Christian Ethics. How Should We Live? 4. The Divine Command Theory Sunday, June 5, 2005 9 to 9:50...

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 hopeful

in all we do.in all we do.- A New Zealand Prayer Book, p. 612- A 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 0-534-58477-2 ISBN 0-534-58477-2 (Chapter 6: “The (Chapter 6: “The Divine Command Divine Command Theory”)Theory”)

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. Pojman, Wadsworth Pojman, Wadsworth Publishing, 2005. Publishing, 2005. ISBN: 0-534-55657-4. ISBN: 0-534-55657-4. (Chapter 5 “Religion (Chapter 5 “Religion and Ethics”)and Ethics”)

Dr. Pojman is professor Dr. Pojman 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. Gensler, Harry J. Gensler, Routledge, 1998. Routledge, 1998. ISBN: 0-415-15625-4. ISBN: 0-415-15625-4. (Chapter 3 (Chapter 3 “Supernaturalism”)“Supernaturalism”)

Dr. Gensler is Dr. Gensler 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. Grenz. Stanley J. Grenz. InterVarsity Press, InterVarsity Press, 2000. ISBN: 0-830-2000. ISBN: 0-830-81568-6.81568-6.

Dr. Grenz is Dr. Grenz 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 = = Action-based EthicsAction-based 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 = = Virtue-based EthicsVirtue-based Ethics = = Aretaic EthicsAretaic Ethics. 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 (= (= Action-based EthicsAction-based Ethics = = Ethics of ConductEthics of 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 find one each other. It should (at least theoretically) be possible to find 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.


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.


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 (= (= Action-based EthicsAction-based Ethics = = Ethics of ConductEthics of Conduct):): 1. 1. Teleological EthicsTeleological Ethics == Consequentialist EthicsConsequentialist Ethics. The . The

morality of an act is based on the morality of an act is based on the outcomeoutcome or or consequenceconsequence of the act.of the act.

2. 2. Deontological EthicsDeontological Ethics == Nonconsequentialist EthicsNonconsequentialist Ethics. . 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 primarilyprimarily deontological or nonconsequentialist.deontological or nonconsequentialist.

IntroductionIntroductionDeontological EthicsDeontological Ethics

There are three major systems of There are three major systems of Deontological Deontological Ethics Ethics == Nonconsequentialist Ethics Nonconsequentialist Ethics (= the morality (= the morality or “rightness / goodness” of an act is inherent in the or “rightness / goodness” of an act is inherent in the act itselfact itself):): 1.1. Divine Command Theories. Divine Command Theories. “Rightness” or “goodness” “Rightness” or “goodness”

is what God permits or commands.is what God permits or commands. 2.2. Intuitionist Theories. Intuitionist Theories. “Rightness” or “goodness” are “Rightness” or “goodness” 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 “intuited” and are “self-further analyzed; they can be “intuited” and are “self-evident” to the mature mind.evident” to the mature mind.

3.3. Reason-based Theories. Reason-based Theories. “Rightness” or “goodness” can “Rightness” or “goodness” 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: SupernaturalismSupernaturalism Theological VolunterismTheological Volunterism

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 (God’s will).commands (God’s will).

God’s Will and Moral God’s Will and Moral RightnessRightness

God’s Will and Moral RightnessGod’s Will and Moral RightnessSocrates’ QuestionSocrates’ Question

In Plato’s (428 BC to 348 BC) early dialogue In Plato’s (428 BC to 348 BC) early dialogue EuthyphroEuthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro the , Socrates asks Euthyphro the question:question:

Does God love goodness because it is good?

Or is it good because God loves it?

God’s Will and Moral RightnessGod’s Will and Moral RightnessSocrates’ QuestionSocrates’ Question

Euthyphro answers the later. Something is Euthyphro answers the later. Something is good good becausebecause God loves it. That is: God loves it. That is: ““X” is good X” is good becausebecause God loves / desires / wills God loves / desires / wills

“X.”“X.”

and and notnot:: God loves / desires / wills “X” God loves / desires / wills “X” becausebecause “X” is “X” is

goodgood

God’s Will and Moral RightnessGod’s Will and Moral RightnessThe Divine Command TheoryThe Divine Command Theory

Euthyphro’s answer (“Euthyphro’s thesis”), Euthyphro’s answer (“Euthyphro’s thesis”), “X” is good “X” is good becausebecause God loves / desires / wills God loves / desires / wills “X,”“X,” is the is the Divine Command TheoryDivine Command Theory

In 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..

God’s Will and Moral RightnessGod’s Will and Moral RightnessThe Divine Command TheoryThe Divine Command Theory

That is, the That is, the Divine Command TheoryDivine Command Theory says says Moral rightness simply means Moral rightness simply means “willed by God”“willed 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 God”of God” (whatever is not what God wants = bad!) (whatever is not what God wants = bad!) Morality is based Morality is based strictlystrictly on God’s will. on God’s will.

Without God, there can be no morality or Without God, there can be no morality or ethics.ethics.

God’s Will and Moral RightnessGod’s 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 “X” God loves / desires / wills “X” becausebecause “X” is good.” “X” is good.”

The The autonomy thesisautonomy thesis implies: implies: Rightness and wrongness are not based simply on God’s Rightness and wrongness are not based simply on God’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. God’s “omnipotence” does God’s “omnipotence” 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.

God’s Will and Moral RightnessGod’s Will and Moral RightnessDivine Command Theory vs. the Divine Command Theory vs. the

Autonomy ThesisAutonomy Thesis At first glance it may seem that the At first glance it may seem that the Divine Divine

Command TheoryCommand Theory (Euthyphro’s thesis): (Euthyphro’s thesis): ““X” is good X” is good becausebecause God loves / desires / wills “X.” God loves / desires / wills “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 “X” God loves / desires / wills “X” becausebecause “X” is good “X” 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 God’s power (for even God is subject to this Limit God’s power (for even God is subject to this

independent moral law), andindependent moral law), and Limits God’s perfectionLimits God’s perfection

God’s Will and Moral RightnessGod’s Will and Moral RightnessDivine Command Theory vs. the Divine Command Theory vs. the

Autonomy ThesisAutonomy Thesis

However, 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, 1224–1274, to reject it). . .Aquinas, 1224–1274, 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 Theory that “goodness” is what God wills / desires / that “goodness” is what God wills / desires / loves, then: loves, then: It becomes meaningless babble to say “God is It becomes meaningless babble to say “God is

good.”good.” ““God is good” = “God wills / desires / loves what God God is good” = “God wills / desires / loves what God

wills / desires / loves”wills / desires / loves” It becomes meaningless babble to say “God It becomes meaningless babble to say “God

commands us to do good:” commands us to do good:” ““God commands us to do good” = “God commands us God commands us to do good” = “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: GoodnessGoodness RightnessRightness

is meaningless, for we have now is meaningless, for we have now defineddefined “goodness” and “rightness” in terms of God.“goodness” and “rightness” in terms of God.

God in a logical sense now lies beyond or God in a logical sense now lies beyond or outside of “goodness” or “rightness.”outside of “goodness” or “rightness.”

ProblemsProblemsGod’s Ability to Redefine Good and EvilGod’s Ability to Redefine Good and Evil

Another problem with the Another problem with the Divine Command TheoryDivine Command Theory is 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 ScotusDuns Scotus (1266-1308) and especially (1266-1308) and especially William of William of OckhamOckham (1280-1349) inaugurated a Christian (1280-1349) inaugurated a Christian movement embracing the Divine Command Theory, movement embracing the Divine Command Theory, emphasizing “God’s inscrutable will.”emphasizing “God’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.


The hatred of God, theft, adultery, actions The hatred of God, theft, adultery, actions similar to these … may have an evil quality similar to these … 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 … God can perform them without any But … 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 Ockham- William of Ockham


William of Ockham in other words is saying William of Ockham 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: KillKill StealSteal Commit adulteryCommit adultery Torture babiesTorture babies

these would then become good, meritorious these would then become good, meritorious acts!acts!


The Protestant reformers followed in the tradition of Scotus The Protestant reformers followed in the tradition of Scotus and Ockham.and Ockham.

Dr. Grenz in Dr. Grenz 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 God’s own sovereign God commands according to God’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 God’s own injunctions.”God’s own injunctions.”


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 “divine” beings; They are both supernatural or “divine” beings;

God is simply the most powerful.God is simply the most powerful. God is just the “bigger bully on the block”God is just the “bigger bully on the block”

ProblemsProblemsSummarySummary

Because the Because the Divine Command TheoryDivine Command Theory:: Makes it meaningless to say “God is good” (= it Makes it meaningless to say “God is good” (= it

becomes the contentless babble that “God wills / becomes the contentless babble that “God wills / desires / loves what God wills / desires / loves”)desires / loves what God wills / desires / loves”)

Threatens to turn God into “the biggest bully on Threatens to turn God into “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 ThesisSocrates’ QuestionSocrates’ Question

This brings us back to Socrates’ answer that This brings us back to Socrates’ answer that “God love goodness “God love goodness becausebecause it is good.” it is good.”

That is:That is: God loves / desires / wills “X” God loves / desires / wills “X” becausebecause “X” is “X” is

good (= good (= Autonomy ThesisAutonomy Thesis))

and and notnot:: ““X” is good X” is good becausebecause God loves / desires / wills God loves / desires / wills

“X.” (= “X.” (= Divine Command TheoryDivine Command Theory; Euthyphro’s ; Euthyphro’s Thesis)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 God’s power does not allow God to Just as God’s power does not allow God to override the override the laws of logic,laws of logic, so too God’s power so too God’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 “good” acts stealing, adultery, rape, torture into “good” 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 God’s still admit God’s knowledge is far superior to ours (God has an knowledge is far superior to ours (God has an “epistemological” advantage):“epistemological” 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 God’s knowledge what is good / right, and bad / wrong, for God’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 law Through reason and intuition, an atheist can discern the moral law 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 Gensler, p. 43):Gensler, p. 43): God is a supremely good being.God is a supremely good being.

Good not because God fulfills God’s desires, but good because Good not because God fulfills God’s desires, but good because God’s life accords with inherent truths about goodness (= with the God’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 bad Our reason is capable of discovering what is good and what is bad

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’s topic); next week’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 God’s Natureand God’s Nature

Moral Law and God’s Nature Moral Law and God’s Nature Socrates’ QuestionSocrates’ Question

In Plato’s (428 BC to 348 BC) early dialogue In Plato’s (428 BC to 348 BC) early dialogue EuthyphroEuthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro the , Socrates asks Euthyphro the question:question:

Does God love goodness because it is good?

Or is it good because God loves it?

Moral Law and God’s Nature Moral Law and God’s Nature Socrates’ QuestionSocrates’ Question

Some theologians have tried to argue that Some theologians have tried to argue that Socrates’ question is a Socrates’ question is a false dilemma.false dilemma. They They say we do say we do notnot have to choose between: have to choose between: God loves / desires / wills “X” God loves / desires / wills “X” becausebecause “X” is “X” is

good (= good (= Autonomy ThesisAutonomy Thesis))

versus:versus: ““X” is good X” is good becausebecause God loves / desires / wills God loves / desires / wills

“X.” (= “X.” (= Divine Command TheoryDivine Command Theory; Euthyphro’s ; Euthyphro’s Thesis)Thesis)

Moral Law and God’s Nature Moral Law and God’s Nature The Moral Law as Part of God’s NatureThe Moral Law as Part of God’s 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 God’s natureimmutable, eternal part of God’s 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 God’s immutable, eternal nature.be against God’s immutable, eternal nature.

Moral Law and God’s Nature Moral Law and God’s Nature The Moral Law as Part of God’s NatureThe Moral Law as Part of God’s Nature

For 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 (“goodness”) to identify it to the moral law (“goodness”) to identify it as built into God’s nature.as built into God’s nature.

It would also still seem to “limit” God’s power It would also still seem to “limit” God’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.

Christian Ethics. How Should We Live? 4. The Divine Command Theory Sunday, June 5, 2005 9 to 9:50...

Documents

Transcript of Christian Ethics. How Should We Live? 4. The Divine Command Theory Sunday, June 5, 2005 9 to 9:50...