Philosophy 212L
Prof. Cohon
Fall 2000
Answers to Homework Assignment #1
Write a short paragraph or two in answer to each question.
- Robert C. Mortimer, in “Morality is Based on God’s Commands,” says “From the doctrine of God as the Creator and source of all that is, it follows that a thing is right… because God commands it” (Timmons, Conduct and Character, p. 51). Write this short argument in premise-conclusion form. Is the argument valid as it stands? Explain why it is, or is not. If you think it is valid, explain how the premise(s) guarantee the truth of the conclusion. If you think it is not valid, use Mortimer’s other remarks on p. 51 to figure out why he thinks the conclusion follows, and suggest a premise or premises Mortimer might add to try to make the argument valid. (7 points)
Answer:
The argument in this passage is:
- God is the Creator and source of all that is.
Therefore, a thing is right because God commands it.
The argument is not valid, because even if the premise was true, the conclusion could be false. (Or, the conclusion does not follow from the premise.) Even if God created everything, the right actions that he made might be right because of their intrinsic features, and not because of His commands. (Or, it doesn’t follow that the reason they are right is that God commanded them.)
The next part of the question is hard and a bit misleading. Here are two samples of the kind of answer I hoped to get. But we’ll grade this part leniently.
Mortimer may believe the conclusion follows because he also thinks that God owns everything in the world, including our bodies, and therefore God has the right to decide what we shall do with anything in the world (p. 51, top). If we add this assumption, and also the premise that when we use something that belongs to another person, we are obligated to obey that person’s instructions for how to use it, then it follows that we’re obligated to obey God’s commands. But it still doesn’t follow that the command is what makes the action right, rather than its feature of being what we owe to an owner.
Another possibility for this part: Mortimer may believe the conclusion follows because he believes that we owe a debt of gratitude to whoever gives us something valuable. Since God gave us our lives and all the world, we owe God our gratitude. Maybe he also thinks that certain debts of gratitude obligate us to obey our benefactor, and this one of them. Therefore, he concludes, we are obligated to obey God. This argument would be valid. But its conclusion is that we are obligated to obey God’s commands, but not that God’s command is always what makes an action right. In fact, the argument depends upon the assumption that there is an obligation to show gratitude to benefactors, and this is assumed even apart from anything God commands.
- John Arthur, in “Morality without God,” says “I think that theists themselves if they thought about it would reject the divine command theory” (Timmons, p. 59). Why would they reject it, on his view? (6 points)
Answer:
According to Arthur, theists would reject the divine command theory because it follows from that theory that God has no reason to command what he commands. Since according to the DCT God’s command alone makes an action right, Arthur says, God could not command something because it was (independently) right, since it wouldn’t be right independently. So God would have no reason to command one thing rather than another. Therefore, His commandments that we tell the truth and not murder, for example, would be arbitrary. He could just as easily have commanded us to lie and murder, and if He did so, then it would be right to lie and murder. Arthur thinks theists will reject the view that God could ever command us to lie and murder.
- What objection does John Arthur raise at the top of p. 61 to the view that God exists but the divine command theory is incorrect? (6 points)
Answer:
Arthur raises the objection that if the DCT is incorrect yet God exists, then God is not all-powerful. If the DCT is wrong, then God commands us to do right actions because they are right, and He doesn’t make them right by commanding them. But this means there is a limitation on God’s power: He could not make murder or torture right.
- In the second paragraph on p. 61, Arthur rebuts the objection he just raised. What is his argument against the objection? (6 points)
Answer:
Arthur argues that God’s inability to make wrong actions right or right actions wrong is not an important limitation on His power. Even if God is omnipotent, He still cannot do what is logically impossible, such as make a universe that was not made by Him (or: make a rock he can’t lift, etc.). It is also logically impossible to make wrong into right.