Philosophy
The Divine Command Theory purports that a particular act becomes either moral or not (immoral) on no other basis other than God has commanded that it be done or forbids us from doing that particular act. According to this theory, an action is only made wrong by the fact that God Himself prohibits it’s doing. As seen in the definition, whatever it is that God commands automatically becomes the basic standard of morality, and there exist no other moral values other than what God prescribes for man.
The belief that there is no limit whatsoever as to what God can command is a belief associated with this theory. Such is the strength of beliefs associated with this theory that it becomes impossible to imagine God commanding an act that is wrong, and as such morality and immorality is determined solely by God’s fiat-completely subjective.
Socrates, historically, was the first philosopher to question the relationship between good deeds, or rather morality, and the deity. In a conversation with Euthyphro, who had gone to prosecute his father in court for causing the death of a person, Socrates asks if moral acts are willed by God because they are morally good or if they are moral because God wills them. This person was himself a murderer, having killed Euthyphro’s father’s worker.
This came to be known as Euthyphro’s Dilemma. The question floated by Socrates to Euthyphro seeks to find out the basis upon which acts of morality and immorality are deemed to be what they are. In several ways, Socrates appears to suggest that there is a possibility that there may be a standard for morality or immorality other that the divine.
The Divine Command Theory, evidently, equates the moral with whatever it is that the deity commands. Many religions base their moral acts on their God’s character. Christians, for instance, believe that one cannot be moral unless they have been punished by God for their sins or their sins have been forgiven. Christians believe that an individual who engages in sin cannot be at peace with God, and cannot subscribe to God’s law (Romans8:7).
In finding out the philosophical implications of the Divine Command theory, Socrates’ question has to be divided into two. The first part is whether an act is moral because the gods have done it. The second part is whether they have done the particular act because it is moral.
The first part indicates that for an action to be declared moral, it has to have been approved by the deity. This assumption is mostly not used by major religions due to the counter-arguments against it. It is assumed that those who mostly leave the decision of what is moral and what is not moral to God are more inclined to cults and other small religions. This is because of the extremities associated with that thought. This belief gives the deity absolute power to determine the righteousness of an individual’s act, and prescribes some form of punishment to those who go against what is sanctioned.
This raises valid questions about the relationship God has with morality. If the only way an action can be declared moral is by God saying that it is, it would be a crisis if one time what is rejected as bad is acknowledged as good by God. Any argument against this assumption would mean that man already has criteria independently used to examine God’s morality. By extension, what that means is that man, by himself, can determine what is right or wrong even without involving God.
Claiming that morality is not conceivable without a deep conviction in a higher power (God), where the senses of man of right and wrong come from, makes morality arbitrary. This is because it has been seen in various books in the Bible instances where God condoned several acts that are immoral, mostly in the Old Testament.
In Genesis 34:13-29, Simeon and Levi, two sons of Jacob, slew all males in a city when they were still sore. They had deceived them into circumcision as a condition for coexistence with the residents of that city after their sister, Dinah, had been defiled by Shechem, who was from the city. They then took their wives and children, and their wealth, and destroyed all that was in the houses.
In Deutronomy 2;33-34, God’s people killed men, women and children of several cities. The term ‘utterly destroyed’ is used (New King James Version). God was with Joshua when he led an army into Jericho and killed every man, woman and child, and spared the life of the harlot and her family, she who had hidden the soldiers who had been sent to spy on the land. In Judges 3:29, the children of Israel slew over ten thousand men, sparing no life in the act.
These acts were all inspired and sanctioned by God, yet they have come to be known as evil, with murder being touted as one of the most despicable sins. In most courts in most countries, where people swear using the bible and other religious books, murder is punishable by death. Acts of genocide have been condemned in the strongest terms possible the world over.
This questions the absolute belief in God as the primary source of knowledge of matters to do with moral acts and immoral acts. Keeping in mind that in Divine Command there is no any particular act that on its own stands as moral or immoral, only that which God commands, and that which God commands is automatically good, the Bible justified the slaughter of scores of people who were innocently caught in between conflicts, and it was good. In many instances in recent times, people have committed heinous crimes and claimed to have hearkened to the voice of God. Because of this, no organized religion subscribes to the Divine Command Theory as a benchmark for determining what is right and what is wrong, as it poses a major threat to religion.
The Euthyphro Dilemma bears a lot of significance in moral philosophy, as it is the main argument that is often thought to refute the Divine Command Theory. Even though there are numerous believers who take God as the epitome of righteousness and morality, God’s commands might as well be labeled as arbitrary, as earlier indicated. In order to avoid terming the commands of God as such, it would seem unavoidable to find some sort of basis upon which morality can be based. Doing so, however, would suggest that there exist moral standards that are greater than those of God, and one to which God’s commands have to conform. If such exist, who determines this? We cannot place our conscience, given to us by God, as the measure of God’s morality. This would not be progressive in demystifying this mystery.
A problem of repulsive commands comes up where this theory seems to suggest that if God sets off to command detestable acts like cruelty and deception, these acts would automatically be absorbed and taken to be good.
This Dilemma is also an issue for those who do not believe in God yet find it suffice to spek of morality, and good things. A further issue arises where just because God wills that something is good it really is, then it is easy to deduce that only believers in God are affected by moral accountability. Morality attached to God may be fit for a person who believes in God, but not to those who do not believe that God exists, as it has no relevance whatsoever to them.
The second part of the question posed by the Euthyphro Dilemma cannot be answered effectively by a theist. If a theist holds that moral acts are advocated for by God because by nature they are moral and good, a problem of independence arises. This is because it passes off a feeling that these acts must be moral and good in advance, even before God comes in, and so they are independent of God’s will. This is by far not consistent with the Divine Command Theory, a sit reduces God to a mere transmitter of values, and He may not be very good at that. And if God is just but a conveyor of the message, what then is religious about morality?
Divine theory can be supported by some arguments.
If God was the creator of the earth, the universe and all that is found herein, human beings included, then He has absolute entitlement to obedience from human beings. What this says subsequently is that all of God’s commandments have to be obeyed by human beings always. Therefore the Divine Command Theory can hold.
However, if this theory holds, human beings should without question obey the commandments of God. This by extension means no matter how heinous and grave the atrocities in the orders may be, which could even mean taking away the lives of a multitude innocent people, as long as it is sanctioned by God it should not be disputed. It would be absurd to bear the thought of performing genocide even when commanded to do so by God. When believers say with finality that God is most moral, the message they intend to pass exceeds just modest truism.
Many philosophers argue that the view that God’s will is automatically what is right is just a tautology, as humans tend to get comfortable with thinking about what is right in contrast to what God’s will is.
Humans must participate in self-analysis with the sole purpose of constructing a personal life plan and implementing it; a life plan that is comprehensive, coherent and good(Boylan,2004). It is important to recognize the many kinds of values by which man lives and try not to limit them to religion or ethical values. When commands of a religious nature differ with the demands of common good, in a society that is just morality should carry the day.
At the end of the day, when the Divine Command Theory is analyzed philosophically and merits and demerits determined, an individual ought to give it an open mind and get a broad perspective of the matter. Considerations should be given on the relationship between the Divine Command Theory and other moral issues and religious issues not forgetting the relevant metaphysical and aesthetic questions with an aim of developing a life plan that is acceptable to one self and to the society as a whole. It all depends on a person’s personal belief and conviction that will either push them towards making a choice between subscribing to the Divine Command Theory’s school of thought or leaning towards the side of moral realism. In contemporary society, however, problems associated with moral realism are relatively easy to address and reconcile than problems associated with Divine Command Theory.
Works Cited
"Divine Command Theory." Divine Command Theory. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Jan. 2014. <http://infidels.org/library/modern/theism/divine.html>.
Grayling, A. C.. What is good?: the search for the best way to live. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003. Print.
"I. Divine Command Theory and Criticisms of it." Divine Command Theory. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014. <http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/ethics_text/chapter_7_deontological_theories_natural_law/divine_command_theory.htm>.
"Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Divine Command Theory []. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Jan. 2014. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/>.
Peterson, Christopher, and Martin E. P. Seligman. Character strengths and virtues: a handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association ;, 2004. Print.
