Divine Command Theory

[pcg2]

Does the Church view Divine Command Theory as a valid theory of morality? Or does the Church hold more to a Natural Law view of morality? Or is it somewhere in between? Links to explanations would be helpful.

Thank you

 

[promethius]

Does the Church view Divine Command Theory as a valid theory of morality? Or does the Church hold more to a Natural Law view of morality? Or is it somewhere in between? Links to explanations would be helpful.

Thank you

Divine command theory is the ONLY valid moral theory. Natural Law view allows for a God, but that God is equally beholden by the natural law, and derives the moral imperitives from an objective, independent source.

However, we know this is not the case. There is a natural law, but it bows before God’s will. It is not independent from God, but rather maintained by the will of God and at God’s sole discretion.

 

[pcg2]

Divine command theory is the ONLY valid moral theory.

According to whom?

Natural Law view allows for a God, but that God is equally beholden by the natural law, and derives the moral imperitives from an objective, independent source.

Is this really so? Didn’t Aquinas hold a view of natural law? I must be mistaken, because I doubt that He would hold that moral imperatives were independent from His own will.

But is this really what Natural law states? Isn’t it just that we, as humans, can discern morality for ourselves from the reason that God has imparted in us?

However, we know this is not the case. There is a natural law, but it bows before God’s will. It is not independent from God, but rather maintained by the will of God and at God’s sole discretion.

So are you of the opinion that Natural Law is a sort of “sub-division” of DCT morality?

 

[Cat_Herder]

The natural law derives from divine commands, namely the laws of the universe. And it is from the design of the universe that one becomes aware of the divine commands (cf. Romans 1). I don’t see how you can have one without the other.

 

[Spirithound]

Does the Church view Divine Command Theory as a valid theory of morality? Or does the Church hold more to a Natural Law view of morality? Or is it somewhere in between? Links to explanations would be helpful.

Both theories can be viewed in an incorrect light, but both can be viewed in the same correct light also. St. Thomas Aquinas elucidates four kinds of law in the Summa Theologica (I-II): Eternal Law, Natural Law, Human Law, and Divine Law. Eternal Law is how God governs the universe, both in the physical, and moral senses (Q 93). The Natural Law is how humans participate in the Eternal Law (Q 94). In this way, Natural Law is binding on humans, but it is a Law that is subject to the Eternal Law, that is, the direct Mind of God.

Divine Command Theory can be seen as beholden to a capricious God, but it does not have to be so. On the contrary, it can be seen as subsumed by the Eternal Law. In this way, God commands that which is found in His Immutable Nature.

 

[promethius]

According to whom?

The church. All law is subordinate to God’s will. That is the essense of Divine Command Theology.

Is this really so? Didn’t Aquinas hold a view of natural law? I must be mistaken, because I doubt that He would hold that moral imperatives were independent from His own will.

But is this really what Natural law states? Isn’t it just that we, as humans, can discern morality for ourselves from the reason that God has imparted in us?

There is a difference between saying that you think there is a natural law and saying you espouse Natural Law Theory. The fact that there is a natural law is not incompatible with Divine Command theory. Natural Law Theory, however, is incompatible with Catholic Theology because it teaches that the natural law is objective and independent… essentially that God’s ten commandments (if there is a God) are correct because they come from the Natural Law, which binds even God.

By contrast, the reality of life is detailed by Divine Command Theory: that all morality and moral law is beholden to God’s will, and subject to God’s review. It does not rule out that a natural law exists, but declares that if one does, it is subordinate to and changeable by God.

So Divine Command Theory in itself has multiple schools of thought, of which Aquinas fell under one.

So are you of the opinion that Natural Law is a sort of “sub-division” of DCT morality?

No. Natural Law Theory is a separate school of thought from Divine Command Theory, although both fall under the Deontological category. HOWEVER, Divine Command Theory itself has multiple sub-schools which includes several which denote the idea that there are objective laws (such as the natural law) and that these fall under God. Extreme Divine Command Theory would say that there is no natural law and that morality is ONLY based on direct command from God. Ultimately, though, they arrive at the same general conclusion.

 

[JDaniel]

Both theories can be viewed in an incorrect light, but both can be viewed in the same correct light also. St. Thomas Aquinas elucidates four kinds of law in the Summa Theologica (I-II): Eternal Law, Natural Law, Human Law, and Divine Law. Eternal Law is how God governs the universe, both in the physical, and moral senses (Q 93). The Natural Law is how humans participate in the Eternal Law (Q 94). In this way, Natural Law is binding on humans, but it is a Law that is subject to the Eternal Law, that is, the direct Mind of God.

Divine Command Theory can be seen as beholden to a capricious God, but it does not have to be so. On the contrary, it can be seen as subsumed by the Eternal Law. In this way, God commands that which is found in His Immutable Nature.

This is correct, for the natural law says, that every creature tends to its end by its activity guided by its nature, for a being’s nature means nothing else but its essence considered as the principle of its activity. And, since man has a nature as well, he is no exception. Man also finds that his nature is the means that will guide him to his end.

God’s nature is obviously quite different from man’s. Thus the principle of his activity is not in a natural law, per se, but rather in an Eternal Law. Now, if human acts derive their moral goodness from their conformity with human nature taken completely and judged by right reason, we may further ask from where human nature receives its goodness, which it can then pass on to its acts so as to conform with it?

The question therefore is, is man the highest good, i.e., value? If God does not exist, then man is the highest being that men have thus far discovered, in the universe, and he will be the ultimate standard of that value. However, if God does exist, then man is not the ultimate standard of moral value, and man’s nature is thereby considered to be the proximate norm of morality. This, then, requires the backing of a yet higher norm. Now, if we cannot, by experience, find a yet higher norm, then we must accept that it is the ultimate norm, which is God.

The next question, then, is: does God exist?

God bless,
jd

 

[StJoseph6]

I happened upon this post kind of by accident, but I am glad I did. This is an interesting conversation and many of you are making good points, but I think there is a grave misunderstanding about what exactly Divine Command Theory is. It is a particular view of ethics that claims all laws are dependent upon God’s will. The question is posed like this: Does God command us to do actions because they are morally right, or are they morally right because God commands them? That right there is the essence of the debate over Divine Command Theory (DCT). Those who hold DCT think that certain actions are morally right because God commands them. But that is NOT, I repeat, NOT, the traditional Catholic position.
The most famous Christian exposition of this theory probably comes from William of Ockham who was trying to defend God’s absolute freedom. He saw a problem with God not being able to do something, therefore, he concluded, moral laws are dependent upon God’s will, and He could change them if He wanted to. For example, God has forbidden adultery, therefore it is morally wrong to commit it. He could, however, according to DCT, if He wanted to declare adultery good, and it would no longer be immoral to commit it (Ocham did not think God would, but he did not deny that He could). If God, according to Ockham, could not declare something good or evil by His will then He somehow would not be all-powerful. Moral laws, according to DCT have nothing to do with our nature, purpose, or happiness.
This, however, is a false understanding about God and His nature. And this is NOT what a VAST majority of Catholic ethicists, including St. Thomas Aquinas, have believed. DCT is more of a Protestant way of thinking (although I do not want to paint them all in that way) because Martin Luther was extremely influenced by William of Ockham.
What St. Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic ethicist have propounded is a Virtue Ethics, one that is teleological (based on the final end we are created for). They (and the Catholic Church in general, although I do not know if there are official pronouncements on this) would say that God commands us to do actions because they are morally right, but because He wills them to be that way. This might make someone ask, “Wait, is there some standard for right and wrong that God Himself must look ‘up’ to?” No, that is not the case. While it is true that God could not make adultery good by willing it (because He cannot will that, it would be a contradiction of His nature), it is not because He is somehow limited, nor is there some standard of morality that He defers to. The moral laws God has revealed to us flow from His very nature. God is pure goodness, and He made the world and its laws according to His nature.
Perhaps a discussion human nature will help clear this up. Ockham denied that there is a common human nature. That is an obvious mistake, but it did cause him to think that laws cannot be made in accordance with our nature to help us achieve our ultimate end (our “telos”). God created us in such a way that to do good will make us ultimately happy (bring us closer to him) and doing evil will always harm us. Like everything that is created we were made for a purpose, and we need to be run a certain way to be happy. Like a car is made to run on gas, we cannot “run” on anything else besides goodness (i.e., God). Put orange juice or wiper fluid or anything else (unless the car is made to run on something else, but that is a different kind of vehicle) in the car and it will not run, or it will run very poorly. Likewise, God made us to run a certain way (I doubt that He could have made us (creatures of intellect and will) to run on anything but Himself, but that is a different story).

So you can see why Ockham would deny that if he denied human nature. I hope this clears a few things up. I am writing this rather quickly, but I just wanted to clear some things up. What many of you were talking about was not DCT, and it was not traditional Catholic ethics. If I have time I will come back on and write about Aquinas’ understanding of God’s laws (Eternal, Divine, Natural, Human).
ps – one final note. God can, because He has the authority, command things to be done that are not necessarily good or evil in themselves, but it would be immoral to disobey them, like some of the ceremonial laws in the Old Testament. Or, like the Catholic Church does with fasting during Lent. It is does not go against our nature to eat meat on Friday, but because the Church has commanded it, it would be immoral (assuming we have full freedom and consent, etc) to willfully disobey.

 

[yawsep1569]

Is it a tautology to say that “God is pure goodness”? What is good other than God? If we cannot base the definition of good on anything besides God, I do think there is a problem. Doesn’t it come down to saying that God is purely God?

 

[danserr]

Is it a tautology to say that “God is pure goodness”? What is good other than God? If we cannot base the definition of good on anything besides God, I do think there is a problem. Doesn’t it come down to saying that God is purely God?

The same point could be made of goodness itself. why is the good good? what makes the good good?

We need to reach a stopping point sooner or later and the essential nature of a just and loving God seems the least arbitrary stopping point.

 

[Qoeleth]

Not many moral theologians espouse a Divine Command theory. It tends towards legalism and voluntarism.

Natural Law, while valid to a certain point, should not be confused with specifi Christian principles- which involve self-denial and renunciation, things not all that compatible with Divine Law.

God does not ‘need’ us to do anything. Rather, by following certain ethical principles, we more closely approach union with the Divine. At a most basic level, this includes refraining from murder, theft, adultery. At a higher level, it involves compassion, forgiveness, acceptance of suffering, etc.

 

[danserr]

Not many moral theologians espouse a Divine Command theory. It tends towards legalism and voluntarism.

Natural Law, while valid to a certain point, should not be confused with specifi Christian principles- which involve self-denial and renunciation, things not all that compatible with Divine Law.

God does not ‘need’ us to do anything. Rather, by following certain ethical principles, we more closely approach union with the Divine. At a most basic level, this includes refraining from murder, theft, adultery. At a higher level, it involves compassion, forgiveness, acceptance of suffering, etc.

Divine Command Theory does not need to be voluntarist, though. One would simply need to keep in mind Thomas Aquinas’s position that God’s nature is essentially Good, hence that God’s commands are necessary expressions of His essentially just, loving, nature.