Divine Commands

[FSTDT]

I've always wondered about Divine Command theory of ethics, or the idea that morality is dependent on the will of God.

For instance, imagine a hypothetical command: that it is wrong to mow your grass after sundown.

Why is it that my command "thou shalt not mow your grass after sundown" has no morally binding component (like my command meant nothing), but when God makes the very same command it suddenly is morally binding?

 

[BarbB]

Ummm, because God is God? As a Christian, of course, I don't know, but I think that's it!

 

[z3ro]

The better question you should ask is how absolute are god's commands, when he himself breaks them.

 

[Blackguard_]

Why is it that my command "thou shalt not mow your grass after sundown" has no morally binding component (like my command meant nothing), but when God makes the very same command it suddenly is morally binding?

Because you are not all-powerfull. The reason God sets morality is because if morality exists apart from God's will God is than not all-powerfull as he is bound by it/under it if he wants to be all-good. Also, God as creator has the right to regulate whatis his. He can do whatever he wants with the universe by right of ownership.

 

[z3ro]

Because you are not all-powerfull. The reason God sets morality is because if morality exists apart from God's will God is than not all-powerfull as he is bound by it/under it if he wants to be all-good. Also, God as creator has the right to regulate whatis his. He can do whatever he wants with the universe by right of ownership.

Now that is a scary idea.

 

[Lifesaver]

This simplistic form of Divine command ethics misses an important part: God's will is identical to His nature, and the whole of creation reflects, in a finite way, the infinite truth and beauty of God.

Therefore, morality can be learnt even without knowing about the commands of God found in Scripture, by simply study of the real world; of course, both will be identical, and morality itself indeed depends on God's command, but it is not like God could make drinking water in regular circumstances immoral, as that would imply a contradiction in Himself.

 

[FSTDT]

Blackguard,

Because you are not all-powerfull. The reason God sets morality is because if morality exists apart from God's will God is than not all-powerfull as he is bound by it/under it if he wants to be all-good. Also, God as creator has the right to regulate whatis his. He can do whatever he wants with the universe by right of ownership.

I dont understand, are you saying might makes right? How does being all-powerful make your statements carry moral weight? I dont want to think of God as a bully.

(And there are certain things that exist outside of God, these would be necessary properties. According to this, it isnt possible for God to bring about necessary states of affairs (i.e. God cannot make the statement "all cubes are shaped" true), because it would imply that if God had not acted then those statements would have failed to be true (i.e. the statement "all cubes are shaped" would not be true). But this leads to logical contradiction. Necessary statements are true whether or not anyone wants them to be true, clearly outside of God's will.)



Lifesaver,

This simplistic form of Divine command ethics misses an important part: God's will is identical to His nature, and the whole of creation reflects, in a finite way, the infinite truth and beauty of God.

Therefore, morality can be learnt even without knowing about the commands of God found in Scripture, by simply study of the real world; of course, both will be identical, and morality itself indeed depends on God's command, but it is not like God could make drinking water in regular circumstances immoral, as that would imply a contradiction in Himself.

I have two comments:

1) No it wouldnt a contradiction. You already defined that God's commands are identical to his nature, so it isnt possible for him to command anything contrary to his nature; therefore, if God were to command people to stop drinking water, it would be consistent with his nature because there is no difference between the two.

Does this sound like circular logic? Actually, the above isnt - in math, you would just call this the substitution property, in poetry you would remark "a rose by any other name", in logic you would call "action" an alias for "nature".

2) Of course, something is being missed: where exactly does the moral component come in? Strictly going by what you've written, it looks to me like God's actions and his nature are equivalent, but that there is a logical gap between "God's actions" and "morality" being equivalent.

As a simple analogy, you could have argued the same thing about Satan, that his actions and nature are equivalent, but I dont think you would argue that Satan's actions are equivalent to moral. Could you argue that by definition, Satan's nature is immoral and God's nature is moral? No, you couldnt, because it would only serve to create a circle of logic that assumes its premises (that God is moral by definition) to reach its conclusions (that God's actions are moral by definition).

 

[Lifesaver]

1) No it wouldnt a contradiction. You already defined that God's commands are identical to his nature, so it isnt possible for him to command anything contrary to his nature; therefore, if God were to command people to stop drinking water, it would be consistent with his nature because there is no difference between the two.

You didn't understand. The creation also depends on God's will. And we know from reason alone that drinking water in regular circumstances is not a sin. Were God to say it is, He would be in contradiction, for He both says it is not wrong (by His creation) and that it is (in His decree). This is impossible.

2) Of course, something is being missed: where exactly does the moral component come in? Strictly going by what you've written, it looks to me like God's actions and his nature are equivalent, but that there is a logical gap between "God's actions" and "morality" being equivalent.

To be good is to be what one is to a great extent. A good spoon is a spoon that does well what a spoon is supposed to do.
Likewise, a good man is a man who does what is proper to man. Man is a rational animal. To be a good man, to do good, means to act in accordance with reason; to be what one is. That is why good is, in fact, a synonym of being.

Since God created everything, to be moral is nothing else than act in accordance with God's will, being what God created us to be. And to be evil is to will differently, to will to be what one is not; for instance, to live irrationally like an animal.

As a simple analogy, you could have argued the same thing about Satan, that his actions and nature are equivalent, but I dont think you would argue that Satan's actions are equivalent to moral. Could you are that by definition, Satan's nature is immoral and God's nature is moral? No, you couldnt, because it would only serve to create a circle of logic that assumes its premises (that God is moral by definition) to reach its conclusions (that God's actions are moral by definition).

Satan is not the creator, but a creature. His will may be in accordance or not with that of God; he may be in accordance or not with the universe; being satan, we already know he is completely against God; completely against existence itself.

 

[Zaac]

I've always wondered about Divine Command theory of ethics, or the idea that morality is dependent on the will of God.

For instance, imagine a hypothetical command: that it is wrong to mow your grass after sundown.

Why is it that my command "thou shalt not mow your grass after sundown" has no morally binding component (like my command meant nothing), but when God makes the very same command it suddenly is morally binding?

That's not a theory. Morality IS based upon the only absolute measure of truth that is Jesus Christ. He does not deal in theory but in absolutes.

Make no mistake about it, God did not flip a coin and decide what would be a command and what would not. In His omniscience, He sets as commands those things He knows will serve to spiritually protect us. His commands serve an absolute purpose.

 

[Blackguard_]

I dont understand, are you saying might makes right?How does being all-powerful make your statements carry moral weight? I dont want to think of God as a bully.

It seems to me that God as an all-powerful being would have power over morality.
If he couldn't change morality but was bound by it, then he would not be all-powerful. althought the article ou link to may argue otherwise, I have yet to read it. plus it violates God's soverignty to have morality exist indepentent of his will and/or not be changeable by him as it means something has power over him.

Or, an all-powerful beings statements carry moral weight since being all-powerful, he has power to simply change what morality is. Although as you hint at, this makes saying "God is good" seem somewhat meaningless.

Even if being all-powerfull doesn't work and he can't simply change morality directly, he still has the right to tell us what to do by right of ownership becasue he created us. If you own something you can do with it what you like right? of course, if a morality exists apart from God's will that limits what God could order you to do, Divine Command Theory is simply false.

 

[LOGICQUIZDUMMY]

Might makes right.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Why is it that my command "thou shalt not mow your grass after sundown" has no morally binding component (like my command meant nothing), but when God makes the very same command it suddenly is morally binding?

A possibility is the supposed wisdom of God. If God is the creator, he must know a lot. Perhaps the commands have consequences beyond our sight but not beyond God's. If would be nice if these consequences could be explained to us, but alas such is not our lot in life. It is taken for granted that God would use his wisdom for the sake of human beings. So, moral by virtue of it supposedly being beneficial... whether to you or humanity as a whole; whether in the near future or ages later.

One wonders why God could not do more, if there is such a wise and benevolent God, or how not mixing fabric could decide the fate of the universe, but such is beyond the topic of this thread...

 

[FSTDT]

Lifesaver,

You didn't understand. The creation also depends on God's will. And we know from reason alone that drinking water in regular circumstances is not a sin. Were God to say it is, He would be in contradiction, for He both says it is not wrong (by His creation) and that it is (in His decree). This is impossible.

To be good is to be what one is to a great extent. A good spoon is a spoon that does well what a spoon is supposed to do.

This is exactly the definition of the Is-Ought fallacy. If the spoon were to break or loose functionality, the spoon would be "bad", but this would have nothing to do with morality.

There are a few types of good, the ones we are most familiar with are functional good and moral good.

First type is what you've mentioned: something is good if it performs its intended function, and bad if it doesnt. The second type of good distinguishes between value judgments (whereas a value judgment is a determination between things that are important or desirable). These definitions come straight out of my philosophy textbooks.

So, your original example about commanding us not to drinking water is a little off. It isnt immoral because humans are intended to drink water, its immoral because such a command would cause gratuitious suffering (this is a really easy example where you can can you see the difference between a factual statement and a value statement).

To be a good man, to do good, means to act in accordance with reason

Since God created everything, to be moral is nothing else than act in accordance with God's will, being what God created us to be. And to be evil is to will differently, to will to be what one is not; for instance, to live irrationally like an animal.

The two statements in blue and red are in contradiction to one another (this isnt to say they are mutually exclusive). It is wholly possible to act reasonably in ways that God has not intended, for instance think of all the different kinds of morality that have come about that dont rely on making appeals to God: Utilitarianism, Kantian Feminism, social contract theories, Egoism, Epicurianism, etc. All of these philosophies are completely consistent and rational, but many of them make claims that are contrary to what God has intended.

Furthermore, the statement in red begs the question: exactly why is behaving morality nothing more than behaving according to God's will? You havent explained that yet, only boldly asserted it.



Zaac,

That's not a theory. Morality IS based upon the only absolute measure of truth that is Jesus Christ.

Why? Why cant morality be determined on the truth on me, or the truth of the United States, or anything else for that matter?

Make no mistake about it, God did not flip a coin and decide what would be a command and what would not. In His omniscience, He sets as commands those things He knows will serve to spiritually protect us. His commands serve an absolute purpose.

Based on some of the other comments I've seen in this thread, morality is nothing more than being in concert with God's will. Therefore, while these commands may serve to protect us spiritually, God could will precisely the opposite and these commands would protect us all the same.

And if morality is based on what God wills, then you are not dealing with absolutes - that is, assuming that God has the capacity to will otherwise. (If God does not have this capacity, that would be a logical paradox with omnipotence as we know it.)



Blackguard,

If he couldn't change morality but was bound by it, then he would not be all-powerful. althought the article ou link to may argue otherwise, I have yet to read it.

1) God is constrained by several things: he cannot perform the logically impossible, nor can he prevent the logically necessary. But no one ever argues that this somehow means God isnt omnipotent.

2) The article I posted only talks about omnipotence, its scope, and several other things (it doesnt talk about morality). I suggest reading it, its interesting.

plus it violates God's soverignty to have morality exist indepentent of his will and/or not be changeable by him as it means something has power over him.

1) In what way morality independent of God's will violate God's sovereignty? (And many people already believe that God is bound by certain moral constructs, such as believing it is wrong to punish innocent people, or believe it is wrong to inflict gratuitous suffering.)

2) Do you believe in free will? As in, the idea that humans are in control of their own actions independent of God's will? If you do, then you obviously have no problem with things that exist outside of God's will.

3) Even if morality were to exist outside of God's will, its still possible for him to control whether certain actions are immoral. For instance, if hitting someone with sticks is wrong because it causes suffering and death, then God could simply make it so that hitting people with sticks creates happiness and doesnt kill. Simple as that.

 

[Lifesaver]

This is exactly the definition of the Is-Ought fallacy. If the spoon were to break or loose functionality, the spoon would be "bad", but this would have nothing to do with morality.

Of course it wouldn't, for morality exists only in rational wills.
If the spoon had a rational will, it would be immoral for it to break itself.

There are a few types of good, the ones we are most familiar with are functional good and moral good.

This is where you are wrong.

First type is what you've mentioned: something is good if it performs its intended function, and bad if it doesnt. The second type of good distinguishes between value judgments (whereas a value judgment is a determination between things that are important or desirable). These definitions come straight out of my philosophy textbooks.

They find differences where there is in fact none. Useful and morally good are indissociable; they only seem to be opposite when we have a disordered set of values (that is, we love more a lesser good than a greater one).

So, your original example about commanding us not to drinking water is a little off. It isnt immoral because humans are intended to drink water, its immoral because such a command would cause gratuitious suffering (this is a really easy example where you can can you see the difference between a factual statement and a value statement).

Drinking water is not and could not be immoral because it is essential to the existence of man. To prohibit the drinking of water is to want man not to be, contrary to God's will, which is that man multiplies himself and that each man individually be a man as fully as he can (that is, lives in accordance to reason).
Sin, immorality, is nothing else than acting against reason: loving the lesser over the greater.

 

[FSTDT]

Lifesaver,

This is where you are wrong.

Hmmm?

Ever heard of G.E Moore, David Hume? The difference between factual and value statements has a strong precedent in philosophy. I'm not sure why you would dispute this. Why am I wrong?

They find differences where there is in fact none. Useful and morally good are indissociable; they only seem to be opposite when we have a disordered set of values (that is, we love more a lesser good than a greater one).

Almost, but not quite. In morality, there is something we like a call "utility" (which in a general sense means something that is useful).

Here is a brief quote:

Ethics is a theory of social relations. the injunctions of ethics are principally injunctions to do good for people, and for sentient beings more generally perhaps. Henry Sidgwick may have exaggerated when asking rhetorically in his Methods of Ethics whether anything can really be good if it has no effect - direct or indirect, actual or potential - on any being's state of consciousness. Perhaps we can contrive contorted examples to show some such things to be good, in that more abstract sense. But our duty to promote that good would be severely attenuated by such contortions and contrivances. Forced to choose between a good that is good someone and a good that is good for no-one [sic], morality would almost invariably lead us to prefer the form to the latter.

Therein lies the great appeal of utilitarianism, as the theory of the good most standardly used to fill out the larger consequentialist framework. ... utilitarianism [insists] that to be good something must be good, somehow, for someone. 'Utility', in its most general sense, means merely 'useful'. Why, it quite reasonably asks, should we ever require gestures that are of no earthly use to anyone, anyway? ... It is no accident that precisely that attack on 'principles adverse to that of utility' comes right up front in Jeremy Bentham's Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, following hard on the heels of the introduction of the 'principle of utility' itself (Bentham 1823). It was in Bentham's day, and remains in our own, the very best argument for a utility-based moral theory. (Goodin, Robert E. 1993. Utility and the Good. Pages 241-242. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0631187855)

I would tend to agree with that quote, that things are only meaningful in a moral sense when it affects or potentially can affect someone.

But, you have a serious flaw in methodology: that is, you havent put together a link between something being functional and something being moral. For instance, the fact "people are alive" makes no claim that we ought to protect life, its a simple statement of fact and nothing more.

Drinking water is not and could not be immoral because it is essential to the existence of man.

Before you can say that, you need to reason to suppose why life is has any moral worth. Sheer existence has no moral component in itself.

I wouldnt doubt that you destroy life all the time, because you eat it, but you probably dont think you are being wantonly immoral by ending all that life. On the other hand, you probably believe that abortion is immoral, despite the fact that in terms of rationality and sentience it is no better off than that spoon you mentioned earlier. If these two facts are accurate, then its obvious that you dont believe morality is summed up by existence alone, you believe there are certain characteristics that make life valuable.

This isnt sophistry.

To prohibit the drinking of water is to want man not to be, contrary to God's will, which is that man multiplies himself and that each man individually be a man as fully as he can (that is, lives in accordance to reason).

I plan to be voluntarily childless my entire life, does that make me immoral?

 

[Stinker]

I've always wondered about Divine Command theory of ethics, or the idea that morality is dependent on the will of God.

For instance, imagine a hypothetical command: that it is wrong to mow your grass after sundown.

Why is it that my command "thou shalt not mow your grass after sundown" has no morally binding component (like my command meant nothing), but when God makes the very same command it suddenly is morally binding?

Maybe we are not asking the simple questions.

1. Is good defined by what God says.... or by what God is....or both?

2. Is it possible for the people on a world who have never heard of God or any religion, find it gratifying to see, hear, or participate in, the physical torture of people and animals? If not, why not? If yes, why yes?