Why would a Catholic not be committed the divine command theory?

[andyklein]

God is all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, omnipresent. How could something ethically not follow from God’s own will?

 

[SummitJim]

Clarify your question, please.

 

[TK421]

They are committed to divine command. If God commands something, then by default it must be good, since God is good.

Do you mean a hypothetical scenario where God asks you to do something evil? It’s a false dilemma because God would never ask such a thing.

 

[Wowbagger]

God is all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, omnipresent. How could something ethically not follow from God’s own will?

You misunderstand Divine Command Theory. Obviously, God wills only the good of all created things. However, Divine Command Theory states that a thing is good solely because God commands it, and that, without reference to God, good and evil are meaningless terms. One of the examples that sticks in my mind is when a mid-Renaissance DC theorist argued that there was nothing wrong with masturbation in itself, and that masturbation was only morally wrong because God commanded us not to – but that God could just have easily commanded us to masturbate regularly, and then that would have been the morally just thing to do.

Catholics generally believe that the good is built into our nature, and that the moral law is not an arbitrary set of commands from a willful God, but a recipe for genuine happiness that does not follow from God, but is bound up in the nature of God, or even (on some accounts) prior to God.

Of course, that’s not the only definition of Divine Command Theory that’s out there, but it is the version of DCT that generally gives Catholics pause.

 

[polytropos]

You misunderstand Divine Command Theory. Obviously, God wills only the good of all created things. However, Divine Command Theory states that a thing is good solely because God commands it, and that, without reference to God, good and evil are meaningless terms. One of the examples that sticks in my mind is when a mid-Renaissance DC theorist argued that there was nothing wrong with masturbation in itself, and that masturbation was only morally wrong because God commanded us not to – but that God could just have easily commanded us to masturbate regularly, and then that would have been the morally just thing to do.

Catholics generally believe that the good is built into our nature, and that the moral law is not an arbitrary set of commands from a willful God, but a recipe for genuine happiness that does not follow from God, but is bound up in the nature of God, or even (on some accounts) prior to God.

Of course, that’s not the only definition of Divine Command Theory that’s out there, but it is the version of DCT that generally gives Catholics pause.

Good response!

If God wills something, then we know that it is good because God only wills good. It does not follow that something is good only because God willed it.

 

[ilikepizza1]

Do you mean a hypothetical scenario where God asks you to do something evil? It’s a false dilemma because God would never ask such a thing.

The Old Testament is filled with God commanding people to engage in actions that in any other circumstance would be evil.

 

[Khalid]

Divine command theory is from the Euthyphro dilemma: “do the gods commend the good because it is good, or is the good good because it is called good by the gods?”, from Plato’s dialogue of the same name. Replace “gods” with “God”, and “called good” with “created according to an omnipotent and omnibenevolent will”, and it becomes clear that any orthodox Christian who believes in creation ex nihilo must believe in divine command theory as a necessary logical consequence of the absolute ontological primacy of God.

(Open theism, process theology, etc. are not even marginally Christian; the fact that process theology, which teaches an evolving god, made in man’s [Darwin’s] image, can tolerate the inverse of divine command theory [that the good is innately good without reference to God], and some process theologians claim to be Christian, does not mean that the inverse of divine command theory can be tolerated by orthodox Christians any more than we can tolerate anti-Trinitarianism, polytheism, or pantheistic monism, because Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be Christian and are anti-Trinitarian, Mormons claim to be Christian and are polytheists, and Christian Scientists claim to be Christian while actually being pantheistic monists, respectively.)

So, the answer to the question in the title is one of three; either “because he is misinformed”, “because he is a heretic”, or “because he is a misinformed heretic” (most likely the third).

 

[Zachary]

The Old Testament is filled with God commanding people to engage in actions that in any other circumstance would be evil.

such as?

 

[Khalid]

such as?

The genocide of Canaan as recorded in Joshua, for starters? (I’m not the person you’re replying to, but I believe it’s an example he would use.) Genesis 3 - the account of the Fall - provides the greatest argument for the “hardest” version of DCT that can be imagined. Man was created perfect, and lost such perfection for himself and all of his seed through sin. This is the greatest sin in history: all other sins are in a lineal relationship to this Original Sin. What was the sin? Eating a fruit. What was inherently evil about eating the fruit? Nothing. It was evil - such evil that, under the weight of “the woman whom thou gavest to be with me/she gave me of the tree and I did eat”, the “entire creation groaneth and travaileth in pain” - solely because the act of eating of the tree transgressed the Divine Edict.

Nothing exists in the sense that any value whatsoever can be predicated of it without the presupposition of God. Since both “good” and “evil” are predicates (just as the colours “white” and “black” are), nothing can be good or evil in itself more than a cloth can be white in itself apart from God, for God created both the white and the black, the good and the agents which would be permitted to do evil.

God spoke all things in to existence: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”…“In the beginning was the Word…all things were made by him; and without him nothing was made that hath been made”. The natures he created still rely on him at all moments to be sustained: “in him all things consist”. Nothing - least of all moral meaning - can exist apart from God’s word, both incarnate and written - his command.

An illustration can be drawn from the Roman theory of transubstantiation for this. The bread and wine are bread and wine, at first, in both accidents (incidentals) and substance (essence). According to this theory, the priest speaking the words of institution causes (or God causes through him) the substance (essence) of the bread and wine to be changed completely in to the infinite Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, to the point where it is improper to call the bread and wine “bread and wine” and it is considered proper to worship it with the fullest worship possible (adoration), the worship given to God alone. Now there are heard of “Eucharistic miracles” where the bread and wine turn in to literal flesh and blood. The miracle in all of this, from within the Aristotelian framework in which it was devised, is not the transubstantiation, nor even the literal turning of bread to flesh: it is that, in one situation of all possible ones in the universe, God decides to make the accidents and essence of a thing dissociate, and holds the accidents of bread and wine in place by a direct miracle (as, the Eucharist, now having the “substance” of Body and Blood, should have the “accidents” of body and blood: the miracle is it retaining the accidents of bread and wine). The “Eucharistic miracles” are less miraculous than the everyday Eucharist, from within an Aristotelian philosophical framework which accepts transubstantiation as classically explained by e.g. Thomas Aquinas.

From within the framework of transubstantiation, what makes the wine blood, except the command of God? what makes bread the true body of Christ, so true a body that it is no longer bread in any sense, and is fit to be adored as God himself, except for the command of God? So, concluding, if the command of God for the ordination of reality (which includes the definitions, laws, and even moral feelings of “good” and “evil”, as he is the one who created our hearts and wills as well) was in the slightest ineffective on even one level, the command of God would be absolutely ineffectual on all levels.

 

[andyklein]

So is it safe to say that divine command is sufficient to determine what is the right action but not necessary? The way I’m reading most of these replies is that when God doesn’t directly command the action P, we must resort to another method to determine the right course of action. How could we then know of any objective moral truths? For example, Abraham sacrificing Isaac would have been right because God commanded it, but it would be wrong for me to sacrifice my son without a divine command. I still can’t see how I’m not committed to the divine command theory since God has willed that murder is wrong. But then God seems to turn Himself when He commands Abraham to commit murder. Why would it not be the case that my doing P is right if and only if God prescribes that I do P?

When one of my professors taught this she pretty much gave a garbled lecture trying to debunk it, so I don’t feel that I understand very well.

 

[Khalid]

Divine command is necessary and sufficient for an action to be considered good or evil. An action is good or evil if and only if God has commanded it or condemned it.

Keep in mind that the natural law “written on our hearts” is part of the revelation of God, and is written on our hearts by God our Creator, so it is not a (legal-)positivist theory of ethics as it would be if if the divine command was completely known and written in a book. The books - the Bible - are God’s revelation of the general principles of good and evil as he has ordained them to be discerned - the Law - but obviously do not contain the ethics concretely applied to every possible situation - the laws. That is a big difference between grace-based Christianity and legalistic Judaism and Islam, in that the latter two actually do attempt to gather a body of laws on every possible concrete situation (the halaka and sharia respectively) and call it “divine revelation”: that doesn’t make it so.

 

[andyklein]

So an action P not commanded or condemned by God and not written or implied in any Holy work is still right or wrong based on God’s command when He hasn’t given a command or condemnation regarding the action P?

Perhaps all actions are such that there are general principles outlined by God applicable to any given situation. Is that a good way to put it if I accept divine command?

 

[Qoeleth]

The Divine Command Theory is the only sound approach to ethics. Essentially, good and evil in themselves are nothing, except as understood in relation to an Absolute Being. Take away God, and nothing in the universe has any consequence or value. Things only have value in their relation to the Real (i.e. God). Without God, it would be infinitely preferable that the human race, and the universe did not exist at all. Without God, there can be no morality, since all things are equally indifferent.

If God tomorrow issued a “Press Release” (and we somehow were sure it was from God) that we should stop using the letter “E”, so be it. If God tomorrow said “Lying is permissible”, so be it. God could reverse each of the Ten Commandments, if He so chose. To God along belongs Wisdom, Truth and Freedom.

Therefore, obedience to God is the only useful guide to living- since God alone is Good, God alone truly exists. All else is dust and shadows, swirling particles of non-meaning in an infinite void. “It is only by obeying the commands that we know God.” 1 John

 

[ilikepizza1]

such as?

As Khalid pointed out, the conquests of Joshua are a clear example of what I’m talking about. Accepting the Bible as the Word of God necessarily commits one to Divine Command Theory in order to maintain consistency.

 

[ilikepizza1]

Divine command is necessary and sufficient for an action to be considered good or evil. An action is good or evil if and only if God has commanded it or condemned it.

Keep in mind that the natural law “written on our hearts” is part of the revelation of God, and is written on our hearts by God our Creator, so it is not a (legal-)positivist theory of ethics as it would be if if the divine command was completely known and written in a book. The books - the Bible - are God’s revelation of the general principles of good and evil as he has ordained them to be discerned - the Law - but obviously do not contain the ethics concretely applied to every possible situation - the laws. That is a big difference between grace-based Christianity and legalistic Judaism and Islam, in that the latter two actually do attempt to gather a body of laws on every possible concrete situation (the halaka and sharia respectively) and call it “divine revelation”: that doesn’t make it so.

But what if a divinely revealed command is inconsistent with what is derived through natural law? Surely “thou shalt not kill” is part of natural law, yet if God commanded it it would then be moral. Does the divinely revealed command supersede the “natural law”? If they are both an extension of God’s command then how could they ever conflict? I don’t understand.

 

[TK421]

Except Divine Command is not spontaneous, as it is in classical Islamic theology, where it is blasphemous to assert that God would not do certain things. It is entirely different to kill a person as an individual and to kill a person under mandate of God. The later cannot be sinful because God is supreme Judge and has sovereignty over the life of each person. He mandates the deaths of thousands of people every day, nevermind the relative handful of people in the scripture.

Goodness is inseparable from God and God inseparable from Goodness, therefore it follows that there are certain things (many things, actually) that God cannot do. This does not limit his supremacy, but it fulfills it, because a god that changes his mind would be a god that is not already perfect and eternal.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God is all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, omnipresent. How could something ethically not follow from God’s own will?

People are always playing " gotcha " games. The Catholic Church has definite views on who and what God is. Stick with that and don’t agree to any " theories " floating around the internet or any where else. I don’t know what is meant by " Divine Command " theory. Apparantly there are several such theories and you have not said which one you are referring to.

So just say what the Church teaches and let go at that. The world is good because God is Good, his commandments are good because they reflect his Goodness and lead us to that Goodness. How do you put a label to that? Call it the " Divine Goodness " theory.

P.S. Even the Devils know God is Good and Just and Merciful, but they hate all that. And that is why all this kind of junk is floating around. It is inspired by the Devil

Linus2nd

 

[Qoeleth]

People are always playing " gotcha " games. The Catholic Church has definite views on who and what God is. Stick with that and don’t agree to any " theories " floating around the internet or any where else. I don’t know what is meant by " Divine Command " theory. Apparantly there are several such theories and you have not said which one you are referring to.

So just say what the Church teaches and let go at that. The world is good because God is Good, his commandments are good because they reflect his Goodness and lead us to that Goodness. How do you put a label to that? Call it the " Divine Goodness " theory.

P.S. Even the Devils know God is Good and Just and Merciful, but they hate all that. And that is why all this kind of junk is floating around. It is inspired by the Devil

Linus2nd

Surely, you must be familiar with “Divine Command Theory”, if you have studied Moral Theology at all?

Simply put, the theory states that the reason a person should not steal, kill, commit adultery, etc. is that God has commanded it thus. The Divine Command Theory was espoused by St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bl. Dun Scotus, etc. An extension of the Divine Command theory, articulated by Scotus and Ockham, was the God could, in fact, change His commands if He so willed (except the command to love God). The Divine Command position is heavily supported by Scripture, and is also embraced by Judaism and Islam.

Rejecting Divine Command Theory leads to a kind of empty, secular humanist ethics- which basically says that you don’t need God’s command to determine right and wrong. That is why ‘liberals’ and ‘modernist’ like to reject it. Take for example, homosexuality. From the Divine Command Theory perspective, it is enough that Scripture forbids it and God does not approve of it. Simple. No further explanation required. Why is divorce wrong? Because Christ forbids it. If a person believes in God, they have no grounds for rejecting Divine Commands as the source and summit of all morality.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Surely, you must be familiar with “Divine Command Theory”, if you have studied Moral Theology at all?

Simply put, the theory states that the reason a person should not steal, kill, commit adultery, etc. is that God has commanded it thus. The Divine Command Theory was espoused by St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bl. Dun Scotus, etc. An extension of the Divine Command theory, articulated by Scotus and Ockham, was the God could, in fact, change His commands if He so willed (except the command to love God). The Divine Command position is heavily supported by Scripture, and is also embraced by Judaism and Islam.

Rejecting Divine Command Theory leads to a kind of empty, secular humanist ethics- which basically says that you don’t need God’s command to determine right and wrong. That is why ‘liberals’ and ‘modernist’ like to reject it. Take for example, homosexuality. From the Divine Command Theory perspective, it is enough that Scripture forbids it and God does not approve of it. Simple. No further explanation required. Why is divorce wrong? Because Christ forbids it. If a person believes in God, they have no grounds for rejecting Divine Commands as the source and summit of all morality.

The point is there apparantly different " Divine Command " theories. And I disagree with pinning agreement with any of these on any of the men you mentioned. God gave us the Commandments ( the Ten and all that flows from them) because they were good, not because he had the power to issue commands. They were good because they corresponded with the truth of our natures which are also good, and because they help us arrive at our final good, God. That is why I would prefer not to put a label on them.

No, I have never studied Moral Theology, that is not something I have a need to do.

Linus2nd

 

[andyklein]

The point is there apparantly different " Divine Command " theories. And I disagree with pinning agreement with any of these on any of the men you mentioned. God gave us the Commandments ( the Ten and all that flows from them) because they were good, not because he had the power to issue commands. They were good because they corresponded with the truth of our natures which are also good, and because they help us arrive at our final good, God. That is why I would prefer not to put a label on them.

No, I have never studied Moral Theology, that is not something I have a need to do.

Linus2nd

But if the Ten Commandments are good because they contribute to our overall good, then that means they are good not based on God’s commands, which you yourself implied. That means an action P could be the right action because doing P is in my best interests. That amounts to some kind of Hobbesian rational egoism. It can’t be the case that the divine command theory is correct and rational egoism is correct at the same time, can it?