Christian Ethics. How Christian Ethics. How Should We Live?Should We Live?
4. The Divine Command Theory4. The Divine Command Theory
Sunday, June 5, 20059 to 9:50 am, in the Parlor.
Everyone is welcome!
Praise to you, God, for all your work Praise to you, God, for all your work among us.among us.
Yours is the vigor in creation,Yours is the vigor in creation,yours is the impulse in our new yours is the impulse in our new
discoveries.discoveries.Make us adventurous, yet reverent Make us adventurous, yet reverent
and hopefuland hopefulin all we do.in all we do.
-- A New Zealand Prayer Book, p. 612A New Zealand Prayer Book, p. 612
Basic Moral Basic Moral Philosophy, Third Philosophy, Third EditionEdition, Robert L. , Robert L. Holmes. Thomson Holmes. Thomson Wadsworth, 2003. Wadsworth, 2003. ISBN 0ISBN 0--534534--5847758477--2 2 (Chapter 6: (Chapter 6: ““The The Divine Command Divine Command TheoryTheory””))Dr. Holmes is Dr. Holmes is professor of professor of philosophy at the philosophy at the University of University of Rochester.Rochester.
How Should We Live? How Should We Live? An Introduction to An Introduction to Ethics,Ethics, Louis P. Louis P. PojmanPojman, Wadsworth , Wadsworth Publishing, 2005. Publishing, 2005. ISBN: 0ISBN: 0--534534--5565755657--4. 4. (Chapter 5 (Chapter 5 ““Religion Religion and Ethicsand Ethics””))Dr. Dr. PojmanPojman is professor is professor of philosophy at the of philosophy at the United States Military United States Military Academy Academy
Ethics: A Ethics: A Contemporary Contemporary IntroductionIntroduction, by , by Harry J. Harry J. GenslerGensler, , RoutledgeRoutledge, 1998. , 1998. ISBN: 0ISBN: 0--415415--1562515625--4. 4. (Chapter 3 (Chapter 3 ““SupernaturalismSupernaturalism””))Dr. Dr. GenslerGensler is is professor of professor of philosophy at John philosophy at John Carroll University in Carroll University in Cleveland.Cleveland.
The Moral Quest: The Moral Quest: Foundations of Foundations of Christian Ethics,Christian Ethics,Stanley J. Stanley J. GrenzGrenz. . InterVarsityInterVarsity Press, Press, 2000. ISBN: 02000. ISBN: 0--830830--8156881568--6.6.Dr. Dr. GrenzGrenz is is professor of professor of theology and ethics theology and ethics at Carey / Regent at Carey / Regent College in College in Vancouver, B.C.Vancouver, B.C.
IntroductionIntroduction
IntroductionIntroductionEthics of Doing vs. BeingEthics of Doing vs. Being
There are two ways of approaching the There are two ways of approaching the question of what it means to be question of what it means to be moralmoral or or ethicalethical (= right / good rather than wrong / (= right / good rather than wrong / evil):evil):
1. 1. Ethics of DoingEthics of Doing = = ActionAction--based Ethicsbased Ethics = = Ethics of ConductEthics of Conduct. Asks the question: . Asks the question: What What should I do?should I do?2. 2. Ethics of BeingEthics of Being = = VirtueVirtue--based Ethicsbased Ethics = = AretaicAretaic EthicsEthics. Asks the question: . Asks the question: What should I What should I become?become?
IntroductionIntroductionEthics of DoingEthics of Doing
There are two major divisions in There are two major divisions in Ethics of DoingEthics of Doing (= (= ActionAction--based Ethicsbased Ethics = = EthicsEthics of Conductof Conduct):):
1. 1. RelativismRelativism: : allall moral principles are moral principles are relativerelative, and will , and will vary from culture to culture (= Conventional Ethical vary from culture to culture (= Conventional Ethical Relativism or Conventionalism) or even from person to Relativism or Conventionalism) or even from person to person (= Subjective Ethical Relativism or Subjectivism)person (= Subjective Ethical Relativism or Subjectivism)2. 2. Objectivism, AbsolutismObjectivism, Absolutism: there are : there are universal moral universal moral principlesprinciples that apply to all people, regardless of the that apply to all people, regardless of the culture, place, or time that they live.culture, place, or time that they live.
AbsolutismAbsolutism: the : the universal moral principlesuniversal moral principles do not conflict with do not conflict with each other. It should (at least theoretically) be possible to fieach other. It should (at least theoretically) be possible to find one nd one correct answer to every moral problem.correct answer to every moral problem.ObjectivismObjectivism: some of the : some of the universal moral principlesuniversal moral principles may may override others in some situations.override others in some situations.
IntroductionIntroductionEthics of DoingEthics of Doing
All Christian ethical theories of doing agree All Christian ethical theories of doing agree there are there are universal moral principlesuniversal moral principles that that apply to all people, regardless of the culture, apply to all people, regardless of the culture, place or time that they live.place or time that they live.A Christian system of ethics may be:A Christian system of ethics may be:
An An AbsolutistAbsolutist system.system.An An ObjectivistObjectivist system.system.
IntroductionIntroductionEthics of DoingEthics of Doing
What makes an act right or good?What makes an act right or good?There are two general answers to this question that There are two general answers to this question that create two approaches to the create two approaches to the Ethics of DoingEthics of Doing (= (= ActionAction--based Ethicsbased Ethics = = EthicsEthics of Conductof Conduct):):
1. 1. Teleological EthicsTeleological Ethics == ConsequentialistConsequentialist EthicsEthics. The . The morality of an act is based on the morality of an act is based on the outcomeoutcome or or consequenceconsequenceof the act.of the act.2. 2. Deontological EthicsDeontological Ethics == NonconsequentialistNonconsequentialist EthicsEthics. . The morality of an act is based in the The morality of an act is based in the act itselfact itself..
Most Christian ethics of doing are Most Christian ethics of doing are primarilyprimarilydeontological or deontological or nonconsequentialistnonconsequentialist..
IntroductionIntroductionDeontological EthicsDeontological Ethics
There are three major systems of There are three major systems of Deontological Deontological Ethics Ethics == NonconsequentialistNonconsequentialist EthicsEthics (= the morality (= the morality or or ““rightness / goodnessrightness / goodness”” of an act is inherent in the of an act is inherent in the act itselfact itself):):
1.1. Divine Command Theories.Divine Command Theories. ““RightnessRightness”” or or ““goodnessgoodness””is what God permits or commands.is what God permits or commands.2.2. Intuitionist Theories.Intuitionist Theories. ““RightnessRightness”” or or ““goodnessgoodness”” are are principles built into the fabric of reality and cannot be principles built into the fabric of reality and cannot be further analyzed; they can be further analyzed; they can be ““intuitedintuited”” and are and are ““selfself--evidentevident”” to the mature mind.to the mature mind.3.3. ReasonReason--based Theories.based Theories. ““RightnessRightness”” or or ““goodnessgoodness”” can can be discovered through our reason.be discovered through our reason.
IntroductionIntroductionDivine Command TheoryDivine Command Theory
Today we will be discussing the Today we will be discussing the Divine Divine Command TheoryCommand Theory in Christian Ethics. It is in Christian Ethics. It is also referred to as:also referred to as:
SupernaturalismSupernaturalismTheological Theological VolunterismVolunterism
We will presume that we can accurately hear, We will presume that we can accurately hear, discern and interpret what God permits or discern and interpret what God permits or commands (Godcommands (God’’s will).s will).
GodGod’’s Will and Moral s Will and Moral RightnessRightness
GodGod’’s Will and Moral Rightnesss Will and Moral RightnessSocratesSocrates’’ QuestionQuestion
In PlatoIn Plato’’s (428 BC to 348 BC) early dialogue s (428 BC to 348 BC) early dialogue EuthyphroEuthyphro, Socrates asks , Socrates asks EuthyphroEuthyphro the the question:question:
Does God love goodness because it is good?
Or is it good because God loves it?
GodGod’’s Will and Moral Rightnesss Will and Moral RightnessSocratesSocrates’’ QuestionQuestion
EuthyphroEuthyphro answers the later. Something is answers the later. Something is good good becausebecause God loves it. That is:God loves it. That is:
““XX”” is good is good becausebecause God loves / desires / wills God loves / desires / wills ““X.X.””and and notnot::God loves / desires / wills God loves / desires / wills ““XX”” becausebecause ““XX”” is is goodgood
GodGod’’s Will and Moral Rightnesss Will and Moral RightnessThe Divine Command TheoryThe Divine Command Theory
EuthyphroEuthyphro’’ss answer (answer (““EuthyphroEuthyphro’’ss thesisthesis””), ), ““XX”” is good is good becausebecause God loves / desires / wills God loves / desires / wills ““X,X,”” is the is the Divine Command TheoryDivine Command TheoryIn the In the Divine Command TheoryDivine Command Theory::
Whatever God Whatever God permitspermits is (by definition) is (by definition) goodgood..Whatever God Whatever God prohibitsprohibits is (by definition) is (by definition) wrongwrong..
GodGod’’s Will and Moral Rightnesss Will and Moral RightnessThe Divine Command TheoryThe Divine Command Theory
That is, the That is, the Divine Command TheoryDivine Command Theory sayssaysMoral rightness simply means Moral rightness simply means ““willed by Godwilled by God””(whatever God wants = good!)(whatever God wants = good!)Moral wrongness simply means Moral wrongness simply means ““against the will against the will of Godof God”” (whatever is not what God wants = bad!)(whatever is not what God wants = bad!)
Morality is based Morality is based strictlystrictly on Godon God’’s will. s will. Without God, there can be no morality or Without God, there can be no morality or ethics.ethics.
GodGod’’s Will and Moral Rightnesss Will and Moral RightnessThe Autonomy ThesisThe Autonomy Thesis
The opposing answer (which Socrates argues for) is The opposing answer (which Socrates argues for) is sometimes called the sometimes called the ““autonomy thesisautonomy thesis::””
““God loves / desires / wills God loves / desires / wills ““XX”” becausebecause ““XX”” is good.is good.””
The The autonomy thesisautonomy thesis implies:implies:Rightness and wrongness are not based simply on GodRightness and wrongness are not based simply on God’’s s will, but:will, but:Rightness and wrongness (morality) has an existence or Rightness and wrongness (morality) has an existence or meaning that is meaning that is independentindependent of God.of God.
GodGod’’s s ““omnipotenceomnipotence”” does does not not include the power to define what is include the power to define what is right or wrong, good or bad.right or wrong, good or bad.
GodGod’’s Will and Moral Rightnesss Will and Moral RightnessDivine Command Theory vs. the Divine Command Theory vs. the
Autonomy ThesisAutonomy ThesisAt first glance it may seem that the At first glance it may seem that the Divine Divine Command TheoryCommand Theory ((EuthyphroEuthyphro’’ss thesis):thesis):
““XX”” is good is good becausebecause God loves / desires / wills God loves / desires / wills ““X.X.””is the way to go in any Christian Ethics, for the is the way to go in any Christian Ethics, for the autonomy thesisautonomy thesis::
God loves / desires / wills God loves / desires / wills ““XX”” becausebecause ““XX”” is good is good (implying that the (implying that the moral lawmoral law, the definition of what is , the definition of what is good or bad, exists independent of God)good or bad, exists independent of God)
seems to:seems to:Limit GodLimit God’’s power (for even God is subject to this s power (for even God is subject to this independent moral law), andindependent moral law), andLimits GodLimits God’’s perfections perfection
GodGod’’s Will and Moral Rightnesss Will and Moral RightnessDivine Command Theory vs. the Divine Command Theory vs. the
Autonomy ThesisAutonomy ThesisHowever, the However, the Divine Command TheoryDivine Command Theory also also has some problems that has caused many has some problems that has caused many Christian Theologians (such as Thomas Christian Theologians (such as Thomas Aquinas, 1224Aquinas, 1224––1274, to reject it). . .1274, to reject it). . .
Problems with the Problems with the Divine Command Divine Command
TheoryTheory
ProblemsProblemsGod and GoodnessGod and Goodness
If we accept the If we accept the Divine Command TheoryDivine Command Theorythat that ““goodnessgoodness”” is what God wills / desires / is what God wills / desires / loves, then: loves, then:
It becomes meaningless babble to say It becomes meaningless babble to say ““God is God is good.good.””
““God is goodGod is good”” = = ““God wills / desires / loves what God God wills / desires / loves what God wills / desires / loveswills / desires / loves””
It becomes meaningless babble to say It becomes meaningless babble to say ““God God commands us to do good:commands us to do good:””
““God commands us to do goodGod commands us to do good”” = = ““God commands us God commands us to do what God commands us to do.to do what God commands us to do.””
ProblemsProblemsGod and GoodnessGod and Goodness
To speak of God as having the To speak of God as having the propertyproperty or or qualityquality of:of:
GoodnessGoodnessRightnessRightness
is meaningless, for we have now is meaningless, for we have now defineddefined““goodnessgoodness”” and and ““rightnessrightness”” in terms of God.in terms of God.God in a logical sense now lies beyond or God in a logical sense now lies beyond or outside of outside of ““goodnessgoodness”” or or ““rightness.rightness.””
ProblemsProblemsGodGod’’s Ability to Redefine Good and Evils Ability to Redefine Good and EvilAnother problem with the Another problem with the Divine Command TheoryDivine Command Theoryis that it implies God can at any time redefine what is is that it implies God can at any time redefine what is good and evil (because good is simply whatever God good and evil (because good is simply whatever God wills / desires / loves at any given time).wills / desires / loves at any given time).Duns Duns ScotusScotus (1266(1266--1308) and especially 1308) and especially William of William of OckhamOckham (1280(1280--1349) inaugurated a Christian 1349) inaugurated a Christian movement embracing the Divine Command Theory, movement embracing the Divine Command Theory, emphasizing emphasizing ““GodGod’’s inscrutable will.s inscrutable will.””
This was in reaction to their perception that the preceding This was in reaction to their perception that the preceding medieval scholastics and Thomas Aquinas had put human medieval scholastics and Thomas Aquinas had put human reason upon a pedestal.reason upon a pedestal.
ProblemsProblemsGodGod’’s Ability to Redefine Good and Evils Ability to Redefine Good and EvilThe hatred of God, theft, adultery, actions The hatred of God, theft, adultery, actions similar to these similar to these …… may have an evil quality may have an evil quality annexed, in so far as they are done by a annexed, in so far as they are done by a divine command to perform the opposite act. divine command to perform the opposite act. But But …… God can perform them without any God can perform them without any evil condition annexed; and they can even be evil condition annexed; and they can even be performed meritoriously by an earthly pilgrim performed meritoriously by an earthly pilgrim if they should come under divine precepts, if they should come under divine precepts, just as now the opposite of these in fact fall just as now the opposite of these in fact fall under the divine command.under the divine command.
-- William of William of OckhamOckham
ProblemsProblemsGodGod’’s Ability to Redefine Good and Evils Ability to Redefine Good and Evil
William of William of OckhamOckham in other words is saying in other words is saying that if God, whose will is inscrutable, were that if God, whose will is inscrutable, were suddenly to command us to:suddenly to command us to:
KillKillStealStealCommit adulteryCommit adulteryTorture babiesTorture babies
these would then become good, meritorious these would then become good, meritorious acts!acts!
ProblemsProblemsGodGod’’s Ability to Redefine Good and Evils Ability to Redefine Good and EvilThe Protestant reformers followed in the tradition of The Protestant reformers followed in the tradition of ScotusScotusand and OckhamOckham..Dr. Dr. GrenzGrenz in in The Moral QuestThe Moral Quest (p. 155): (p. 155): ““In somewhat In somewhat different ways both Luther and Calvin spoke about a different ways both Luther and Calvin spoke about a hidden, unknowable God whose decrees are fixed in hidden, unknowable God whose decrees are fixed in the shrouded mystery of eternity and whose ways the shrouded mystery of eternity and whose ways are higher than human reason can fathom. The are higher than human reason can fathom. The sovereign God commands according to Godsovereign God commands according to God’’s own s own good pleasure and will. This God does not need to good pleasure and will. This God does not need to justify the divine commands at the bar of human justify the divine commands at the bar of human reason. In fact, sometimes God refuses to supply reason. In fact, sometimes God refuses to supply any rationale whatsoever for the directives that any rationale whatsoever for the directives that come our way. Indeed, such commands require no come our way. Indeed, such commands require no rationale or justification beyond the fact that they are rationale or justification beyond the fact that they are GodGod’’s own injunctions.s own injunctions.””
ProblemsProblemsGodGod’’s Ability to Redefine Good and Evils Ability to Redefine Good and Evil
Critics of the Critics of the Divine Command TheoryDivine Command Theory also also point out that if God can redefine what is good point out that if God can redefine what is good or evil, then it is no longer meaningful to or evil, then it is no longer meaningful to describe the difference between God and the describe the difference between God and the devil in terms of good and evil.devil in terms of good and evil.
They are both supernatural or They are both supernatural or ““divinedivine”” beings; beings; God is simply the most powerful.God is simply the most powerful.
God is just the God is just the ““bigger bully on the blockbigger bully on the block””
ProblemsProblemsSummarySummary
Because the Because the Divine Command TheoryDivine Command Theory::Makes it meaningless to say Makes it meaningless to say ““God is goodGod is good”” (= it (= it becomes the becomes the contentlesscontentless babble that babble that ““God wills / God wills / desires / loves what God wills / desires / lovesdesires / loves what God wills / desires / loves””))Threatens to turn God into Threatens to turn God into ““the biggest bully on the biggest bully on the block,the block,””
Most Christian theologians have rejected it as Most Christian theologians have rejected it as an inadequate explanation of morality.an inadequate explanation of morality.
The Autonomy The Autonomy ThesisThesis
The Autonomy ThesisThe Autonomy ThesisSocratesSocrates’’ QuestionQuestion
This brings us back to SocratesThis brings us back to Socrates’’ answer that answer that ““God love goodness God love goodness becausebecause it is good.it is good.””That is:That is:
God loves / desires / wills God loves / desires / wills ““XX”” becausebecause ““XX”” is is good (= good (= Autonomy ThesisAutonomy Thesis))and and notnot::““XX”” is good is good becausebecause God loves / desires / wills God loves / desires / wills ““X.X.”” (= (= Divine Command TheoryDivine Command Theory; ; EuthyphroEuthyphro’’ssThesis)Thesis)
The Autonomy ThesisThe Autonomy ThesisImplicationsImplications
There is a There is a moral lawmoral law that has an existence, that has an existence, reality, or meaning independent of God.reality, or meaning independent of God.Just as GodJust as God’’s power does not allow God to s power does not allow God to override the override the laws of logic,laws of logic, so too Godso too God’’s power s power does not allow God to override the does not allow God to override the moral lawmoral law..
God does not have the power to make murder, God does not have the power to make murder, stealing, adultery, rape, torture into stealing, adultery, rape, torture into ““goodgood”” acts acts any than more than God can make a contradiction any than more than God can make a contradiction true, a round square, or 3 + 3 = 7.true, a round square, or 3 + 3 = 7.
The Autonomy ThesisThe Autonomy ThesisDivine Commands Still UsefulDivine Commands Still Useful
Supporters of the Supporters of the Autonomy ThesisAutonomy Thesis still admit Godstill admit God’’s s knowledge is far superior to ours (God has an knowledge is far superior to ours (God has an ““epistemologicalepistemological”” advantage):advantage):
God knows what is right far better than we do.God knows what is right far better than we do.So it is still useful (even a loving act) for God to tell us So it is still useful (even a loving act) for God to tell us what is good / right, and bad / wrong, for Godwhat is good / right, and bad / wrong, for God’’s knowledge s knowledge is far superior to ours, and our own minds often clouded.is far superior to ours, and our own minds often clouded.
We would be fools not to listen and obey.We would be fools not to listen and obey.
But there it is also possible for human reason and intuition But there it is also possible for human reason and intuition to directly discover the independent moral law.to directly discover the independent moral law.
Through reason and intuition, an atheist can discern the moral lThrough reason and intuition, an atheist can discern the moral law aw and live a moral and ethical life.and live a moral and ethical life.
The Autonomy ThesisThe Autonomy ThesisA ProposalA Proposal
A proposal (after Thomas Aquinas; taken from A proposal (after Thomas Aquinas; taken from GenslerGensler, p. 43):, p. 43):
God is a supremely good being.God is a supremely good being.Good not because God fulfills GodGood not because God fulfills God’’s desires, but good because s desires, but good because GodGod’’s life accords with inherent truths about goodness (= with the s life accords with inherent truths about goodness (= with the moral law).moral law).
God created us and the universe in a way such that:God created us and the universe in a way such that:Our reason is capable of discovering what is good and what is baOur reason is capable of discovering what is good and what is bad d through our study of creation, and in particular, human nature (through our study of creation, and in particular, human nature (= = Natural Law EthicsNatural Law Ethics; next week; next week’’s topic)s topic)Our wills are capable of freely choosing to do the good that we Our wills are capable of freely choosing to do the good that we discover.discover.
God intends our moral struggles on earth to purify us and God intends our moral struggles on earth to purify us and lead us to eternal happiness with God.lead us to eternal happiness with God.
Objective Moral Law Objective Moral Law and Godand God’’s Natures Nature
Moral Law and GodMoral Law and God’’s Nature s Nature SocratesSocrates’’ QuestionQuestion
In PlatoIn Plato’’s (428 BC to 348 BC) early dialogue s (428 BC to 348 BC) early dialogue EuthyphroEuthyphro, Socrates asks , Socrates asks EuthyphroEuthyphro the the question:question:
Does God love goodness because it is good?
Or is it good because God loves it?
Moral Law and GodMoral Law and God’’s Nature s Nature SocratesSocrates’’ QuestionQuestion
Some theologians have tried to argue that Some theologians have tried to argue that SocratesSocrates’’ question is a question is a false dilemma.false dilemma. They say They say we do we do notnot have to choose between:have to choose between:
God loves / desires / wills God loves / desires / wills ““XX”” becausebecause ““XX”” is is good (= good (= Autonomy ThesisAutonomy Thesis))versus:versus:““XX”” is good is good becausebecause God loves / desires / wills God loves / desires / wills ““X.X.”” (= (= Divine Command TheoryDivine Command Theory; ; EuthyphroEuthyphro’’ssThesis)Thesis)
Moral Law and GodMoral Law and God’’s Nature s Nature The Moral Law as Part of GodThe Moral Law as Part of God’’s Natures Nature
They say we can make both statements true by They say we can make both statements true by saying that the objective moral law is an saying that the objective moral law is an immutable, eternal part of Godimmutable, eternal part of God’’s natures nature..God would never will / desire / love such acts God would never will / desire / love such acts as murder, rape, or torture because that would as murder, rape, or torture because that would be against Godbe against God’’s immutable, eternal nature.s immutable, eternal nature.
Moral Law and GodMoral Law and God’’s Nature s Nature The Moral Law as Part of GodThe Moral Law as Part of God’’s Natures NatureFor this to work, we still have to give some For this to work, we still have to give some objective objective meaningmeaning to the moral law (to the moral law (““goodnessgoodness””) to identify it ) to identify it as built into Godas built into God’’s nature.s nature.It would also still seem to It would also still seem to ““limitlimit”” GodGod’’s power s power because of the distinction between:because of the distinction between:
God is God is incapable by nature of choosingincapable by nature of choosing to do or command to do or command anything other than good,anything other than good,rather than: rather than: God God chooseschooses to do good and to command good because to do good and to command good because God wills / desires / loves goodness.God wills / desires / loves goodness.
