What the Divine Command Theory means according to Emil Brunner and how Kai Nielsen objects to that theory.

In this paper I intend to explain what the Divine Command Theory means according to Emil Brunner and how Kai Nielsen objects to that theory. I plan to do this by an explanation of what Divine Command Theory is as opposed to Humanistic Ethics. I plan to show that abandoning religious ethics in support of Humanistic Ethics is not reasonable.

What is Divine Command Theory? According to Emil Brunner "Genuine humanly good is found only in the unconditional, unquestioned obedience of man to God." That this is a power from God. According to Ms. Rodrigues' explanation "morality is determined entirely by God's command." I believe that it means that the only way to be a goodly and moral person is by following God's commands. That obeying human laws or human moral codes does not make you a "good person." Nevertheless, when we follow God's commands, we become people of genuine human goodness. Mr. Brunner believes that good is done for the sake of God and that we do good to please God because this is what God commands. He believes that God is in total control of our happiness and God's plan for our happiness is found in sanctions, rewards and punishments. These sanctions are the make-up of our moral code. God knows all and has a plan. We, as humans, may not know what that total plan is. If we follow the Divine Command Theory, it would not matter because the moral code dictates that we follow God's command. We are to do as God commands us and we will then be genuinely good humans. We will be good if we follow Gods commands.

According to Kai Nielsen, a person who follows the ethics of a Humanist we would believe the following; that things could be good independent of God, and that God is commanding us to do something because it is good. That the good that we have are not Gods' creation, but a by-product of the world that he created. We would understand what good is without God's help, and we will be morally good if we do good deeds. He states "we can only attribute perfect goodness to God if there are independent standards of goodness."

My question is; where do these independent standards come from? I believe that they would come from our morals, which are based on the deeds that we do to be good. Where do the moral standards come from? According to Thomas Aquinas the moral standards come from a "fundamental knowledge within us." This would bring us back to; why do we have this knowledge within ourselves? This sounds like a chicken and egg riddle. Mr. Nielsen is not explaining where his independent standards come from. Has he polled the population with the results being that most people believe it is morally good not to kill children? What percentage of the population needs to believe this to make a moral standard?

Mr. Nielsen believes that we must determine the judgment of goodness independently of God. That we should not base our morality on our conceptions of what God is. That we must first acknowledge what is good or evil and then we will come to know God. Mr. Brunner believes that we can never know beforehand what God requires for us, but that human conduct (morality) will be good if it is done through the Holy Spirit. Nielsen believes that a man needs a purpose in life, that we have these feelings of dependence that needs to be focused somewhere. He believes that God does not give us meaning but that we give God meaning. Mr. Brunner believes that God gives us purposes and that the meaning of life will be revealed to us when God commands it.

According to the definition of Divine Command Theory, God commands us to follow his ways so that we will live in Gods' glory. When we follow this command, we will be led to eternal life with God. It states that "morality rests on God's commands." This command is the morality that I believe drives each human to choose goodness. This morality comes from the "spark" of what we call humanity. If we did not have this spark, we would be just like the animals of the planet. As humans we are concerned with more then just where our next meal is coming from. When Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, they distinguished themselves from the other animals of the earth. This provided the spark, the perfect knowledge that we didn't have anymore. It revealed a Divine Purpose or moral code in our life. We have since been trying to regain the position that we had with God initially. Inside each of us lies a moral code, this code of goodness, this has come from God. I don't see it as a command but as a desire to fulfill Gods' commands to regain our perfect knowledge of God. Our morals are the inner commands of God; they direct us on how to act.

Nielsen says that to be morally responsible is to do good, but that doesn't mean that he will be a morally responsible person. When people do good deeds, we do not always know what their motive was. As human beings we have free will and God knows what we will choose. I believe He gives us these choices to help us to improve our relationship and knowledge of Him. Nielsen argues that man gives himself the freedom to choose what his purpose in life will be. That we should use our own moral insight to decide if God is good. He also states that religion rests on morality. Where does our own moral insight come from, if not from God?

I feel that Nielsen has not followed through with his thinking. Why was the command issued in the first place? Who are we as mere humans, who use only 5% of our brain capacity, to know the mind of God? The example given in the text book on page 160, about the teacher commanding the student to get a loose-leaf notebook was not a good example for his cause. As a student I would follow that command, because I would expect that there would be a good reason for the command. In my limited knowledge of the class, I may not fully understand why the teacher made that command. That is not to say that I wouldn't like to know why. Sometimes I am not privileged to know all the information that I need in order to make a good choice. That is when I depend on the wisdom of the teacher. The reasons for the command may not necessarily apply to me specifically, but may apply to a larger group.

Religion is not just for people who want a sense of community. Religion forms a community and people join that community to know and grow more. Belonging with a group of people with similar religious beliefs is easier than it is to belong with people who don't have your same religious ethics. It also becomes easier to improve your own moral standards if you're with others with similar beliefs then if you're alone.

I do not believe that from Nielsens' arguments that we should abandon religious ethics in favor of humanistic ethics. Humanistic Ethics denies where the moral understanding comes from. It does not explain to me from where the morality or knowledge of good and evil come. It states that you must decide about God based on your knowledge of good and evil. Where does that knowledge come from? I believe that the knowledge of good and evil comes from God. I do not think that using only the humanistic ethic explains to my satisfaction where morals begin.