Arguments Against Divine Command Theory
An Argument Against Divine Command Theory
One may make the claim that if there is no God, then nothing is morally wrong. Those who are religious may believe this to be true, while it seems implausible for an atheist (at least one who claims to have any morals) to believe such a statement. Without addressing the issue of the existence of God, I will examine several facets of this claim in order to explore the two main points of view that a theist might have regarding this claim. A theist could agree with the claim or believe that morality can exist without God, despite the fact that they believe a God exists. Then I will critically evaluate both positions, determining that the second point of view is more plausible.
First I will discuss Divine …show more content…
As John Arthur argues[ From Morality and Moral Controversies, 2nd edition, John Arthur, ed. (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1986), pp. 10-15.], when we are tempted to do something we know to be morally wrong, we do not immediately think “God forbids that.” We usually think of the consequences (or possible consequences) rather than a higher power. Not only do I agree with this, but I think this hints at a deeper conclusion. It seems that at least our practical morality stems more immediately from the consequences and repercussions of our actions rather than God’s will. The two may often coincide, but I think that a Divine Command Theory type of relationship between the two is unlikely. A more plausible idea would be that actions are morally wrong because of how they affect others, and that God, if God exists, forbids morally wrong things due to their negative effects. While this may not be the true derivation of morality, the relationship coincides with the second theistic point of view and seems more …show more content…
For example, Don Marquis’ account of the wrongness of killing[ Ethics: History, Theory and Contemporary Issues, Fifth Edition, Steven Cahn and Peter Markie, ed. (Oxford University Press, 2012), pp 841-843] makes no appeals to God to explain why killing is wrong. Marquis posits that killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of their future, specifically their “future like ours,” which he defines as an essentially positive experience. This seems plausible; when someone is killed, they are deprived of all the future happiness that they would have experienced had they lived to die from natural causes. Thus it is morally wrong to kill someone because it involves taking something of value from them. Again, we have an instance in which a morally wrong action (by most accounts) can be explained via another moral belief. It seems likely that most morals exist in this manner, rather than because God prohibited us from doing certain, essentially arbitrary,
One may make the claim that if there is no God, then nothing is morally wrong. Those who are religious may believe this to be true, while it seems implausible for an atheist (at least one who claims to have any morals) to believe such a statement. Without addressing the issue of the existence of God, I will examine several facets of this claim in order to explore the two main points of view that a theist might have regarding this claim. A theist could agree with the claim or believe that morality can exist without God, despite the fact that they believe a God exists. Then I will critically evaluate both positions, determining that the second point of view is more plausible.
First I will discuss Divine …show more content…
As John Arthur argues[ From Morality and Moral Controversies, 2nd edition, John Arthur, ed. (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1986), pp. 10-15.], when we are tempted to do something we know to be morally wrong, we do not immediately think “God forbids that.” We usually think of the consequences (or possible consequences) rather than a higher power. Not only do I agree with this, but I think this hints at a deeper conclusion. It seems that at least our practical morality stems more immediately from the consequences and repercussions of our actions rather than God’s will. The two may often coincide, but I think that a Divine Command Theory type of relationship between the two is unlikely. A more plausible idea would be that actions are morally wrong because of how they affect others, and that God, if God exists, forbids morally wrong things due to their negative effects. While this may not be the true derivation of morality, the relationship coincides with the second theistic point of view and seems more …show more content…
For example, Don Marquis’ account of the wrongness of killing[ Ethics: History, Theory and Contemporary Issues, Fifth Edition, Steven Cahn and Peter Markie, ed. (Oxford University Press, 2012), pp 841-843] makes no appeals to God to explain why killing is wrong. Marquis posits that killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of their future, specifically their “future like ours,” which he defines as an essentially positive experience. This seems plausible; when someone is killed, they are deprived of all the future happiness that they would have experienced had they lived to die from natural causes. Thus it is morally wrong to kill someone because it involves taking something of value from them. Again, we have an instance in which a morally wrong action (by most accounts) can be explained via another moral belief. It seems likely that most morals exist in this manner, rather than because God prohibited us from doing certain, essentially arbitrary,