Challenges of the Divine Command Theory - Essay Example

Challenges of the Divine Command Theory The divine command theory is one of the many ethical theories that isgrounded on the central assumption that the will of God or a divine being is the foundation of ethics and morality in the universe. Generally, all actions can be classified as morally good or bad, obligatory, permitted or prohibited solely on the strength of Gods will and commands. Ex post facto philosophers and sages have sought to defend ethical theories that are founded on an ethical framework by arguing that moral and immoral actions that are propagated in the theory vary from one religion to another because the views are not universal. This theory has in the past and at present provided basis for volumes of critical works, with philosophers such as Plato and Nielsen having criticized it based on it being forced upon those who do not believe in supreme beings (Nielsen, 1973). Nevertheless, it has not been without defenders most notably Thomas Aquinas, Adams Robert and Quinn Philip; but the question of underlying links between religion and morality has interested both secular and religious philosophers for ages. In modern days, this theory has suffered the impact of increasing secularism, which is evolving at the expense of religious faith; however, this has been a gradual process and the theory is still very much alive. This paper will endeavour to outline and interrogate some of the challenges the theory has to contend with by examining in the social and religious contexts to determine the extent to which they limit it. Before undertaking to scrutinize the challenges and limitations, it is worthwhile to consider some of the advantages and philosophical justifications used to support the theory. Emmanuelle Kant a non-advocate of the theory proposed the most notable arguments in support of DVT when he provided an academic and disinterested claim not based on his support for it, but rather in expression of the plausibility of its assumption that the premises on which it is constructed are accurate. He posits that the society needs to have faith in God since the requirements of morality are too much for humans to satisfy independently without the help of a supreme being. Therefore, they must trust in God who will provide assistance in upholding the moral laws, and this belief is the foundation or hope for leading moral lives (Kant, 1993). This notwithstanding, if it is indeed true that there is a God and afterlife in which the “good” are rewarded with joy while the evil ones are punished with pain and eternal suffering, this problem is instantly resolved. The conclusion would be that being moral does not guarantee happiness; however, if there is a “God” who will balance out the scales in the afterlife then there is a connection between the two. Hypothetically, Kant’s logic can be demonstrated by considering a situation where there are two people; one of whom leads a moral and another and immoral one albeit within the limits of the law, if there is no God, the immoral person will exploit the one bound by moral convictions and generally live a happier and more fulfilling life. On the hand, the moral person will be forced to sacrifice many of his/her desires to maintain their sense of morality, and will not engage in corrupt activities if the society is generally predisposed to such to be marginalized. At the end of the day, without faith in God, the moral person seems to be punished by nature and society for their morality while the immoral one is rewarded. However, with God in the picture, the moral person can hope to be rewarded in the afterlife, which therefore justifies them having suffered in the mortal life (Leibniz, 2000). However, Kant does not strictly apply this argument to justify the divine command theory; nevertheless, an advocate for the theory can apply his reasoning to solidify their position. The second justification for divine command theory is that it provides and objective and metaphysical foundation for morality, and according to its advocates moral truths tends to be a perfect fit within the theistic framework based on the theory. Therefore, if it should be said for example that a moral being originated from the universe then it follows obviously that moral truths must be objective within it since it is founded on a moral foundation (Idziak, 1997). In case the basis for the universe is natural, which is the position most atheist assume, the very existence of morality would be inexplicable and likely improbable. Thus, divine command theory in addition to providing an answer to the question of how morality came to exist metaphysically, and answers albeit to a limited extent the question of why be moral? As long as the moral view is accepted, humanity can always justify the need to do good and avoid evil as necessary to escape the punishment of God who is beyond human reproach or control. The conventional moral theme that has been repeated in most literary works is that goodness always triumphs over evil and that the one who do the latter are punished and the former rewarded. Interestingly, despite the lack of universal consensus on a monotheistic deity, the theme seems to be prevalent in most human cultures. Therefore, divine command theory makes it appear logical for one to sacrifice their well-being not just for their own sake, but for the sake of even strangers who are incapable of rewarding them since they believe their reward will come from heaven. While the above position may indeed appear plausible, there is a persistent criticism that challenges it on the ground that if humans only do good because they have been instructed to do so by their God, it is a sign of moral immaturity. Considered in the context of the aforementioned factors, one would apparently be justified to make such a conclusion. Religious supporters of the divine command theory will be hard pressed to explain how they only act in a moral way to avoid punishment. In addition, it would not imply a sense of hypocrisy if morality appears as a capitalist and self-centred ideal based on mutual love and humanity, but not the mechanical intentions of acquiring rewards and escaping pain (Beaty, 1990). This would mean that those who show kindness to others and take care of their neighbours and even strangers as religions command, do not do so because they are inherently good, but because they fear the consequences of not doing so. From this perspective, the divine command theory seemingly contradicts the very tenets of those who so strongly support it. Paulo Freire one of the foremost contemporary educational philosophers theorizes in his book the pedagogy of the oppressed that the primary difference between men and animals is that former transcend the world while later are immersed in it. The latter only acts in accordance with their instincts, which in most cases is to find food, shelter and protect themselves. On the other hand, humans are controlled by logic and reason, which is how they transcend their environment (Freire, 2000). Nevertheless, the above criticisms of the divine command theory makes humans appear only slightly different from animals. They are neither good nor bad, but simply driven by the instinct to avoid punishment and gain rewards, making them morality reflexive rather than reflective. The downside of this theory is that if there was a way for humans to avoid this punishment or get the rewards for being good without actually being good, they would not live moral lives at all. For example, if God dictates indeed morality then it implies that in his absence it would cease to exist, and this argument followed to its logical conclusion would suggest that communities that do not believe in God or any other deity yet lead moral lives must by default be superior to those that are moral and believe in God. For example, if at one time it was proven that God does not after all exist, would Christians and Muslims cease to practice charity and become corrupt and immoral? However, Augustine seeks to disprove the notion that morality is simply a means for avoiding punishment by claiming that ethics have been instituted to guide the pursuit for the supreme good, which provides happiness (Kent, 2001). In his opinion, our loving God can only obtain this joy if one learns to love the right this in the right way, which must start, after this it is possible to love other people and objects in a proper way that is proportional to their value (Langan, 1984). Therefore, he seeks to prove that being moral is not a way to seek heavenly rewards but simply the product of a society that is trying to show their love for God and by extension for each other. However, this argument still leaves a historical and philosophical vacuum since it fails to explain how societies, institutions or individuals that do not believe in God can manage to be ethical and moral. However, there has been an ever-present criticism for the theory based on the discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro in which the former was being accused of misleading the youth (McPherran, 1985). In the cause of the argument, Euthyphro was prosecuting his father for killing a servant, which amounts to murder a crime that carries the capital punishment. Apparently, his family is unhappy with him because they think that by prosecuting him, he is being both disloyal to the family as well as impious. This leads to one of the most fundamental questions concerning the divine command debate: Is an action pious because it is pleasing to god or it is pleasing to god pious (Brickhouse and Smith, 1994)? This is a question to anyone contesting in favour of organist divine command must take to account at some point. Consider a setting in which this question can be reframed, in the old testament many of the actions committed by men sanctioned by God cannot be considered moral by modern standards and to some extent they were still as vile as they seem to day in retrospect. For example, the annihilation of Jericho and other cities by Jews on Yahweh command on many occasions, He had them kill everyone presumably including women and children so that they could take over what he had promised them. Outside the context of the biblical setting, such action cannot be considered moral, since they are equivalent to genocide and no civilized society would condone them. However, because they had been sanctioned by God who according to believers is both all-knowing and all seeing, they must have been moral (Wainwright, 2005). Therefore, this begs the Socratic question that, since genocide is never moral, does the fact that it is sanctioned by a divinity make it moral. This question is definitely not an easy one to respond to, and Christians will likely deem it unfairly and misdirected nevertheless the principal logic cannot be denied. Ultimately, a defender of divine command may still respond that an action is moral because God commands it; however, the underlying implication would be that should God command people kill each other wantonly, it is morally right. However, the defender is at an advantage because they will claim God being the supreme moral being can order no such action. Even if one was to ignore the brutally precise biblical explanation, there is still a question of what can be defined as true morality and the fact that it varies from one culture to another. When missionaries first arrived in Africa, they were of the opinion that the natives needed to be civilized and they saw themselves as God’s servants. However, the aftermath of their incursion is that they made it possible for the colonialists to enter Africa and in the course of “civilizing” they massacre millions and tear apart families and social institutions. Ironically, many of the Africans had deities of their own and to them it was considered immoral to abandon tradition and adopt foreign ways, indeed many or the first converts were ostracized from their communities. It is unequivocal that majority of societies in the world today have their own versions of morality based on supernatural beings. However, their faiths are not universal, and naturally their perception of morality is different. In some cases, what one group considers essential for their social political or spiritual welfare is deemed an abomination to another. This incontrovertible reality creates a serious problem for proponents of divine command. Morality should essentially be a humane and concrete attribute and since it applies to all humans, as it should be universal. Nevertheless, there exists different understandings of the words implying some that are in contradiction which severely weakens the divine command argument. Going back to Socrates dilemma, it is clear that if it is assumed that what God commands is the foundation of morality, then the whole concept is arbitrary and creates a basis for which what is morally reprehensible can be considered obligatory. From this perspective, divine command can even be viewed as a dangerous approach to life and morality. When people perform an action based on their assuming it is moral by virtue of third party sanctions whom they believe can do no wrong then they may refuse to respond to logic and opposing viewpoints. This sets the stage for religious extremism and other violent actions that are normally based on the belief that one is doing gods will, and even if they die in the process, they will be rewarded. One of the biggest threats to global security in modern day is terrorism, and many terrorists acts are perpetrated by Muslim extremists mostly from the Middle East who have been brainwashed and convinced of the sanctity of their actions. A large number of those who carry out these attacks such as the 911 in the US are suicide bombers who are persuaded that killing “infidels” is righteous because it has been allowed by a higher power. They do not fear earthly laws and will refuse to respect the lives and rights of others because they believe the one they serve is not subject to human authority and by association neither are they. While most people consider these terrorists to be evil and vile animals, they would be surprised to discover that they sincerely believe that what they are doing is moral and good with the same ardent favour that their victims believe they are diabolical. Objectively, these examples are a demonstration of how dangerous it is for humans to subscribe to a concept of morality from a being or beings who they cannot interact with on a one-on-one basis and whose moral authority cannot be predicted or controlled by human laws. This is because this creates the risk of people dehumanizing others by elevating themselves to a superhuman level and assuming the role of a higher being. Several responses have been made to the Eurhyepo dilemma, and among the most recognized respondents were Clark and Poortenga, their arguments were grounded on Aquinas morality theory. They denounce the arbitrariness of morality being dictated by God by claiming that God created humans in a specific way and by virtue of that, he has given them freedom to act. In case he had wanted humans to do things that are considered morally wrong such as murder, adultery and dishonesty, he would have created us with the natural predilection for such actions and they would actually help society function in a better way. Therefore, since murder is almost always detrimental to society God cannot will it, and as such make it moral since he did not create us for such purposes. Kai Nielsen proposes another challenge for the divine ethics theory in her book “Ethics without God”, and she posits that it is illogical to base the concept of morality on God by advancing and argument that God and religion are morally dependent. He acquiesces that it is without doubt prudent to obey Gods commands, or those of any powerful leader notwithstanding this is not obligatory. For his commands to be the basis on which morality is founded, he must be irrevocably good; however, Nielsen claims that for the goodness of God to be established one must theoretically step outside his ubiquity. For example, Christians will defend the goodness of God because the bible provides evidence of his goodness. According to Nielsen, for any entity to be qualified as God by Christians, it needs must be in the context of an understanding of what goodness itself is (Nielsen, 1973). This means there must be a criterion independent from God for understanding what goodness is. Therefore, morality cannot be based on God since for him to be considered good in the first place, the judgment must be made outside from without his realm; therefore, it follows that God and morality are independent. Consequently, there is the social contract theory that seeks to explain the basis of morality without reference to an individual or entity outside the immediate community in which certain morals and ethics are accepted. The social contract theory is founded on the premise that moral, ethics and laws are necessitated by the need of people to protect themselves from each other by sacrificing or assigning some of their freedom on certain institutions of individual positions. For example, when driving and one comes by a red right or a stop sign, they are required to stop even if there is no other car or pedestrian. Obviously, anyone is capable of driving in any way they want without regard to other road users but since they recognize traffic laws they have waived this freedom. Thus, societies are controlled by the fact that people respect the institutions in which they have vested the power to punish those who disrespect the rights of others. Sigmoid Freud describes the id, ego and ego ideal, whereby the id is the primal part of the human cognitive that would be the guiding factor in a situation where no morals existed (Freud, 1962). People would kill whenever they were offended, have sex with anyone anywhere even if it was not consensual, steal and assault at a whim with no regard to moral decency. However, the social contracts that exist in society force people to curb their primal urges and live in harmony with each other each knowing that the social norms and laws protect them from everyone else. Without morals, society would be a matter of survival for the fittest; however, in this case the fittest would be those best capable of exploiting and destroying others rather than adopting. Such a society is not sustainable and it would gradually self-destruct in a matter of a few years or months. Taking this into account, it is apparent that the influence of God is not necessary for people to live in a moral way, it is natural for human living collectively to adopt some moral codes either subliminally or consciously otherwise they would simply cease to exist. In conclusion, despite the many arguments presented against divine command theory, it would be naïve to assume that simply because they sound plausible it is an obsolete or irreverent construct. Millions world over subscribe to it and it has been largely responsible of harmony, charity and peace among the human race for centuries. Nevertheless, as Michael Boylan proposes in his book “A Just Society”, humans are obligated to be reflective in their construction and implementation of a personal plan on which their actions are based (Boylan, 2004). Life is not limited to religious values; in fact, other numerous moral considerations transcend the scope of religion; more so, in view of the many who abstain from religious convictions. A final analogy that attempts to analyse the arguments for and against divine command theory is derived from the biblical story or Abraham. He was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac based on what God told him would have been considered immoral by his community, however to him it was moral since it was ordered by God (Bodoff, 1993). Opponents of the theory will claim that the fact God is capable of demanding human sacrifice is evidence of the unreliability of divine ordaining in matters of morality. However, proponents will insist that since he was told not to kill the boy, God had never planned for his death in the first place. According to Boyle, is such situations where morals and religious aphorisms collide, the former should take precedence. Irrespective of what one may choose to believe, it is important to remain objective and consider both the connections between morality and religion and by extension God as well as morality in the secular or humanistic context. Ultimately, it must be admitted that morality just like human rights is important for the society and if people can get along because of the morals they share, then it should not really matter where one acquires them from unless they used to justify crimes against the individual or the society. References Beaty, M. 1990. Christian Theism and the Problems of Philosophy. Indiana; NotreDamme University Press. Bodoff, L. (1993). The real test of the Akedah: blind obedience versus moral choice. Judaism, 42(1), 71-92. Boylan, M. 2004. A just society. Maryland; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Brickhouse, T. C., & Smith, N. D. (Eds.). 1994. Platos Socrates. Oxford; Oxford University Press. Freire, P. 2000. Pedagogy of the oppressed. London; Bloomsbury Publishing. Freud, S. 1962. The ego and the id (No. 142). New York; WW Norton & Company. Idziak, J, M. 1997. ed. Questions on an Ethics of Divine Commands. Vol. 3. Indiana; University of Notre Dame Press,. Kant, I. 1993. Critique of Practical Reason. Third Edition. Translated by Lewis White Beck. New Jersey;: Prentice Hall. Kent, B. 2001 “Augustine’s Ethics.”. In The Cambridge Companion to Augustine. Edited by Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann. New York: Cambridge University Press: 205-233. Langan, J. 1984. The elements of St. Augustines just war theory. The Journal of Religious Ethics, 19-38. Leibniz, G. W. 2000. Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil. Oregon; Wipf and Stock Publishers. McPherran, M. L. (1985). Socratic piety in the Euthyphro. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 23(3), 283-309. Nielsen, K. 1973. Ethics Without God. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. Wainwright, W. J. 2005. Religion and morality (p. 252). Farnham; Aldershot: Ashgate. Read More