Divine Command Theory

⸺

  • “If humans are incapable of assessing the morality of an action independently of God’s commands, then, as you suggest, DCT might seem to reduce morality to mere obedience to God.”
  • “The dilemma asks: Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good? If the former is true, morality seems arbitrary; if the latter is true, then moral standards exist independently of God’s commands, challenging the premise of DCT.”
  • “If a divine command directly contradicts what humans universally or widely regard as a core moral intuition… it prompts a critical examination of the role and origin of these intuitions. For adherents of DCT, this situation poses a dilemma: either question the nature of the divine will or reassess the reliability and source of what they consider their moral intuitions.”
  • “Some critics argue that reducing morality to obedience might inhibit moral development and the cultivation of virtues like empathy, compassion, and understanding.”

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. If under divine command theory humans cannot themselves assess whether an action is moral or immoral, doesn’t divine command theory equate to mere obedience to their God?
  2. If divine command theory does equate to mere obedience to the divine commands of an inscrutable God, can adherents to the theory ever detect a threshold beyond which the God in question will never go?
    1. The Threshold of Divine Commands
    2. Challenges and Critiques
    3. Theological Responses
  3. This discussion seems to reveal confusion about the term “moral”. If morality is simply disobedience, calling sometime “disobedient to God” would have the same denotation as the term “immoral”. But the usage of the term “immoral” seems to extend beyond mere disobedience to a God, even among those who hold to divine command theory. Right?
  4. ChatGPT suggests that adherents of DCT might still claim “moral intuitions” remain legitimate markers of morality. However, would, say, a divine command to kill infants ever be consistent with the moral intuitions of humans?
  5. Create a 10-item quiz on the discussion above.
    1. Quiz
    2. Answers
    3. Quiz: Divine Command Theory and Morality (Choose the best answer for each question)
  6. Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
    1. 15 Discussion Prompts on Divine Command Theory and Morality:

If under divine command theory humans cannot themselves assess whether an action is moral or immoral, doesn’t divine command theory equate to mere obedience to their God?

Divine Command Theory (DCT) posits that an action’s moral status is determined by whether it conforms to God’s commands. According to DCT, what makes an action morally right is that God commands it, and what makes an action morally wrong is that God forbids it. This perspective stems from the belief in a divine being whose commands are inherently good and just.

Your question touches on a critical discussion within the philosophy of religion and ethics regarding the nature of morality under Divine Command Theory. If humans are incapable of assessing the morality of an action independently of God’s commands, then, as you suggest, DCT might seem to reduce morality to mere obedience to God. This perspective raises several points of discussion:

  1. Autonomy vs. Theonomy: Under DCT, moral autonomy (the capacity to determine right and wrong through reason or intuition) is significantly diminished, if not entirely replaced, by theonomy (moral guidance derived solely from divine will). Critics argue that this diminishes human moral reasoning and agency, while proponents might suggest that divine wisdom is superior to human understanding, making divine command the most reliable guide to morality.
  2. Euthyphro Dilemma: This issue is closely related to the Euthyphro dilemma, a philosophical problem first posed by Plato. The dilemma asks: Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good? If the former is true, morality seems arbitrary; if the latter is true, then moral standards exist independently of God’s commands, challenging the premise of DCT.
  3. Moral Epistemology: There’s also the question of how we come to know God’s commands. If humans cannot assess morality independently, they must rely on revelation, scripture, or religious authority to understand what God commands. This reliance introduces questions about interpretation, the reliability of sources, and potential for human error in understanding divine will.
  4. Obedience and Moral Development: Some critics argue that reducing morality to obedience might inhibit moral development and the cultivation of virtues like empathy, compassion, and understanding. If morality is solely about following commands, there might be less incentive to develop a deeper understanding of why certain actions are right or wrong.

In summary, while Divine Command Theory emphasizes obedience to divine will as the basis for morality, it raises significant philosophical and ethical questions about the nature of moral autonomy, the source of moral values, and the process of moral reasoning and development.

You’ve identified a key point of contention with divine command theory (DCT). Here’s a breakdown of the issue and some different perspectives:

The Argument for Obedience:

  • DCT suggests that morality is ultimately based on God’s commands. Good actions are good because God commands them, and evil actions are evil because God forbids them.
  • From this perspective, morality becomes a matter of obedience. Humans wouldn’t have the capacity to independently judge right and wrong; they would simply follow God’s dictates.

The Challenge of Blind Obedience:

  • Critics argue that blind obedience removes any intrinsic value from moral actions. If something is only good because God commands it, wouldn’t a different command from God make it bad? Doesn’t morality need some deeper foundation beyond mere orders?
  • Additionally, some divine commands in certain religious texts seem morally questionable from a modern perspective. How can followers reconcile these with the idea of absolute obedience?

Variations of DCT:

  • Some versions of DCT acknowledge a role for human reason alongside divine commands. Perhaps God’s commands reflect a deeper moral order that humans can partially grasp through reason.
  • Others suggest that God’s commands are inherently good because they flow from God’s perfect character. Following God’s commands would naturally lead to moral behavior because God is good.

Open Questions:

  • How much independent judgment do humans have within DCT?
  • Can humans understand the reasons behind God’s commands, or are they simply pronouncements to be obeyed?
  • How can DCT account for the evolution of moral understanding over time?

Ultimately, the question of whether DCT equates to mere obedience depends on the specific interpretation of the theory. There’s ongoing debate about the role of reason and the nature of God’s commands within the framework of DCT.

If divine command theory does equate to mere obedience to the divine commands of an inscrutable God, can adherents to the theory ever detect a threshold beyond which the God in question will never go?

Here are a few suggested thresholds relevant to known religions:

  • A command to kill those who apostatize.
  • A command to throw infants off the top of mountains.
  • A command to hack the infants of another tribe into pieces.
  • A command to rape.

Could any command, such as those above, from the God in question ever be evidence that the God is evil?

Your question delves into a complex and sensitive area of ethics and theology, particularly concerning Divine Command Theory (DCT) and the nature of divinity. The theory posits that moral goodness stems from God’s commands, meaning that if God commands something, it is morally right by virtue of that command. This raises profound questions about the nature of God and the moral universe, especially when considering commands that would, by many ethical standards, be considered profoundly immoral.

The Threshold of Divine Commands

Under strict DCT, the idea is that God’s nature is inherently good, and thus, God cannot command something that is truly evil. This perspective holds that God’s commands reflect divine wisdom and justice, even if humans cannot always understand the reasons behind these commands. Therefore, detecting a threshold beyond which God would not go becomes a matter of theological and moral interpretation rather than empirical observation.

Challenges and Critiques

  1. Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism: Some argue that if anything God commands is good, then moral standards are not absolute but contingent on God’s will. This raises questions about the nature of morality itself—is it objective and universal, or is it variable and dependent on divine decree?
  2. Human Moral Intuition and Reason: If commands such as those you’ve mentioned were issued, they would clash profoundly with widely accepted moral intuitions and ethical principles based on human reason and empathy. This clash leads to a moral and theological dilemma: Can and should human moral intuition ever override a divine command? If so, does this suggest that morality is not solely grounded in divine command?
  3. The Concept of a Just and Loving God: Many religious traditions hold that God is just and loving. Commands to commit acts that appear intrinsically harmful and unjust challenge this conception of divinity. This brings up the question of whether such commands could ever be consistent with the nature of a benevolent deity, and if not, whether their purported divine origin should be questioned.
  4. Evidential Arguments Against Divine Goodness: Philosophers have debated whether commands to commit acts that seem egregiously immoral could serve as evidence against the goodness of the deity issuing them. If a command blatantly contradicts widely accepted moral principles (such as the intrinsic value of human life or the wrongness of innocent suffering), some argue it could indeed serve as evidence against the deity’s moral perfection.

Theological Responses

Theological responses to these dilemmas vary. Some theologians argue that divine commands are always aimed at a greater good that humans might not understand due to their limited perspective. Others suggest that genuinely understanding God’s will involves interpreting divine commands in the context of the broader moral and theological framework, considering God’s overall nature as loving and just.

In essence, whether any command from God could be evidence of divine malevolence is a deeply contentious question. It hinges on interpretations of divine nature, the source and structure of morality, and the balance between divine sovereignty and human moral understanding. Philosophers and theologians continue to wrestle with these questions, often coming to very different conclusions based on their underlying assumptions and beliefs.

That’s a very interesting question. If divine command theory (DCT) boils down to blind obedience to an unknowable God, then detecting a moral threshold becomes a significant challenge. Here’s how different perspectives might approach this:

Difficulties in Detecting a Threshold:

  • Inscrutability: Without understanding the reasons behind God’s commands, it’s difficult to judge their morality objectively. Perhaps a seemingly horrific command serves a greater good beyond human comprehension.
  • Faith and Trust: Adherents might believe that even if they can’t understand the reasons, a perfectly good God wouldn’t issue truly evil commands. They might trust in God’s ultimate wisdom even in the face of challenging pronouncements.
  • Interpreting Commands: Some argue for interpretation within DCT. Perhaps the commands are metaphorical or have a deeper meaning that needs to be discerned. This could offer some wiggle room to avoid blatantly immoral actions.

Potential Detection of a Threshold:

  • Universally Condemned Acts: If a command violates core moral principles like harming innocents or basic human rights, it might be a sign the God is not truly good. Even an inscrutable God might have limits to their benevolence.
  • Internal Conflict: Some argue that a truly good God wouldn’t create humans with a moral conscience that conflicts with their commands. If following a command creates immense internal struggle, it could be a sign that something is wrong.
  • Inconsistency with Revelation: If a command contradicts existing scriptures or teachings believed to be from the same God, it could raise doubts about the authenticity of the new command or the benevolence of the being issuing it.

The Problem of Evil:

  • This concept highlights the difficulty of reconciling a good God with the existence of evil in the world. If God is all-powerful and all-good, why would such commands exist? DCT struggles to answer this question definitively.

Conclusion:

Within a strict interpretation of DCT with an unknowable God, detecting a moral threshold is very difficult. However, some argue for potential signs based on the nature of the command, internal conflict, or inconsistencies with existing revelations. Ultimately, the question remains a point of debate within the framework of DCT.

This discussion seems to reveal confusion about the term “moral”. If morality is simply disobedience, calling sometime “disobedient to God” would have the same denotation as the term “immoral”. But the usage of the term “immoral” seems to extend beyond mere disobedience to a God, even among those who hold to divine command theory. Right?

You’ve highlighted a nuanced aspect of the conversation on Divine Command Theory (DCT) and the broader understanding of morality. Indeed, the discussion reflects a tension between conceptualizing morality solely as adherence to divine commands and recognizing a broader, more nuanced understanding of morality that may extend beyond mere obedience.

  1. Moral vs. Immoral: Within the framework of DCT, actions are deemed moral if they are in compliance with God’s commands and immoral if they contradict these commands. However, the usage and understanding of “moral” and “immoral” often incorporate considerations of intention, consequence, and inherent values that might not be fully captured by the concept of obedience alone.
  2. Broader Moral Considerations: Even among adherents of DCT, there is often an acknowledgment that moral understanding involves more than just recognizing and following divine commands. It may also include considerations of virtue, the well-being of others, and the development of a moral character that seeks to embody qualities valued by the divine, such as compassion, justice, and love. These aspects of morality suggest an engagement with moral principles that is more complex than simple obedience.
  3. Moral Intuition and Reason: Many people, including those who might accept a version of DCT, recognize the role of moral intuition and reason in their ethical decision-making. They might argue that God has endowed humans with a sense of right and wrong and the capacity for moral reasoning to navigate complex ethical dilemmas. In this view, while divine commands are supremely authoritative, the ability to discern and understand these commands involves engaging with moral intuitions and reasoning that God has also provided.
  4. Interpretation and Context: The interpretation of divine commands itself often requires moral discernment. Sacred texts and religious teachings can be complex, requiring interpretation within specific contexts. This interpretive process acknowledges that understanding what constitutes obedience to God is not always straightforward and involves engaging with moral principles that can extend beyond a simple directive.
  5. Evolving Moral Understanding: Even within religious traditions that emphasize divine command, there is often recognition of the evolving understanding of morality over time. This evolution can reflect deeper insights into the divine will, changing human circumstances, and a growing understanding of the implications of moral principles in diverse contexts.

In conclusion, while DCT posits a foundational role for divine command in determining morality, the practical application and understanding of morality, even among its adherents, often reveal a richer tapestry of considerations. These include the intentions behind actions, the consequences of those actions, and a commitment to virtues and values that, while aligned with divine commands, also involve deeper engagement with moral intuition and reasoning.

You’re absolutely right. The discussion highlights a core tension within divine command theory (DCT) and the concept of morality. Here’s the breakdown:

The Challenge of Defining Morality:

  • In DCT, morality is based on God’s commands. Actions are good because God commands them, and evil because God forbids them. This definition hinges on obedience.

The Problem of Intrinsic Morality:

  • However, most people, including many DCT adherents, intuitively understand morality as having an existence beyond mere obedience. We have a sense of right and wrong that goes beyond following orders.

Reconciling the Two Views:

  • Some versions of DCT attempt to bridge this gap. Perhaps God’s commands reflect a deeper moral order humans can partially grasp through reason.
  • Others suggest God’s commands are inherently good because they flow from God’s perfect character. Following God’s commands naturally leads to moral behavior because God is good.

The Role of Human Understanding:

  • The key question becomes – how much independent moral judgment do humans have within DCT? Can we ever understand the reasons behind God’s commands, or are they simply pronouncements to be obeyed?

Evidence of Independent Morality:

  • The very act of questioning the morality of a divine command suggests a belief in a moral standard beyond just obedience. People wouldn’t question a command if they didn’t have some independent concept of right and wrong.

The Issue of Evolving Morality:

  • If morality is purely based on God’s unchanging commands, how do we explain the evolution of moral understanding over time? Societies have outlawed slavery and torture, which were once considered acceptable. This suggests a moral compass beyond just following static pronouncements.

Conclusion:

The tension between the obedience-based definition of morality in DCT and our intuitive sense of right and wrong is a major point of discussion. Some versions of DCT try to reconcile these views, but the question of how much independent moral judgment humans have remains a challenge for the theory.

ChatGPT suggests that adherents of DCT might still claim “moral intuitions” remain legitimate markers of morality. However, would, say, a divine command to kill infants ever be consistent with the moral intuitions of humans?

In other words, wouldn’t even one example in which the “moral intuitions” of humans run counter to the divine command demonstrate perceived moral intuitions are not moral intuitions at all?

Your question touches on a profound tension between divine command theory (DCT) and human moral intuition. The heart of this tension is whether there can be a reconciliation when a divine command starkly contradicts deeply held moral intuitions, such as the intuitive moral repugnance toward acts like killing infants.

  1. Consistency with Moral Intuitions: Generally, many people’s moral intuitions strongly conflict with the idea of actions that cause harm to innocents, especially infants. From this perspective, a divine command to perform such acts would seem irreconcilably opposed to what many would consider innate moral intuitions. This discrepancy raises significant ethical and theological questions about the nature of divine morality and the role of human intuition in understanding it.
  2. Testing the Limits of Moral Intuition: If a divine command directly contradicts what humans universally or widely regard as a core moral intuition (such as the prohibition against killing innocents), it prompts a critical examination of the role and origin of these intuitions. For adherents of DCT, this situation poses a dilemma: either question the nature of the divine will or reassess the reliability and source of what they consider their moral intuitions.
  3. Interpretation of Divine Commands and Moral Intuitions: Some might argue that apparent conflicts between divine commands and moral intuitions necessitate a reevaluation of how these commands are interpreted or understood. This approach could suggest that true divine commands would not contravene fundamental moral principles imbued in humans by the divine. Alternatively, it might suggest a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the divine will.
  4. The Role of Moral Intuitions in DCT: The scenario you’ve described challenges the notion within DCT that moral intuitions can serve as reliable markers of morality. If divine commands are the ultimate source of morality, and these commands can, hypothetically, go against what are perceived as basic moral intuitions, it raises the question of whether these intuitions have any intrinsic moral authority or whether they are simply fallible human perceptions.
  5. Philosophical and Theological Implications: This tension highlights a broader philosophical and theological debate about the nature of morality, the existence and character of the divine, and the capacity of human beings to comprehend and align with divine morality. It challenges theologians and philosophers to consider whether and how divine morality is accessible to human understanding and what the implications are for moral action when divine commands and human moral intuitions conflict.

In essence, a divine command that starkly opposes what is widely regarded as a core moral intuition would indeed challenge the premise that human moral intuitions are reliable guides to morality under DCT. It would force a reconsideration of the nature of these intuitions, their role in ethical decision-making, and their relationship to divine commands. This dilemma is central to ongoing debates in the philosophy of religion and ethics, and different thinkers have approached it in various ways, often leading to divergent conclusions.

You raise a great point. Here’s how adherents of Divine Command Theory (DCT) might grapple with the clash between moral intuitions and seemingly immoral divine commands:

Challenges to Moral Intuitions:

  • Overcoming Aversion: Some argue that our moral intuitions are culturally shaped and can be flawed. Perhaps a seemingly horrific command serves a greater purpose beyond human comprehension. Strong faith might lead adherents to believe they can overcome their initial repulsion for the sake of obedience to a higher power.
  • Divine Perspective: DCT emphasizes the limitations of human understanding. Our intuitions might simply be a glimpse of a more complex moral reality. A seemingly evil command could be part of a grand plan humans cannot grasp.

Defense of Moral Intuitions:

  • Universal Condemnation: However, some argue that certain acts, like killing infants, are universally condemned across cultures and religions. These core intuitions might be too strong to dismiss entirely. Perhaps they point to a limit to God’s power to command evil.
  • Internal Conflict: Adherents who value moral reasoning might struggle to reconcile a command that violates their conscience. A truly good God wouldn’t create such internal conflict, they might argue.
  • Interpretation and Context: Some versions of DCT allow for interpretation of commands. The command might be metaphorical or have a deeper meaning that doesn’t involve literal infanticide.

The Problem of Evil:

  • This concept highlights the difficulty of reconciling a good God with the existence of evil in the world. If God is all-powerful and all-good, why would such commands exist? DCT struggles to answer this definitively.

The Question of Limits:

  • The example you raise pushes DCT to its limits. Can any command, no matter how heinous, be justified by blind obedience to a divine being? This is a point of ongoing debate within the theory.

Conclusion:

Reconciling moral intuitions with seemingly immoral divine commands is a major challenge for DCT. Some argue for overcoming initial repulsion through faith, while others point to the limitations of human understanding. Ultimately, the question of how far moral intuitions can be overridden in the name of obedience remains a point of contention within the theory.

Create a 10-item quiz on the discussion above.

Certainly, here’s a 10-item quiz based on the discussion:

Quiz

  1. What does Divine Command Theory (DCT) propose regarding the source of moral values?
  2. How does DCT view actions that are in compliance with God’s commands?
  3. What philosophical dilemma questions whether actions are good because God commands them, or God commands them because they are good?
  4. What term is used to describe the perspective that God’s wisdom and justice are beyond human understanding, making divine command the most reliable guide to morality?
  5. How does the concept of moral autonomy differ under DCT compared to the concept of theonomy?
  6. What role does human moral intuition play in the interpretation of divine commands according to some theologians?
  7. How might DCT address the issue of divine commands that seemingly contradict widely accepted moral principles?
  8. What is the potential conflict between divine commands and human moral intuitions in the context of DCT?
  9. How do adherents of DCT reconcile apparent conflicts between divine commands and human moral intuitions?
  10. What challenge does a divine command to perform an act that contradicts core moral intuitions pose to the premise that moral intuitions can serve as reliable markers of morality under DCT?

Answers

  1. Morality is derived from God’s commands.
  2. They are considered morally right.
  3. The Euthyphro dilemma.
  4. Theonomy.
  5. Moral autonomy involves making moral decisions based on reason or intuition, while theonomy involves following divine will.
  6. Moral intuition is considered a way to discern and understand divine commands.
  7. Some argue that true divine commands would not contravene fundamental moral principles, suggesting a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the divine will.
  8. A stark discrepancy between what is commanded by God and what humans intuitively feel is moral.
  9. Through reevaluation of how divine commands are interpreted or understood, and considering the broader moral and theological framework.
  10. It raises the question of whether these intuitions have any intrinsic moral authority or if they are simply fallible human perceptions.

Quiz: Divine Command Theory and Morality (Choose the best answer for each question)

  1. Divine Command Theory (DCT) suggests that actions are: a) Good or bad based on their consequences. b) Morally neutral until designated by a religious text. c) Good because God commands them, evil because God forbids them. d) Defined by the current societal norms.
  2. A key criticism of DCT is that it reduces morality to: a) A matter of personal opinion. b) Following religious rituals. c) Blind obedience to a higher power. d) Achieving inner peace.
  3. Some versions of DCT attempt to reconcile God’s commands with human morality by suggesting: a) God’s commands are arbitrary and can change. b) Humans can use reason to understand the deeper meaning behind the commands. c) Morality is an illusion created by human societies. d) Following God’s commands will always lead to suffering.
  4. According to DCT, if God commanded people to kill infants, it would be: a) An act of ultimate evil, regardless of God’s reasons. b) Morally permissible because God commands it. c) Open to interpretation based on the context of the command. d) A test of faith for true believers.
  5. The concept of “moral intuitions” refers to: a) A specific religious doctrine. b) Culturally specific rules of behavior. c) Our inherent sense of right and wrong. d) Commands revealed through divine visions.
  6. Adherents of DCT who value moral reasoning might grapple with a divine command that: a) Requires a personal sacrifice. b) Promises eternal rewards in the afterlife. c) Aligns with their existing moral beliefs. d) Violates their core sense of right and wrong.
  7. The “Problem of Evil” highlights the difficulty of reconciling: a) Faith with science. b) Free will with divine predestination. c) A good God with the existence of suffering. d) Multiple religious traditions.
  8. DCT struggles to definitively explain: a) The purpose of religious rituals. b) The meaning of life. c) The evolution of moral understanding over time. d) The best way to pray.
  9. In the context of DCT, overcoming an initial aversion to a seemingly immoral divine command might be seen as a test of: a) Logical reasoning. b) Religious knowledge. c) True faith and obedience. d) Prophetic abilities.
  10. The debate surrounding DCT and morality ultimately centers on the question of: a) The existence of God. b) The best way to interpret religious texts. c) The role of human reason in moral decision-making. d) The afterlife and its rewards and punishments.

Answer Key:

  1. (c)
  2. (c)
  3. (b)
  4. (b)
  5. (c)
  6. (d)
  7. (c)
  8. (c)
  9. (c)
  10. (c)

Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

  1. How does Divine Command Theory define the relationship between divine will and morality?
  2. In what ways does the Euthyphro dilemma challenge the foundations of Divine Command Theory?
  3. How do proponents of Divine Command Theory reconcile commands that seem to contradict widely accepted moral intuitions?
  4. Discuss the concept of moral autonomy versus theonomy in the context of ethical decision-making. Which do you find more compelling, and why?
  5. How can moral intuitions serve as a guide to understanding divine commands within Divine Command Theory?
  6. Explore the implications of interpreting divine commands that appear to conflict with human moral intuitions. What does this say about the nature of divine morality?
  7. In cases where divine commands and human moral intuitions conflict, what methods might adherents of Divine Command Theory use to interpret these commands?
  8. How does Divine Command Theory address the potential for human error in interpreting divine will?
  9. Discuss the role of scripture and revelation in informing adherents of Divine Command Theory about divine commands. How do these sources interact with human moral reasoning?
  10. To what extent can Divine Command Theory accommodate evolving moral understandings within a religious community?
  11. How might adherents of Divine Command Theory respond to the accusation that the theory reduces morality to mere obedience?
  12. Consider the implications of Divine Command Theory on the development of moral virtues. Does the theory encourage or hinder the cultivation of virtues like empathy and compassion?
  13. How does Divine Command Theory approach the problem of moral dilemmas where divine commands are not explicitly clear?
  14. Discuss the significance of the debate between moral absolutism and moral relativism within the context of Divine Command Theory.
  15. Explore the philosophical and theological implications of a divine command that contradicts core human moral intuitions. How should such a command be understood within the framework of Divine Command Theory?

15 Discussion Prompts on Divine Command Theory and Morality:

  1. Beyond Blind Obedience: Can Divine Command Theory (DCT) accommodate any role for human reason in moral decision-making, or does it require strict adherence to God’s commands regardless of their perceived consequences?
  2. The Limits of Morality: If morality is solely based on God’s commands, can there ever be genuinely new moral issues that require interpretation or adaptation within the framework of DCT?
  3. Universal Morality vs. Cultural Influence: DCT suggests a universal moral code dictated by God. How does this reconcile with the existence of diverse moral codes across different cultures and religions?
  4. The Problem of Evil Revisited: If God is all-powerful and all-good, why would there be suffering and evil in the world? How does DCT address this challenge?
  5. Moral Progress: Throughout history, human societies have outlawed practices once considered acceptable, like slavery or torture. Can DCT account for this evolution of moral understanding?
  6. Interpreting the Commands: Some versions of DCT allow for interpretation of divine commands. Who gets to decide the “correct” interpretation, and how does this avoid subjective bias?
  7. Faith vs. Reason: Can faith and reason co-exist in navigating moral dilemmas within the framework of DCT? If so, how does one determine when to prioritize one over the other?
  8. The Challenge of Seemingly Immoral Commands: How can adherents of DCT reconcile their moral intuitions with commands that appear to violate core moral principles, such as harming the innocent?
  9. The Role of Religious Texts: How do different interpretations of religious texts influence the application of DCT in real-world situations?
  10. Personal vs. Societal Morality: Does DCT suggest that morality is primarily a personal matter of obedience to God, or does it extend to shaping societal norms and laws?
  11. The Burden of Obedience: Consider the psychological implications of basing one’s morality entirely on external commands. Could this lead to a sense of powerlessness or a diminished sense of personal responsibility?
  12. DCT and Different Religions: How does DCT apply to religions with seemingly contradictory moral codes? Can multiple religions all be following a divine source of morality even if their teachings differ?
  13. The Value of Debate: While DCT provides a clear source of moral authority, does it stifle ethical discussions and critical thinking about moral dilemmas?
  14. DCT in a Modern World: In a world with diverse moral perspectives, can DCT still be a relevant framework for ethical decision-making?
  15. Alternatives to DCT: Are there other philosophical theories of morality that offer a more nuanced approach to moral decision-making than blind obedience to a divine authority?

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. If under divine command theory humans cannot themselves assess whether an action is moral or immoral, doesn’t divine command theory equate to mere obedience to their God?
  2. If divine command theory does equate to mere obedience to the divine commands of an inscrutable God, can adherents to the theory ever detect a threshold beyond which the God in question will never go?
    1. The Threshold of Divine Commands
    2. Challenges and Critiques
    3. Theological Responses
  3. This discussion seems to reveal confusion about the term “moral”. If morality is simply disobedience, calling sometime “disobedient to God” would have the same denotation as the term “immoral”. But the usage of the term “immoral” seems to extend beyond mere disobedience to a God, even among those who hold to divine command theory. Right?
  4. ChatGPT suggests that adherents of DCT might still claim “moral intuitions” remain legitimate markers of morality. However, would, say, a divine command to kill infants ever be consistent with the moral intuitions of humans?
  5. Create a 10-item quiz on the discussion above.
    1. Quiz
    2. Answers
    3. Quiz: Divine Command Theory and Morality (Choose the best answer for each question)
  6. Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
    1. 15 Discussion Prompts on Divine Command Theory and Morality:

Leave a comment

Phil Stilwell

Phil picked up a BA in Philosophy a couple of decades ago. He occasionally teaches philosophy and critical thinking courses in university and industry. He is joined here by ChatGPT 4, GEMINI, CLAUDE, and occasionally Copilot, his far more intelligent AI friends. The five of them discuss and debate a wide variety of philosophical topics I think you’ll enjoy.

Phil curates the content and guides the discussion, primarily through questions. At times there are disagreements, and you may find the banter interesting.

— Goals and Observations

Stay informed!

Sign up for new post notices.

Recent Posts

  • Martin Heidegger

    Martin Heidegger, influential philosopher of the 20th century, introduced groundbreaking concepts like Dasein and the ontological difference. His seminal work, “Being and Time,” challenged traditional thinking about existence, emphasizing the concept of “being-in-the-world.” Influencing diverse… Read more

  • History as Forensic Science

    The relationship between forensic science and history is comparable to the relationship between macroevolution and microevolution. Forensic science and history both seek to understand past events, but they differ in scope, methods, and purpose. Historians,… Read more

  • Establishing the Spiritual

    This article focuses on the commonalities, differences, and dependencies among the material, immaterial, and spiritual realms. The explanatory passages delve into nuanced distinctions, such as existential dependency and causal dependency between the material and immaterial… Read more

  • Charting Socrates

    The article explores the philosophical contributions of Socrates and the critiques posed by later thinkers. Socrates’ notable contributions include the Socratic Method, emphasizing cooperative argumentative dialogue to stimulate critical thinking, and ethical intellectualism, positing that… Read more

  • Charting Hume

    This article explores the significant philosophical contributions of David Hume, focusing on his empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism, and their opposition to other prominent philosophers. It highlights Hume’s seven notable contributions: empiricism, skepticism, the nature of… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Descartes

    René Descartes and a teenager discuss his philosophy. Descartes explains “Cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am) as the foundation of his method of doubt. He highlights the importance of skepticism to achieve certainty,… Read more

  • Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

    Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was a seminal figure in modern philosophy, contributing to metaphysics, logic, and epistemology. His concept of monads, the principle of sufficient reason, and the idea of the best of all possible worlds… Read more

  • Collapsing Epistemological Terms

    This article delves into the challenges of defining epistemological terms and proposes methods to achieve productive dialogue. It emphasizes collapsing 2nd-order terms into 1st-order concepts like “credence” for clarity and mutual understanding. However, some responses… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Hegel

    Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s philosophy has left a lasting impact. While his concept of the dialectic is widely acknowledged, his Absolute Spirit and Absolute Idealism are less accepted due to their speculative and metaphysical nature.… Read more

  • John Locke

    John Locke profoundly influenced modern philosophy, challenging prevailing rationalist views and emphasizing knowledge derived from sensory experiences. His concept of the mind as a “tabula rasa” at birth and his political theories significantly impacted political… Read more

  • Dangers: Awe as an Indicator

    The argument presents an insightful perspective on the subjective nature of beauty and the relationship between the observer and the observed. It questions the idea of objective beauty and challenges anthropocentric viewpoints. It also acknowledges… Read more

  • The Power of Statistics

    Statistics play a crucial role in acquiring truth by providing tools for interpreting data, quantifying uncertainty, and making informed decisions. Its power lies in quantifying evidence, pattern recognition, hypothesis testing, decision-making, understanding variability, and effective… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Charles Sanders Peirce

    Charles Sanders Peirce explains his philosophy, covering pragmatism, semiotics, and the scientific method. Pragmatism evaluates ideas by their practical consequences. Semiotics studies signs: icons, indexes, and symbols. The scientific method involves hypothesis, experimentation, and revision.… Read more

  • Baruch Spinoza

    Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century Dutch philosopher, significantly influenced modern philosophy by challenging traditional dualistic views and championing reason as the path to knowledge. His deterministic view of the universe led to groundbreaking contributions in monism,… Read more

  • Subjectivity Constrained by the Objective

    Subjective experience, influenced by objective reality, emerges from subjective creatures trying to navigate the world. Objective limitations and neural flexibility shape rich subjectivity, displaying various quirks. Cognitive biases, emotional states, and exploratory nature raise potential… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Epicurus

    Epicurus, an influential ancient Greek philosopher, advocated for pleasure as the highest good, tranquility of the mind, and the moderation of desires. While some of his specific ideas have evolved, they continue to shape contemporary… Read more

  • Faith or Evidence?

    This article explores the tension between citing miracles and advocating for faith as a reason to believe in God. It delves into how these concepts are viewed and reconciled within religious epistemology. The passage also… Read more

  • Testing Prayer

    A definitive prayer test would involve a specific, observable miracle, like restoring amputated limbs, occurring within a set timeframe following prayers directed to a specific God. Control groups would be essential to exclude coincidences and… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Socrates

    Socrates’ philosophy has left a lasting impact on critical thinking and ethical exploration. His Socratic Method continues to inspire dialogue in various fields. The notion of ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’ challenges societal… Read more

  • Monetary Goals

    A rational disposition toward money and possessions involves moderation, value-focused decision-making, and long-term planning, prioritizing experiences over material possessions. Historical figures like Diogenes of Sinope and St. Francis of Assisi found happiness through self-sufficiency and… Read more

  • Thomas Aquinas

    Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar and theologian of the 13th century, profoundly impacted Western philosophy by integrating Aristotelian philosophy with Christian doctrine. His influence is seen in Scholasticism, natural law theory, and the synthesis of… Read more

  • Culture-Wide Emotional Dispositions

    This article discusses the cultural aspects of emotional expression in Japanese society and its impact on child development. It emphasizes the influence of cultural norms on emotional expression, the effects of emotional suppression in childhood,… Read more

Recent Posts — Expanded Version
Indicate your interests:

Links to Section Menus