press, 2010. Print. Lewis, C. S. Miracles : a preliminary study / by C.S. Lewis G. Bles London 1947 Nietzsche, Friedrich W, and Walter A. Kaufmann. The Gay Science: With a Prelude in Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs. New York: Vintage Books, 1974. Print.
Posted on: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 05:17:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015