preview

The Divine Command Theory (DCT)

Better Essays
Open Document

One important aspect to morality is the distinctive rational authority of moral commands, how morality seems to command and favour us doing certain things that we are strongly compelled to oblige, regardless of our own beliefs. Many metaethical theories try to explain how and why morality works like this. One of these theories is the Divine Command Theory (DCT); that morality comes from the commands of some type of god. DCT provides some compelling arguments to explain the distinctive rational authority though but the drawbacks keep it from being a definitive answer. This will be explained by examining what the rational authority of moral commands is in more detail, how DCT attempts to answer this question, the objections that DCT faces and …show more content…

Swinburne compares moral commands (from God) to the compelling nature to oblige, to a certain extent, the favourings and commands of people who are our benefactors, such as family and the state (2008, p. 10-11). Though we may not want to, we are compelled to oblige to the requests of those who benefit us. For example, though we may not want to pay our taxes, we do so not just out of legal obligation but also from a personal obligation to the state, which protects and aids our way of life (Swinburne, 2008, p. 10). He then extends this to moral commands, that the distinctive rational authority is a compulsion to oblige the commands of God for all he has given (Swinburne, 2008, p. 11). Though Swinburne uses the Christian God, this concept can be extended to a ‘morality’ god. Instead of the obligation to oblige a God who created us, we are obliging to a god who gives us moral direction necessary to coexist with others. A world without morality would result in selfish individuals who would see little benefit in helping each other out unconditionally. While this may seem reasonable, the compulsion we have to oblige to the commands and wants of those who benefit us primarily comes from moral obligation in the first place. Thus, comparing rational moral authority to obligation to our benefactors is similar to comparing two things that are …show more content…

While there are some strong arguments to be made for DCT answering the question of distinctive rational authority of moral commands, if DCT has a theory itself is not strong enough, its answer to rational moral authority becomes questionable. The concept of a single external mind, or a god, is one that has been criticised by many to show how the theory is implausible. One of these counterarguments is the horrendous deeds argument. This brings up the possibility of morally wrong actions to be right, with the same circumstances and intentions, as the god could change their mind, just as people change their mind on what they like and do not like. However, the issue with this is that we get the intuition that it is impossible for a morally wrong act to be morally right unless something about it is changed. While it is possible that the god would not change their mind, the possibility that they could is the important part. One counterargument to this is to say that the god would not make a morally wrong action good because it is not in the nature of the god to command or favour us doing morally wrong actions. However, this objection falls into the problem of the Euthyphro Dilemma, is

Get Access