A Question for Divine Command Theory

[SorenK]

I think most people would agree that the following proposition is true: "Rape is immoral". My question is this, under what conditions would "Rape is immoral" be false? The more general question is: Can God change the moral status of an action?

I look forward to your thoughts....

SorenK

 

[Philosoft]

Be prepared to hear lots about "God's unchanging nature" and the like, my friend.

 

[SorenK]

Be prepared to hear lots about "God's unchanging nature" and the like, my friend.

Hmm, the lack of response here causes me to wonder . . . hmmmm

 

[Received]

I believe that if you look at the teachings of Jesus carefully, you find that the end of all our actions -- in order for them to be righteous -- means precisely that any form of malice or offense towards a subject must be eschewed for whatever ends possible. The entire New Testament is full to the brim of indications and downright claims that love is the end of the law, which leads us to conclude that the law is in itself a naught to those who love. With this in mind, a lie is justifiable. Perhaps this should have been the example; for I find under no situation is rape to be justified, for in rape you find a form of ill-will towards the subject for the afflicter's greater unjust gain.

Moreover, the case of Abraham clearly reveals this: here we have God commanding Abraham to kill his son for the greater good of faith. Now, the scriptural definition of sin is never a refusal to obey objective law, but whatever is not of faith (Romans 14:23). What is interesting in the case of Abraham is that if he were to refuse what is otherwise defined by the majority of the Christian populous as always wrong -- that is, murder --, he would have sinned, and not the other way around! As Kierkegaard would have it, Abraham is either justified by his faith, or he is lost; there is no middle ground.

Examples such as these has led me to conclude that the ultimate end in intention is what matters in defining what is morally acceptable or not. Rape, however, is never justified.

 

[onionring]

I think most people would agree that the following proposition is true: "Rape is immoral". My question is this, under what conditions would "Rape is immoral" be false? The more general question is: Can God change the moral status of an action?

I look forward to your thoughts....

SorenK

Is morality defined by God or man?

Either way, I believe, morality is assumed to be a higher order truth. Agreed? If so, then truth, that is to say reality, must be changed in order to "change the moral status of an action". That begets the question...

Is reality defined by God or man?

This centers to the question of belief in God (since I feel we all believe in man). If one does not believe in God, then the above question is void, since there would be only one correct answer. This would imply that the original question holds validity and can be answered by those that believe in God.

OK...enough analyzing the question, now for my answer.

Assuming I believe in God, the answer is yes. An all-powerful God, would controls reality and defines morality, can "change the moral status of an action".

This argument only stands if God control/defines both reality and morality. Lacking that, He would not be "all-powerful". Lacking that, He would not be "God". And therefore would not exist.

Simple enough.

 

[Lyle]

Funny, the same discussion is going on, on Christian Guitar resources... Click the link and see.

CGR

I think most people would agree that the following proposition is true: "Rape is immoral".

Agreed...

My question is this, under what conditions would "Rape is immoral" be false?

If there was no God to rule over what is and is not moral

The more general question is: Can God change the moral status of an action?

God can do anything, but He won't; Because He promised it so, and to change somehting like that would be to change Himself and who He is.

 

[onionring]

....
God can do anything, but He won't; Because He promised it so, and to change something like that would be to change Himself and who He is.

The question is not "will" He, but "can" He. So your answer was "yes"? And what's up with this ambiguous "promised"? Are you trying to reference something you believe is true? Perhaps you should share with the rest of us, since your belief may not be shared by all. Plus, vague statements like that doesn't add weight to your argument; rather they tend to weaken it.

 

[Received]

I do not believe that our comprehension of good and evil are of God's arbitrary will, but of His nature. This means that our understanding of the good cannot change; it is as eternal as its source.

 

[Lyle]

And what's up with this ambiguous "promised"?

i didn't think it was vauge. I was reffering to the fact that God has promised that He will never change (repeated several times throughout the Bible).

 

[Philosoft]

I do not believe that our comprehension of good and evil are of God's arbitrary will, but of His nature. This means that our understanding of the good cannot change; it is as eternal as its source.

In other words, God's nature could not have been otherwise. Does this not deny God free will?

 

[Received]

Not at all, for this is His nature. It would be like claiming that my will is negated because I cannot wake up as an oriental. In a sense it is, but it is also irrelevant. God being unable to reach any greater state of being because He is the unmoved mover does not make Him less than perfect; it defines Him as perfect.

 

[Apollonian]

i didn't think it was vauge. I was reffering to the fact that God has promised that He will never change (repeated several times throughout the Bible).

Please allow me to interject here. I do not refute the Bible by saying that God may change, however, I would like to bring to question the idea of "change" itself.

I note that God exists outside of time, otherwise there would be a contradiction in His creation of time itself as an element of the universe. I also note that 'change' is a concept only presentable when time is definate. A thing cannot change unless time so allows. Yet, if God is outside of time, how may God change?

Therefore, my conclusion here is that yes, God does not change. Yet, God has dictated different things at different times in different epochs and different ages. God does not change, but his will over time might seem to simply because we are seeing a temporal representation of a God who transcends time absolutely. ie - the identity of God is the same, but it is the human context, the worldly context, which has truly changed while God has remained the same.

With regard to the moral question, I would say that God could conceivably change what is moral, yet He not only would not change it, but it is irrelevant to speak of since we cannot be completely sure of what God wills to be Moral.

However, I furthermore assert that in a more practical heuristic, we may be sure that rape is immoral because the vary nature of the word rape includes immorality. If a rape is moral (from an absolute objective viewpoint), it is no longer rape.

We must be extremely cautious in entering into discussion of the Mind of God or the Will of God that we do not confuse the meanings of words which we use to describe human actions with the descriptions of the actions of God.

 

[Philosoft]

Not at all, for this is His nature. It would be like claiming that my will is negated because I cannot wake up as an oriental.

No, it wouldn't. You lack the power to become oriental. God, presumably, does not lack the power to choose which things are good. If God says, "Z is good," it must have been possible for God to say, "Z is evil." To claim otherwise is to negate free will.

In a sense it is, but it is also irrelevant. God being unable to reach any greater state of being because He is the unmoved mover does not make Him less than perfect; it defines Him as perfect.

This is also irrelevant. Having the ability to call something good or not doesn't entail imperfection unless a standard of perfection exists apart from God.

 

[Received]

No, it wouldn't. You lack the power to become oriental. God, presumably, does not lack the power to choose which things are good. If God says, "Z is good," it must have been possible for God to say, "Z is evil." To claim otherwise is to negate free will.

Well, keep in mind that free will implies the ability to choose the reasonable route or objective. God does not lack the power to become oriental; however, He does lack the reason. This does not negate His freedom, for it is a possibility, though it will never actualize while He is still omnipotent. Because something is absurd does it therefore make us lacking in the capacity to choose because we will never choose it in accordance with good logic? Perhaps here we should divide free will into two sects: potential freedom, and actual freedom. The latter will never be the case, for reason keeps it; the former is the case, for this the capacity for actualization. Do you define freedom only by what does actualize, or what can?

Moreover, if you define God as without freedom because He cannot reach any greater state of being, I would agree with you. The freedom that God has is creative; indeed, without the universe He 'was' without will, for He was in absolutely immutable perfection. Free will implies weakness, or finitude, I suppose you could say.

This is also irrelevant. Having the ability to call something good or not doesn't entail imperfection unless a standard of perfection exists apart from God.

Ok, you're going to have to explain this for me and how it relates to the debate; I'm somewhat lagging in the argumentative stance now.

 

[Thwingly]

Hello,
No.

Matthew 5:18 (basically, the laws won't change).

If the laws did change, it would be very easy to ask, "gee, why can't He make up his mind?"

Recieved, a lie is not justifiable, why? God commands us not to.

Child-sacrifice is not murder, it is child-sacrifice, like you would sacrifice an animal, except it is a child. Murder involves motives. God took David's baby away, what's so wrong about him taking Abraham's away? There is no reason to think this is a special case because God commanded Abraham to do it for him. Besides, God did offer Isaac as a burnt offering, he just never got to burn him...

-Thwingly