For countless centuries a debate has quietly raged among philosophers as to the validity of the Divine Command Theory. This moral framework is erected within theistic constraints holding that the morality of man is directly dependent upon a living God. It states that moral obligation begins and ends with the character and the word of God. Divine Command Theory says that obedience to God is the ultimate obligation of man and within such obedience all ethics can be found.
It says that the morally correct action is that which God demands.Not surprisingly, the different religions of this world hold varying opinions as to exactly what constitutes the commands of God, and throughout history nations and races have found themselves at an impasse when trying to enforce deistic directives. George Bush once said that a dictatorship was a good thing so long as he was the dictator. Divine Command Theory seems to be more popular with those church members who happen to wear elaborate headpieces or fly their own private jets.Philosophers have come down on both sides in the debate (IEP 2006).
Ultimately it would seem that, since God is unlikely to weigh in with His opinion, the debate over the correlation between ethics and religion is most valuable as a discussion, in and of itself, attended by a variety of factions with diverse opinions. The traditional view of God is that He is an omnipotent being. He is infallible and incapable of error, moral or secular. His word is the law the universe and the laws of the universe is his word.Given that this is true, then His commandments are to be obeyed without question, for man does not possess the reasoning to question them and cannot see the end result of the command. The problem arises when He gives His divine commandment to one man, and that man tells the masses what he believes to be the will of God.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the two opposing opinions and determine the fallacies, if any, which exist in the arguments. On the pro side of the equation there are a set of truisms. The first holds that God is that being over which no one has authority.Obviously one of the definitions of God is the He is supreme, therefore there can be no greater authority in the universe. Secondly the pro argument goes that if God commands right actions then even God recognizes those actions as having authority over Him. This argument is specious and begs the question by asking that we assume facts not in evidence, so to speak.
Because man sees such as a contradiction in terms does not mean that God is obligated to assume the same. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, the bible says. God and the word of God are the same and not mutually exclusive.The next step in this convoluted logic is back on track, saying that God does not command right actions because they are right but the reverse, that they are right because God commands them.
At this point the question becomes much like the primacy of the chicken or the egg. The argument against Divine Command Theory says that if God issues a command which humans would normally find reprehensible, that act, by virtue of the fact that it is commanded by God, is not morally wrong, because a perfect God cannot commit an imperfect act or command an immoral action to be committed.The extrapolation of this line of reasoning says that should God command genocide against a race of people then it is a moral act to obey the dictates of the Supreme Being and genocide becomes acceptable on moral grounds. Secondly, under this scenario, it is possible for God to command genocide. The Old Testament discusses such acts and the command is attributed to Him in those ancient writings. From this series of givens comes the next truism, saying that it is not possible for genocide to be a right action.
At the point the connection is made that Divine Command Theory cannot be right. Every school boy has heard the question that supposedly has no logical answer, and that is, ‘Can God make a rock which is too heavy for Him to lift? ” If the schoolboy says ‘yes’ he is putting a limit to God’s power. If he answers, ‘no’, he is equally limiting the power of a supreme being. The idea that genocide can never be right even if commanded by God also puts a limit on the power of an omnipotent God.In an attempt to anthropomorphize that which cannot be understood by the mind of men, man attempts to attribute human logic and reasoning to his creator.
God committed genocide through the Deluge and it says in the Old Testament, “…and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy,” (Deuteronomy 1:7 NIV). This seems to be genocide by command. Irrespective of what some religious leaders like to foist on a gullible flock, sin and crime are not the same.Biblical law often holds man to the same ethical standards as secular law but not always.
There are many more religions on this earth than Christianity. Whose book is mankind expected to read and whose god is mankind expected to obey? Throughout history it seems to be that the religion with the most legions was the one obeyed. If the true God commands then the command cannot be wrong. The anti-argument states that genocide cannot be right. This is an erroneous assumption based on human standards and ethics.
The commandments of God are to be obeyed sans editorialization.
