In this essay, I will be providing the best possible defense for the Divine Command theory by replacing the original premise with Robert Adam’s modified theory, so that it effectively counters the criticisms raised in Euthyphro’s Dilemma. In order to prove that the Divine Command theory is worthy of defense, I will bring into clarification exactly what Divine Command theory is, form an argument for as to why it is reasonable, provide several hypothetical scenarios to help illustrate how and when it could be applied, discuss the advantages and challenges posed against this model for ethics, highlight some of the major criticisms that refute Divine Command theory and provide possible responses that a Divine Command theorist might use to counter the opposition.
Divine Command theory is a theory in which the ethical status of an action, that is, whether an action is moral or immoral, is solely dependent on whether God requires or prohibits it, respectively. The following is an argument stated to provide further supplemental reasoning behind the Divine Command Theory explanation.
Premise 1: God is the maker of the universe and everything in it, including human beings.
Premise 2: God has absolute claim over our moral obedience because he is the maker of human beings.
Premise 3: We should always obey God's commands, because God has absolute rights over our obedience.
Conclusion: As a result, Divine Command theory is true.
To reiterate, in Divine Command theory, the morally obligatory (permissible) actions are the ones that God commands, and the impermissible ones are also the ones God commands (forbids). Moral obligation is dependent on the commands of God which are determined by how one understands God (if the commandments are not explicitly stated) or from God’s direct commandments themselves, say, for example, if it were written in the Scripture. An example in which Divine Command Theory acts as an ethical framework for action can be seen in the following scenario:
Thomas decides that killing is wrong because according to the 10 Commandments,
God forbids murder.
According to this example, Thomas holds that the act of murder itself is wrong simply because God commands it so. The ethical response of the act of murder is reliant on a directly stated text, the Ten Commandments. And because in the Ten Commandments, God forbids murder, murder becomes immoral. It is important to note however, that the act of killing is wrong because God says it’s wrong, and not because the action of killing, independent of God, solely by itself is wrong. From here, it becomes evident that Divine Command Theory acts as a kind of relativism in the manner of which how one determines the ethical framework of an act, whether an action is moral or immoral, is dependent on the commandments of God and not whether the act itself is morally or immorally intrinsic. Of course, it should be noted that the commandments of God are relative to how one understands the nature of God to be as specific content of those divine commands vary according to the particular religion that the divine command theorist abides by or the individual views that the divine command theorist gathers with respects to God.
Now, there are a few advantages to be gained if one posits the Divine Command Theory as a moral determinant for action. For starters, it provides a good answer to the question, why be moral? Based on one’s impressions of the relative nature of God, the Divine Command Theory presents a punishment and reward orientation towards morally principled and morally unprincipled behavior. What does this do in turn for the Divine Command theorist? It poses an incentive towards ethically righteous behavior, that is, one must be held accountable for his or her actions, otherwise, he or she will be punished.
Immanuel Kant, a central figure in modern philosophy, in his dialogue of Critique of Practical Reason, writes that for morality to come into claim, faith in God is also necessary. In order for one to satisfy the demands of moral obligations, one must believe in the existence of a God, a God of whom will assist with one’s following of moral laws by providing moral incentive, such as an afterlife, or else the requirements of moral laws become too much of a burden to bear. This argument bolsters Divine Command theory because as Kant argues, moral behavior itself does not assure happiness. Rather, the belief of a God, of one who rewards the morally righteous will assure happiness. Kant’s argument can be used for Divine Command theory because it shows that the moral motivation (happiness) for ethically righteous behavior is because of faith in God. And because how one achieves moral motivation is because of faith in God, it is necessary to follow his commandments in order to satisfy him and our faith and acquire those rewards.
Another possible advantage to the Divine Command Theory is that it presents an objective footing for the foundation of ethical behavior. God’s commandments become the source for morality; all ethical behavior are directed from his commands. The result of this causes all moral laws to be applicable to anyone, at all times and places. Moral laws are strictly dependent on the commandments of God. In addition to this, moral laws aren’t subjected to what people believe are right or wrong, rather it is strictly attached to whatever commandments God requires or prohibits as morally obligatory or reprehensible.
Unfortunately, there are challenges posed against the Divine Command theory that hinder it from being a working model of ethical judgment. Germane to the question of why one should be moral and with regards to the advantage posed above by Kant and Divine Command theorists, one form of criticism may be that there is an ethical wrongness to actions driven by moral motivation, such as the promise of an afterlife or a punishment and reward. The reason why there is an ethical wrongness to this is because something outside of the action itself, an external stimulus, which in this case, are rewards, are the reason for why the action is being carried out. According to Divine Command Theory, actions should be carried out because they are commandments of God, not because there is a punishment or a reward. To further expand the argument against Divine Command Theory into criticism of it as a whole, the following questions should be raised:
1.) Are acts inspired by moral incentive less moral than acts that are not?
2.) Is an action truly even moral, if the intent behind the action is determined by an external stimulus, that is, something outside of the act itself, which in this case is the culmination of a reward, or even the commandments of God (for whom, depending on your understanding of God, might promise reward)?
3.) Shouldn’t actions be determined by their intrinsic quality of being morally ethical?
The last question raised brings us into a widely held argument that directly refutes the Divine Command Theory – Euthyphro’s Dilemma. Euthyphro’s Dilemma, named after a character in Plato’s Socratic Dialogue, raises a binary problem (indicated on premise 1 (a) and (b) seen below) on the subject of goodness according to Divine Command Theory. Euthyphro’s Dilemma states the following argument:
Premise (1): Divine command theory can only be true if either:
(a) morally obligatory acts are willed by God because they are intrinsically morally good, or
(b) morally obligatory acts are morally good because they are acts willed by God.
Premise (2): If we assume (a) is correct- that morally obligatory acts are willed by God because they are intrinsically morally good, then morally obligatory acts are independent of God’s will.
Premise (3): However, because it is not the case that (a) morally obligatory acts are willed by God because they are intrinsically morally good, we must claim (b) to be true, that is, morally obligatory acts are morally good because they are acts willed by God.
Premise (4): If (a) is true, and morally obligatory acts are intrinsically morally good, there is no reason to place any consideration towards God’s position of moral goodness and how one worship’s.
Premise (5): However, because there are reasons (Divine Command theory) both to care about God’s moral goodness and how one worships him, it is not the case that (b) morally good acts are intrinsically morally good and just so happen to be willed by God is true.
Conclusion: Because (a) and (b) are false, Divine command theory is false.
There are 2 possible remedies that a Divine Command Theorist can use to counter the problems posed by Euthyphro’s Dilemma. The first response recognizes accepting the argument for what it entails, that is, to “bite the bullet”. This means accepting the initial premise that morally obligatory acts are morally good because they are willed by God. The problem with this however means that accepting the commandments or willings of God means accepting that they are arbitrary, that is, that they could potentially be based on the random choice or personal whim of God. For instance, if God commanded us to steal from children then we are morally obligated to steal from children. This response is usually viewed as inappropriate, because it does not comply to what is generally done or believed to be ethical, as the idea that believing in something like stealing from children could potentially be morally good is intuitively repulsive.
The second, and for what I believe to be the more coherent, possible remedy in response to Euthyphro’s Dilemma is a modification of the original view proposed by Robert Adams. Recall that Divine Command Theory specifies that an act is immoral if and only if it is contrary to the commands of God. A situation that describes the following position can be seen below:
God commands that jaywalking on Ives Street is immoral. Ted needs to get to class in 4 minutes and decides to jaywalk on Ives Street to save time. Even though Ted jaywalks on Ives Street to get to class on time, the act of Ted jaywalking on Ives Street is wrong, because God commanded that jaywalking on Ives Street is wrong. Ted’s action runs contrary to God’s commands.
As seen on the example indicated above, Ted’s action runs contrary to God’s commands, and that is why it is immoral. However, there are many challenges to this position. For starters, how and why is jaywalking immoral? Is the immoral nature of jaywalking an intrinsic property, that is, irrespective of anything apart from the act of jaywalking itself or is the immoral nature of jaywalking immoral because it is a command of God. Because the latter applies to this situation, God’s commands, being the foundations of morality, become arbitrary. This is a problem because arbitrary moral commands can allow for morally impermissible actions to become morally permissible.
To avoid this problem, Adams poses an edified version. Adams writes that if an action is contrary to the commands of a loving God, then it is ethically immoral. This argument now resolves the arbitrary argument raised from the original claim because morality is no longer dependent on the mere commands of God. Instead, morality is rooted in the omnibenevolent nature of God, a nature of which remains fixed and unchanged. To further clarify with an example, God would not command for the suffering of young children to be moral for the sake of itself because that would violate the nature of a fixed, loving God. In addition to this, the modified version also solves the problem of God himself is no longer being subject to his commandments, as God himself now is the direct source of morality. In the original claim of Divine Command Theory, it was God’s commandments that constituted the morally permissible and the morally impermissible actions. But because moral law is a feature of the nature of God, the moral law is God. As a result, God is still able to maintain his sovereign status. Because the modified divine command theory is able to solve the arbitrary argument as well as still maintain the sovereign position of God, I find this claim to be the best plausible defense against the problems raised in Euthyphro’s Dilemma.
Based on the supporting evidence stated above, it can be summarized that the best counter to the criticisms raised in response to the criticisms and challenges posed against the Divine Command theory would be through Robert Adam’s modified theory, which states that if an action is contrary to the commands of a loving God, then it is ethically immoral. The reason why this is the best possible defense is because provides working solutions to the criticisms that raised against it, that is, God’s sovereignty is maintained and moral laws are no longer arbitrary. Instead, God is the fixed omnibenevolent nature of God is the direct source of moral laws.