Mary Elizabeth Bruner
May 15, 2017
PHIL 311
Dr. Williams
Divine Command Theory: The Weakest Ethical Theory
Ethical theories should be universal, supported by observation or societal trends that serve as evidence for the theory, and most importantly, must be defended by reasoning. Theories that succeed in obtaining this criteria include: utilitarianism, deontology, cultural moral relativism, feminine ethics, and others. These theories all contain moralistic idea that can be universal, observed in society, and defended by reason. Divine command theory falls short in all of these aspects of a good ethical theory. Divine command theory is an ethical theory that holds the idea that “a god or gods approve of or command certain actions” and “the actions that the god or gods approve of or command are morally right because of this approval” (Divine Command Theory Introduction 37). This theory contains significant weaknesses that forces the following argument to be made: divine command theory is the weakest of all ethical theories to date, due to the fact that it does not meet the criteria to be considered a good ethical theory.It really should not be considered a theory of ethics at all, but since it is it should be classified as the weakest theory in ethical study.
For example, one significant weakness of this theory is the automatic assumption that God/gods exist. Not to use the idea of appeal to ignorance in this explanation, but since there is no proof that God/gods definitely, undoubtedly exist, this assumption cannot be made. Another weakness with this theory is that if the assumption of the existence of God/gods is accepted, the “theory itself does not stipulate which god” should be followed for moral guidance (37). The number of religions in existence is astounding. Each religion contains numerous ideas, rituals, and ethical/moral codes. To simply imply that a god(s)’ commands are morally good and should be followed, as suggested by divine command theory, is absurd. The theory must specify which god(s)’s commands are to be followed. Each religion’s god(s) vary on what they command and what they hold to be morally acceptable. To make it even more problematic, divine command theory does not provide any guidelines or suggestions for what individuals should do if their religion is polytheistic.
Multiple gods typically have multiple beliefs, so how is one to determine which god to abide by? How can one please all of their gods in a polytheistic religion, if they must abide by one god’s moral law that differs from another god’s moral law? Not only does the theory not specify which god(s) are correct (which is impossible to determine due to the large spectrum on religious gods and lack of proof as to which ones, if any, exist), but even if this was determined it would not provide guidelines for how one is to interpret said god’s commands. The goal of ethical theories is to get close to providing an objective moral code for humanity, but this theory falls short of truly being an ethical theory. If anything, this theory is more of an explanation as to why some people possess their moral code. Religion is always going to determine moral code, but that does not mean it is objective, moral truth.
Even if this theory addressed the above problems, it would still leave room for human interpretation of religious texts. Interpretation leads to disputes and multiple opinions as to what should be morally correct. All of these concerns are still not the major issues with this theory. These larger issues weaken this theory’s argument, which determines it insufficient for meeting the main criteria for a theory to be considered an ethical theory, but are not the biggest concerns.
The first greatest concern with divine command theory being a week ethical theory is the problem that it is not applicable to all people, and therefore, cannot be universalized. This theory is grounded in the idea that commands come from a higher deity. Despite there being different opinions, arguments, and beliefs for which deity is the real deity, there are still people who do not believe in any deity or those who just don’t know which is actually true. Divine command theory does not apply to atheists or agnostics. If a person does not believe in a deity, then, according to divine command theory, how are they to receive guidelines and rules on how to be a good moral agent? This theory does not provide an answer to this question, making it fall short of the criteria needed to be a good ethical theory. Because it does not apply to all people, it cannot be considered universal. Universal theories are theories that can be applied to all people, allowing individuals to apply theories to their culture, society, and religion. However, divine command theory applies religion to moral codes instead of taking a theory and applying that moral code to religion. It is true that religion plays a large role in forming one’s moral code, but in ethical theory, a theory should be able to apply to all people, not just those with religious beliefs.
Divine command theory only applies to those with religious beliefs, leaving atheists and agonistics out of the picture. This theory already falls short of being a good ethical theory due to its inability to be universal. A good ethical theory can be practiced by all people, but if atheists or agnostic had the desire to practice this theory, they would have nothing to practice. Divine command theory isolates a group of individuals from the application of the theory, automatically placing this theory at the weak end of the ethical theory strength scale. This theory would need to incorporate and address the atheist and agonistic problem to be universal.
One may object to the argument of divine command theory’s inability to be universal by arguing that it is true that atheists and agnostics cannot gain any insight into morality through this theory, but religion and moral codes cannot be separated, so atheists and agnostics cannot gain moral codes through this theory because they desire to find their moral guidance apart from religion. Disregarding the truth behind religion’s supernatural beliefs, religion has been an invaluable source since the dawn of mankind as a way to set up moral codes as a concrete, eternally rewarding system of right and wrong morals. Overall, the main goal of religion is to justify, or gain, a moralistic standpoint as to how to live a good, ethical life. The supernatural aspect of religion is what sets the foundational storyline for the moralistic code.
Again, whether or not the supernatural aspect of a religion is true or false is irrelevant. The most important part of religious practice is to provide moralistic foundations and guidelines as to how to live a moral life. The supernatural aspect may just be the mysterious idea of faith. Faith can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God/gods. So, divine command theory may not meet the criteria for a good ethical theory, but it serves as a justification to the idea that religion produces ethical code. Atheists and agnostics may not practice religion, but they find their moral codes in different areas of life. They may find them in their upbringing that contained no religion, they may find it in their culture minus religion, and they may even develop a moral code by observing society and then producing their own moral code that is accepted correlates to acceptable moral behavior. Another issue that one may object to is the claim that divine command theory is week because it cannot be a universal theory. One may argue that religion cannot and will not ever be able to be a universal thing. Religion is a personal, faith-based factor in an individual’s life that cannot be explained to simply be applied to an ethical theory.
In response to the above objection, it may seem that the supernatural existence and understanding of religion is irrelevant because it is more important to gain morality through religion, but the supernatural aspect is just as important, or maybe even more important, than the morality yielded by religious practices. The reason that the supernatural aspect is more important than the morals, is because the supernatural aspect of religion determines the guidelines for moral behavior. The supernatural deity or deities that determine moral behavior as good or bad must be understood. The deity’s character traits and motives need to be understood to determine why the morals are good, and if the morals are actually good morals or not. Divine command theory claims that one should blindly follow the commands of said deity, but this would make the individual a bad moral agent. “A person who blindly follows divine commands, or a person who blindly follows her god, is an irresponsible moral agent” (40). For an individual to be a good moral agent, one must analyze and question why their deity commands what they command.
Divine command theory disregards this important analysis that needs to be made by each religious individual. The reason that one must question the command of their deity is to justify and be able to defend the morals that they believe in, but to also determine if their morals are good. One reason divine command theory fails in being a good ethical theory is the fact that it does not answer the question about the deity’s determination in regarding a moral as good or bad. Is a moral good because it was commanded by god as good, or is a moral good because good is independent of god and it would be good without god? This question is determining the reason as to why a moral is good: is it good because god says it is, or is good independent of god? This is why religion should not be the answer to ethical study of why morals are followed. Divine command theory provides no reasoning behind a deity’s commands. The question of why a moral is good is still unanswered. And if atheists and agnostics are to develop moral code in other aspects of life, then why is religion needed? If anything, divine command theory makes itself irrelevant. Atheistandagnostics can be good or bad moral agents just like there are good and bad religious moral agents, so there is another way to find a moral code and follow it to be a good moral agent other than divine command theory.
The second major issue that makes divine command theory a weak ethical theory is the fact that it provides no explanation of proof of its relevance through societal trends, making it a theory that lacks reasoning. Ethical theories turn observation into proof for the theory itself by observing how a certain aspect of the theory is in existence in society, proving the theory’s relevance. Divine command theory provides no societal trends as evidence for itself, not proving its significance as an ethical theory. For example, utilitarianism makes the claim that individuals in society typically make decisions and do actions based on happiness and that the action should be done to produce the most units of happiness. Utilitarianism takes an observation of behavior from society and applies that to an idea to make a conclusion about the theory itself.
Divine command theory merely presents the claim that what god(s) commands is morally good because it is commanded by god(s). It does not provide any evidence shown in society as proof to support its conclusion. Therefore, divine command theory once again falls short in obtaining all the criteria needed to be considered a good ethical theory. Since divine command theory does not provide any societal trends or proof for the claim it makes, this means that there is no solid reason behind the theory. Ethical theories use reason to support their claims through explaining societal trends. Divine command theory has no evidence through societal trends that it cannot be considered a theory based on reason. Again, this theory automatically assumes the existence of the supernatural with no reasoning behind that claim, but it also makes a claim that the supernatural deity command good morals with no reason as to why one should believe that the deity is good and just in doing so. There is no proof for any claim made by divine command theory, therefore there is no solid reasoning made in favor of it. There must be some form or reasoning or justification for divine command theory to be considered a good moral theory.
One may object to the above argument that divine command theory provides no reasoning or societal trends as proof by arguing that intangible convictions cannot be an observable societal trend and that religion itself and the mere practice of religion should count as evidence for this theory. Faith based convictions are innumerable phenomenon among religious individuals. Each religious experience is unique and not something that is analyzed and numbered for proof for a theory. Divine command theory does not need to provide societal trends of faith based religious experiences due to the fact that religion itself is a faith based experience. Divine command theory has the most prominent proof of all the ethical theories. It encompasses all of the religions to show that religion is a prominent societal trend in itself and serves as proof that people do believe in divine command theory. If religious individuals did not believe in divine command theory then there would be no religions and religious practices. Religion serves as a way to obtain moral code from supernatural deities, so divine command theory is practiced by all individuals who are religious. Religion itself proves as the societal trend for divine command theory. Divine command theory has no need to explain this point because it is based off of religion. It is pretty self-explanatory that divine command theory uses religion to draw conclusions to form its argument.
In response to the objection presented above, religion itself is not adequate proof or an adequate societal trend for divine command theory to be considered a good ethical theory. Religion itself contains a broad spectrum of beliefs and religions. Not only are there too many religions for divine command theory to encompass them all, but religion to some individuals may not mean the same for another individual. One may claim that religion is a way of living while one may argue that it is a belief in a supernatural being. Another reason religious practice cannot serve as proof for divine command theory is the fact that some religions do not contain supernatural beings to give commands for divine command theory to be applicable. Some sects of Buddhism, Wicca, Scientology, and many others do not contain a god. If there is no god, then there are no commands to be followed. These religions form their moral code strictly off of philosophical ideas that seem morally acceptable. These religions show that not all religions have gods so not only is divine command theory not applicable to all people, but it isn’t even applicable to all religions.
If divine command theory is to become a good ethical theory, then it needs to address the following things: which god/gods should be followed, how do this god/gods know that a moral is good or not, what should atheists and agnostics do to make the theory universal, and how can this theory apply to religions with no god/gods? This theory doesn’t need to merely be tweaked, but rather deconstructed and reconstructed as something new. The difficulty with this is addressing religion while not making the claim that religion is true or false. The argument of this essay is not arguing that religion is false, but that divine command theory just does not do the religious community justice in determining how religion plays a role in determining morals.
Works Cited
“Divine Command Theory.” Ethical Theory: A Concise Anthology, edited by Heimir Geirsson and Margaret R. Holmgren et al., 2nd ed., Broadview Press, 2010, pp. 37-41.
1