Ethics: Divine Command Theory

[vulcanlogician]

Let's clarify things here. As somebody (Thump, I think) recently put it: dictionary definitions help us understand words... but not reality. The word "whim" is artificially making the issue murkier than it needs to be. So let's clarify.

When you make a determination, decision, or judgement, you either have a rationale for it or you don't.

We can say that you have urges to play games and a rationale for doing chores... that's the typical situation. But playing games might actually be the most logical decision. Let's say you are overworked, and the team needs you to be at your best tomorrow at the office. Relaxing and playing games might be the more rational thing to do if you are feeling burned out. After all, you need to be well-rested so that you can tackle a pending project at work.

Also, it's worth noting, either choice can only be "more rational" if you assume the invisible premise "we ought to strive toward the best state of affairs." Which is a premise I hold as axiomatically true.... as I assume you do. Unless, of course, God wishes a worse state of affairs. Then all bets are off.

Any decision you make either has a rationale or it doesn't. So let's make two new categories so we don't get tripped up on words like "whim" and "arbitrary." Those categories are: "rational" and "non-rational." All things based on impulse, on one's nature etc. fall into the category of non-rational (category 1). Things based on reason, fall into another (category 2). Now, what I would like is an explanation of how an item in category 1, when it determines something or is involved in judgment can be anything other than arbitrary. The chores/games example didn't convince me. If there is a third option I'm not considering, I need more explanation.

***

Let's consider God for a moment. Christians want to say "God is Good." So "goodness" is a part of God's nature. But did God "create himself" as good? Was it a choice he made? Or was he just spontaneously good, and had no control over it? Or did God make a determination about what "good" is? The DCT theorist wants to say the latter. But you see the issue here, right?

You're not going to trip me up on gender issues, so I'd advise not going that route. It's a cheap tactic anyway... very transparent. One's gender is not a decision, judgement, or determination that a person makes. It's something they're stuck with. You having the prejudice of it being a choice is making you advance a weak argument. But I concede this point: if a person were CHOOSING their gender, and they didn't use a rationale, then such a choice would be arbitrary. It would be so by necessity.

[Percie]

Any decision you make either has a rationale or it doesn't. So let's make two new categories so we don't get tripped up on words like "whim" and "arbitrary." Those categories are: "rational" and "non-rational." All things based on impulse, on one's nature etc. fall into the category of non-rational (category 1). Things based on reason, fall into another (category 2). Now, what I would like is an explanation of how an item in category 1, when it determines something or is involved in judgment can be anything other than arbitrary. The chores/games example didn't convince me. If there is a third option I'm not considering, I need more explanation.

You try to push things into two categories, but you broke one of those into two sub-categories: the arbitrary, and one's nature. Instead of 1a, 1b and 2, just number those 1, 2 and 3 and you've got your third option.

1. Impulse/whim/randomness - arbitrary
2. Nature (something they're stuck with, as you say below)
3. Reason

Or was he just spontaneously good, and had no control over it? Or did God make a determination about what "good" is? The DCT theorist wants to say the latter.

The former is pretty much saying that goodness is his nature, which is my position, and I'm the DCT guy here.

You're not going to trip me up on gender issues, so I'd advise not going that route. It's a cheap tactic anyway... very transparent. One's gender is not a decision, judgement, or determination that a person makes. It's something they're stuck with.

Trip you up? I was trying to get you to recognize and/or admit to the fact that intelligent beings have a nature which leads to behaviors which are neither rational nor arbitrary. Now you seem to see it. "Something they're stuck with" is the same as saying it's their nature.

[vulcanlogician]

We're getting somewhere. But many Christians are reluctant to say that God is "stuck with" his good nature. They want to say his goodness is something that he wills.

I think viewing "goodness" as a distinguishable part of God's nature suggests that goodness (as a notion) exists independently God. The same could be said of power. Christians claim that God is powerful. But power is something we see in certain people, in hurricanes, etc. Power, as a concept exists independently of God. The only thing that associates him with it is that he is said to have a lot of it. Same could be said of goodness.

Anyway, what is your response to my earlier thought experiment?

Did God forbid theft and rape for arbitrary reasons? That's what the Divine Command Theorist says. And furthermore, let's consider a hypothetical where God lifted the ban on rape. I bet many people, many nations, and many Christians would still want to say that there's something wrong with rape. They wouldn't want it done to their family members. They'd want to keep government laws against it in place.

In this hypothetical, people would want to say that rape is wrong independently of God's (hypothetical) indication to the contrary. What would your response be to someone who said "there is still something morally wrong with rape, despite God's lifting of the prohibition"? Wouldn't their case seem reasonable? And if their case IS reasonable, doesn't that suggest there are good reasons to see morality as something independent of God's commands?

[Percie]

We're getting somewhere. But many Christians are reluctant to say that God is "stuck with" his good nature. They want to say his goodness is something that he wills.

I don't answer for "many Christians." If you have a question for me, ask it.

In this hypothetical, people would want to say that rape is wrong independently of God's (hypothetical) indication to the contrary. What would your response be to someone who said "there is still something morally wrong with rape, despite God's lifting of the prohibition"? Wouldn't their case seem reasonable? And if their case IS reasonable, doesn't that suggest there are good reasons to see morality as something independent of God's commands?

No, their case wouldn't seem reasonable. The problem with this approach is that you try to make a change in a vacuum. You need to consider the consequences of the change.

Man was created in the image of god. The fall corrupted that, but it's still there to some extent, notably in the conscience. If god thought rape and stealing were appropriate, people would mostly think so too, as the conscience would be different in that world. Or, if god were capricious in nature, people wouldn't have a common foundation of morality at all in such world.

[vulcanlogician]

We're getting somewhere. But many Christians are reluctant to say that God is "stuck with" his good nature. They want to say his goodness is something that he wills.

I don't answer for "many Christians." If you have a question for me, ask it.

Are they wrong, then?

Man was created in the image of god. The fall corrupted that, but it's still there to some extent, notably in the conscience. If god thought rape and stealing were appropriate, people would mostly think so too, as the conscience would be different in that world. Or, if god were capricious in nature, people wouldn't have a common foundation of morality at all in such world.

Nobody knows to what extent (or exactly how) man was made in God's image. There are obviously differences (omnipotence, for example), and then some supposed similarities. Since God never shows himself, we can't make a side-by-side comparison to find out which of man's features were modelled after God and which weren't. It's convenient for you to say they are similar in moral understanding, but no specific piece of evidence (or scripture) specifically corroborates this.

I say scripture is a leery guide for us to use anyway. After all, Christians who oppose DCT will cite Genesis 1:4 "And God saw that the light was good..." to argue that goodness is independent of God... that God, like a carpenter who has fashioned a table, looks over his work and recognizes he's done a good job. After all, he didn't say "Of course it's good-- I made it." The phrasing in Genesis suggests that goodness is independent of God, something by which God measures his own work.

And then you could reply, "But elsewhere in the Bible it says x." and because the Bible can be made to say many contrary things, it is of no use in determining the truth. So let's eschew the theological approach.

I have to concede some basic things to you as far as using scripture. After all, if it weren't for the claims in your book, you'd have ZERO to go on. But I have to draw the line at huge guesses as to what is meant by "God's image." Let's do our best to keep focused on the issue of a great cosmic being existing somehow dictates what moral facts are.

[Percie]

Are they wrong, then?

Make their argument yourself in greater detail and we can discuss.

Nobody knows to what extent (or exactly how) man was made in God's image. There are obviously differences (omnipotence, for example), and then some supposed similarities. Since God never shows himself, we can't make a side-by-side comparison to find out which of man's features were modelled after God and which weren't.  It's convenient for you to say they are similar in moral understanding, but no specific piece of evidence (or scripture) specifically corroborates this.

Romans 2
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

I say scripture is a leery guide for us to use anyway. After all, Christians who oppose DCT will cite Genesis 1:4 "And God saw that the light was good..." to argue that goodness is independent of God... that God, like a carpenter who has fashioned a table, looks over his work and recognizes he's done a good job. After all, he didn't say "Of course it's good-- I made it." The phrasing in Genesis suggests that goodness is independent of God, something by which God measures his own work.

Light isn't good in a moral sense. God saw that the light was good for his purposes in creation.

And then you could reply, "But elsewhere in the Bible it says x." and because the Bible can be made to say many contrary things, it is of no use in determining the truth. So let's eschew the theological approach.

I have to concede some basic things to you as far as using scripture. After all, if it weren't for the claims in your book, you'd have ZERO to go on. But I have to draw the line at huge guesses as to what is meant by "God's image." Let's do our best to keep focused on the issue of a great cosmic being existing somehow dictates what moral facts are.

Er, no, I'm a Christian and am arguing from a Christian viewpoint. Arguing for now, anyway. I'm getting tired of you trying to just wave off every argument that you can't counter.

[Percie]

Let's do our best to keep focused on the issue of a great cosmic being existing somehow dictates what moral facts are.

So why do you keep bringing up what "many Christians" supposedly know?