Divine Command Theory of Ethics

Morality & Religion:
What, if any, are the essential connections?

Morality pertains to, at least:
· actions -- people doing what’s morally required,
· beliefs -- people having beliefs about what’s morally required,
people having true, reasonable beliefs
· motivations – people being motivated to do what’s morally required,
people caring about doing the right thing

Religion pertains to, at least, some of the following:
· being part of a church, synagogue, mosque, etc.
· accepting that church’s teachings, tradition, etc.
· believing that, e.g., the God of Christianity, Judaism, etc. exists
o at least, an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good being who created the world, etc.
· God, in the sense of, “an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good being who created the world” existing in reality
o Not people merely believing that God exists, but that their belief is true since it accurately represents reality.
· having faith in such a being.

So, what are the possible connections between any of these considerations?

Motivational?

“A person would be motivated to what’s right only if that person:

· Is part of a church or accepts some church’s teachings?
· Believes that God exists?
· Has faith in God?
· God exists?

(To put it another way: “No person would be motivated to do what’s right unless that person were part of church, believed in God, &/or God exists, etc.)

“Epistemological” (pertaining to knowledge and reasonable belief):

“A person would be able to know what’s right and wrong, or have reasonable beliefs about what’s right and wrong, only if that person:

· Is part of a church or accepts some church’s teachings?
· Believes that God exists?
· Has faith in God?
· Has good knowledge of the Bible.
· God exists?
(To put it another way: “No person would be ever to know what’s right and wrong, or reasonably believe that something is right or wrong, unless that person were part of church, believed in God, &/or God exists, etc.)

33. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong; religious views say it’s wrong.”34. Anything the Bible says to be wrong is wrong. If the Bible says something is wrong, then it is wrong.35. Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.

“Ontological” or “Metaphysical” (pertaining to what exists)

“Right and wrong, good and bad exist only if God exists.”

“If there were no God, nothing would be right or wrong.”
Why is this?

“God’s commands make actions right and wrong. If an action is wrong, that’s because God commands that it not be done or disapproves of people doing it. If an action is morally obligatory, God commands that it be done and disapproves of people not doing it.”

A question about this view:

Does (A) God command us to do what’s right because it’s right,
or (B) is what’s right right because God commands it?

Option A: “Infallible Guide Theory”


Option B: “Divine Command Theory”

“Euthyro Problem” – the Bible, or God’s Commands, make something right. To be right is to be commanded by God; to be wrong is for God to command that it not be done.

Suppose this is true: “God’s commands are right” or
“The Bible Commands what’s right”

Question:
(A) “Does God command what’s right because what God commands is right, or,
(B) are God’s commands right because God commands them?”

First option (A):
“infallible guide” theory:
“objective” factors make right actions right; since God knows everything, God sees this (e.g., God sees that certain actions cause more harm than benefit, etc.), and God reports on what is objectively right. These are not right because God says so; they are right because of these objective factors, not God’s saying so.

Second option: “Divine Command Theory” (B):
God’s commands make something right or wrong.
Why is it right? Because, and only because, God says so. Anything God said to be right would be right. If God said that breaking promises is right, or God commanded breaking promises, then that would be right. If God commanded torturing babies for fun, then torturing babies would be right.

A response: “God would not command torturing babies for fun!”
Why not? If the DCT is true and God commands torturing babies, then torturing babies would be right.
“But torturing babies for fun is wrong, so God wouldn’t command it! Indeed, since God is all-good, he couldn’t command torturing babies for fun.”This person rejects the DCT; they think what’s right and wrong is made right and wrong by “objective” factors, not God’s commands. They think “Because I say so!” is not a good answer, even for God!

Notes on “Simple Subjectivism” & Emotivism

Notes on “Simple Subjectivism”

Common, but what are the arguments against it?

If someone says

“X is morally right”
“X is morally permissible”
“X is good”

then that person has said “I (the speaker) approve of X,” or “I (the speaker) like X.”


If someone says

“X is morally wrong”
“X is morally impermissible”
“X is bad”

then that person has said

“I (the speaker) disapprove of X,” or
“I (the speaker) dislike X.”



Can we ever be in error in our moral views? Can we ever be mistaken, i.e., think something is wrong (or right) when it is not? If SS is true, then we easily cannot.

1. If SS is true, then if we accurately report on what we personally approve of then, necessarily, we tell the truth about what’s morally right or wrong.
2. But it’s not true that if we accurately report on what we personally approve of then, necessarily, we tell the truth about what’s morally right or wrong.
3. So SS is not true.

Do we ever disagree about what’s right and wrong? If SS is true, then often we do not.

Person A says “All abortions are wrong.”
Person B says “All abortions are not wrong.”

It appears they disagree. For any topic, if people disagree, then they both cannot be telling the truth: at least one of them must have a false belief.

1. If SS is true then: if person A accurately reports that she disapproves of all abortions, then she says something that’s true and if person B accurately reports that she approves of all abortions, then she says something that’s true.
2. If A says something that’s true and B says something that’s true, then they do not disagree.
3. So, if SS is true, then person A & B do not disagree. (hypothetical syl.)
4. But they do disagree.
5. So SS if not true. (3, 4, MT)

Emotivism

· To judge that something is right is to express (not state) one’s approval of something.
· To judge that something is wrong is to express (not state) one’s disapproval of that something.

If emotivism is true, then we cannot reason about ethics.
But we can reason about ethics.
Therefore emotivism is false.