Divine Command Theory And Natural Law

Divine Command Theory and Natural Law Theory This is our first objective theory. Divine Command Theory 1. God exists and is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the world. 2. God is our moral sovereign. Morally obligatory = required by God’s commands Morally permitted = permitted by God’s commands Morally wrong = prohibited by God’s commands 3. We learn right/wrong by gaining knowledge of God’s moral commands Problems: What of atheists? What of those that existed before such a conception of God? Natural Law Theory 1. In designing the world, God formulated certain laws that specify how we should behave (The Natural Law), as well as giving us a nature. 2. We can know the Natural Law (and thus, what is morally right), by our intellectual abilities, e.g., sensation and reason. We need not believe in God or have knowledge of God to know morality. Aquinas’ Laws Forms of Law: Eternal (governs everything in the universe), Divine (spiritual goals), Natural (moral), Human (legal systems) Natural Law: General Principles Particular Applications The Argument 1. Acts can only be right/wrong/obligatory (moral qualities) relative to some set of determining rules. 2. A set of rules exists only if created by some intelligent being. 3. Therefore, acts have moral qualities only if some intelligent being creates a set of rules which determines those qualities. 4. Acts have moral qualities only if some intelligent being creates a set of rules which determines those qualities. 5. Acts have moral qualities (Emotivism is false). 6. Therefore, some intelligent being created a set of rules which determines those qualities.

7. If the creating intelligent being is not the culture, the agent, or the person judging the act, then it must be God who creates the rules. 8. The moral rules are not determined by Cultures (CR is false). 9. The moral rules are not determined by the agent (IR is false). 10. The moral rules are not determined by the person judging the act (SS is false). 11. Therefore, it is God who creates the moral rules for determining moral qualities. Independent Arguments for God? -Anselm’s Ontological Argument: 1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. 2. If God existed only in the mind, then something greater could be conceived, namely, a God existing both in the mind and in reality. (Specific instance of the following, for any X that does not exist in reality, there is a greater thing that can be conceived) 3. Therefore, God exists both in the mind and in reality. -The Cosmological Argument (A version of)-Aquinas’ Second Way: Efficient Cause: “the source of the first beginning of change.” Consider your usual meaning of cause and it will be a sufficient grasp on the idea.1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

There is a regular order of efficient causes. Nothing is the efficient cause of itself. It is not possible to proceed to infinity in efficient causes. Arrange all the efficient causes and the first is the cause of the intermediate and the intermediate is the cause of the last. If we remove the first efficient cause, then we remove the intermediate and the last (causes and effects). Proceeding to infinity in efficient causes would mean there is no first efficient cause. If there is no first efficient cause, then there is no last or intermediate cause or effect. But that is clearly false (empirical claim). Therefore, there is some first efficient cause, that is, God.

Why accept premise 2? a. Assume that something is the efficient cause of itself. b. Then it must exist prior to itself. c. But that would be a contradiction; it would both be and not be. d. Therefore, nothing is the efficient cause of itself. Why accept premise 5? a. Assume there is no first among efficient causes. b. Without the first, there can be no second or any other cause or effect, because they all depend on the first. (You cannot count to 10 without starting at 1.) c. Therefore, if we remove the first efficient cause, then we remove the intermediate and the last cause and effect. 1

Contrast with material, formal and final causes. These are Aristotle’s four causes. The material being the actual material out of which the effect is made. The formal cause being the form of the effect. The final cause being its purpose. See Aristotle’s Metaphysics.

DCT/NLT and Moral Skepticism How are we to know the moral commands of God/Natural Law? Through personal religious experience. By our intellectual faculties: reason and sensation. Criticisms of DCT/NLT -The Is/Ought Distinction: Natural Laws for Aquinas tell us to do what we were created for, to follow our telos, or purpose. There is a difference between the fact of the matter and morality. It may be that it is your purpose, the reason you were created, to be a doctor. Does it follow that you should be a doctor? If not, then just because we have a natural purpose, why is it wrong to ignore it? -The Euthyphro Dilemma, from Plato: DCT/NLT: Acting rightly is acting in accordance with God’s commands. Question: Is right conduct right (a) because God commands it, or (b) does God command it because it is right? If (a), then God’s commands are morally arbitrary. If (b), then God’s commands don’t determine rightness/wrongness. Both options result in poor implications for DCT/NLT. Is there any possible response? -The Problem of Evil (specifically against God): 1. If God exists and it the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the world, then this is the best of all possible worlds. 2. If this is the best of all possible worlds, then it does not contain any gratuitous evil. 3. The world does contain gratuitous evil. 4. Therefore, it is not the case that God exists and is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the world. Is there any possible response? Natural vs. Moral Evil Reason for Natural Evil: Opportunity for virtue, just punishment. Reason for Moral Evil: Opportunity for virtue, necessary by-product of free will. Consider a specific case:

1. I cannot detect any way in which this instance of evil increases the goodness in the world. 2. Therefore, this instance of evil is gratuitous. Good argument? How Helpful Is Religion? Consider the Jodie and Mary case from Rachels, EMP 1.3. What should we say about this case?