The Divine command theory (also known as theological voluntarism) [1] [2] is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action’s status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, ‘I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2.20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so and so,’ or, ‘I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such and such a temperature and it did so and so.’ Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. Divine command theory argues that an act is obligatory if it is commanded by God. Divine command theory is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. Ever since men were able to think they have been wondering what this universe really is and how it came to be there. Wherever there have been thinking men both views turn up. If I ask why I shouldn’t commit murder, the divine command answer is: “because God commands you not to”, but I can then ask why I should do what God commands. This problem might be avoidable if all religious traditions ultimately agreed on what the moral code, but it does not seem like all of the world religions can be made to say the same thing. After Lewis argues that morality is objective, he also goes on to argue that morality comes from God. The Euthyphro Dilemma was originally raised by Plato in one of the Socratic dialogues, and if you would like to learn more about Plato’s statement of the problem, you can read the Euthyphro dialogue here, or read a summary of the problem by a professional philosopher at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Suppose someone asked me, when I see a man in blue uniform going down the street leaving little paper packets at each house, why I suppose that they contain letters? This is not a matter of motivation, but of the explanation of the way morality creates values of right and wrong. A great buy.” Therefore, the divine command theory based on this argument would be false. 2. God could have commanded whatever he wanted to and that would have been good, as Divine Command theory has already established, so calling God good just means that he follows his commands, but at that point his commands seem pretty arbitrary if he can just do whatever he pleases. Sam (Student), “This is a functional book that explains all the concepts very clearly without any waffle. Morality is not based on human intent or human nature or human character. It argues that human beings are directed by the God’s command to distinguish what is wrong and right. A morally perfect God couldn't issue such commands and anyone who did so would be morally imperfect. Kant argues that as rational creatures with the ability for autonomous thought and action, we can rationally determine the morality of any situation. From the Crusades to the Thirty Years War, religions typically have a history of serious and prevailing conflict rather than a legacy of agreement about the best way to live a good life. If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe—no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. For a command of God’s to be relevant to our moral obligations in any … By one chance in a thousand something hit our sun and made it produce the planets; and by another thousandth chance the chemicals necessary for life, and the right temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so some of the matter on this earth came alive; and then, by a very long series of chances, the living creatures developed into things like us. Science works by experiments. This view is one that ties together morality in and religion in a way that is very comfortable for most people, because it provides a solution to pesky arguments like moral relativism and the objectivity of ethics. Anyone studying Man from the outside as we study electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. The divine command theory is the view of morality in which what is right is what God commands, and what is wrong is what God forbids. God's commands dictate right and wrong—what He says to do is right, and what He says not to do is wrong. In this passage, Russell argues that the Divine Command theory faces a fatal dilemma. Divine command theory argues that an act is obligatory if it is commanded by God. And real scientists do not usually make them. Here is how Bertrand Russell states the problem: If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? And note this too. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case. (Amazon verified Customer). This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. If there is something besides God’s commands that can tell us whether those commands are right or wrong in the first place, then God’s commands are not the source of morality after all. If DCT is true, morality is based merely on God’s whim.