God and Morality: Divine Command
or Commander of the Divine?
Assuming that there is some kind of god, would she have anything to do
with morality? Supporters of the divine command theory
of morality claim that morally good actions are only morally good because
their particular god commands that you do them, and that morally bad
actions are only morally bad because their particular god
commands that you not do them. They also claim that if there is
no god, nothing is morally wrong. Opponants of this theory claim that a
god, if she exists and is good, will command you to do whatever turns out
to be morally good and to shun whatever happens to be morally bad. They
also claim that some things are morally wrong, whether any gods exist or
not.
Your mission is to figure out which side is right, and write a paper
explaining your reasons for thinking what you think and explaining your
reasons for not thinking what you don't think.
The following may or may not be helpful. Read it anyway.
Consider Oscar, the superlative quantity surveyor. A quantity surveyor is
someone who looks at the plans for a proposed building and figures out how
much of each kind of building material will be needed to make that
building. She may look at the plans for a new skyscraper and figure out
how many miles of steel girder, how many tons of concrete, how much rebar
and so on will be needed to put that skyscraper together. Oscar is very
good at this. In fact, Oscar is perfect. When Oscar quantity surveys a
building, you can be sure that there will be exactly enough of every kind
of material involved. When Oscar says "one million tons of cement," you
can be sure that the building involved will take exactly one million tons
of cement to build. If the builders do not mess up, they will not run out
of cement before the building is finished, and they will not have any
cement left over afterwards. The question is, is a million tons of cement
(a) exactly enough merely because Oscar says it is, or does Oscar say it's
(b) exactly enough merely because it is exactly enough.
If it's (a), the following story could logically happen.
Herman is building a garden shed. The shed will be made of wood and
plywood, and will sit on the dirt. No cement is involved. Herman asks
Pontifex, Oscar's representative, to tell him Oscar's estimate of the
quantities of materials involved. Pontifex replies "one million tons of
cement." Herman asks if this is truly the word of Oscar. Pontifex checks
very carefully, and replies that as far as he can tell, this is indeed the
word of Oscar. Herman then buys one million tons of cement which enables
him to build a wooden shed sitting on the dirt in his backyard, using no
wood, and using all of the cement.
If it's (b), then the above story could not possibly happen. Instead,
things like the following story could happen.
Caroline is building a garden shed. The shed will be made of wood and
plywood, and will sit on the dirt. No cement is involved. Caroline asks
Iman, Oscar's representative, to tell him Oscar's estimate of the
quantities of materials involved. Iman replies "one million tons of
cement." Caroline asks if this is truly the word of Oscar. Iman checks
very carefully, and replies that as far as he can tell, this is indeed the
word of Oscar. Caroline then sits down and works out her own estimate of
the amounts of material involved. She comes up with a moderate amount of
lumber, and no cement whatsoever. These materials allow her to build a
wooden shed sitting on the dirt in her backyard. She uses one hundred
board-feet of lumber. Iman comes by and admires the shed. After a moment's
thought, Iman says "I must have been wrong about what Oscar's estimate
was. From the fact that you didn't need any cement I can tell that Oscar
really didn't say you needed cement. From the fact that you needed a
hundred board-feet of lumber it is apparent that Oscar really would say
that you need a hundred board-feet of lumber." At this point, Pontifex
walks up and says "rubbish! This shed really needed one million tons of
cement. The fact that you didn't use one million tons of cement proves
that you didn't really make a wooden garden shed sitting on the dirt in
your backyard."
Assuming that Oscar really is always right about the quantities of
materials involved in a project, who is right, Iman or Pontifex?
If you say Pontifex, then you are saying that quantities are correct
merely because Oscar says they are.
If you say Iman, then you are saying that Oscar says the quantities he
does only because they are the right quantities.
Out of Iman and Pontifex, which one makes quantity of material something
that relates to the real world, and which one makes quantity of material
something that has absolutely no relationship to the real world?
Now imagine that Twoshoes is a superlative moral authority. If something
is a moral duty, then Twoshoes will say that it is, and if Twoshoes says
that something is a moral duty, then it is a moral duty. The question is,
is something a moral duty merely because Twoshoes says it is (a), or does
Twoshoes say that something is a moral duty only because it is (b)? If
it's (a), in the following story Patrick and Pontifex both do the morally
right thing.
Patrick discovers that his son is left-handed. He has heard that Twoshoes
says that left-handedness is morally wrong, so he consults Pontifex as to
his moral duty. Pontifex replies "torture him until he becomes
right-handed. If he does not become right-handed, torture him to death."
Patrick asks if this is truly the word of Twoshoes. Pontifex checks very
carefully, and replies that as far as he can tell, this is indeed the word
of Twoshoes. Patrick then commences torturing his son, and since
left-handedness is genetic, he ends up torturing his son to death. At his
son's funeral, Pontifex tells Patrick that he has no reason to blame
himself because he followed the word of Twoshoes, and Twoshoes is always
right about morality.
If it's (b), only Helen and her daughter are completely morally okay in
the following story. (And Iman turns out okay.)
Helen discovers that her daughter is left-handed. She has heard that
Twoshoes says that left handedness is morally wrong, so she consults Iman
as to her moral duty. Iman replies "torture her until she becomes
right-handed. If she does not become right-handed, torture her to death."
Helen asks if this is truly the word of Twoshoes. Iman checks very
carefully, and replies that as far as he can tell, this is indeed the word
of Twoshoes. Helen then sits down and works out her own idea of how she
should behave towards her daughter. She decides that she should love and
support her daughter, and defend her against anyone who wishes her harm.
This is what she does. Later, Iman comes by and admires Helen's
well-adjusted, helpful and happy daughter. After a moment's thought, Iman
says "I must have been wrong about what Twoshoes thinks about left
handedness. From the fact that lack of torture did not result in any harm
to anyone, and the fact that loving your daughter helped her turn out to
be a good person, it follows that what Twoshoes really must have said was
"love your child, and don't torture her." At this point, Pontifex walks up
and says "don't you ever get tired of being wrong? This child really
needed to be tortured to death. The fact that you didn't torture her to
death proves that you are an evil person, and if you wait here I will
round up a mob who will stone you to death so I can begin torturing your
daughter." At which point Helen shoots Pontifex, and Iman helps her hide
the body.
"Moral relativism" is the view that morality depends on the pronouncements
or moral beliefs of some particular authority, be it a nation, a tribe, or
an individual. "Moral absolutism" is the view that morality exists
independently of the pronouncements or moral beliefs of any particular
authority. Relativists may think that their morality applies just to them,
or they may think it applies to everyone. The idea that morality depends
on the customs of ancient Rome is a relativistic idea, because it makes
the people who controlled those customs the authority where morality is
concerned. The idea that morality depends on not violating anybody's
natural rights is an absolutist idea because it makes morality depend on a
universal principle rather than on some authority.
If a god commands things only because he sees that they are morally right,
does morality have an existence apart from that god's commands?
If things are morally right only because a god commands them, does
morality have an existence apart from that god's commands?
If there was no god, would it still be immoral to torture innocent
children? Why or why not?
Would an eternal being enforce moral rules merely because that being was
eternal? Why or why not?
Would an omnipotent being enforce moral rules merely because that being
was omnipotent? Why or why not?
If things are morally right only if a god commands them, what is the full
meaning of the term "morally right?"
If the term "moral goodness" just means "whatever Vuntag
commands," what is the meaning of the statement "Vuntag is morally good?"
If the term "moral goodness" just means "whatever Vuntag
commands," is it possible for the statement "Vuntag is morally good" to be
false?
If the term "moral goodness" just means "whatever Vuntag
commands," does the statement "Vuntag is morally good" really mean
anything at all?
Copyright © 2005 by Martin C. Young
This Site is Proudly Hosted
By: