What is the Divine Command Theory and what are its effects?

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
playhavock
Guru
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:38 am
Location: earth

What is the Divine Command Theory and what are its effects?

Post #1

Post by playhavock »

Hello and welcome, the topic of this debate will be on:

"What is the Divine Command Theory and what are its effects on ethics?"

Truely Free has agreed to this with an eagerness that I think will show up in the debate.

This debate will not be to the high standards of Informal Logic that I normally adhere to, although I will be sighting problems in Truely Free's logic and augments, and pointing out logical fallacies, I will not be dismissing Truely Free's points merely due to the fallacies themselves, rather the point will be to educate Truely Free on informal logics stance in such matters and my goal will be to dismantle the points via the augments themself.

To make sure this is clear for the readers and my worthy opponent, I will say (X) is (Y) logical fallacy, but I will not be dismissing (X) due to this.

I will dismiss (X) only if I can argue against (X) using Truely Free's own logic and previous augments, it should prove quite a challenge for me to do this - but I welcome it.

The reason for the lesser degree is due to Truely Free's understanding of informal logic is not high as yet, and I want to encourage them to learn more about it, part of that will be in doing this debate, as often we learn by doing and the rest will be up to them to go and learn logic for themself. (Although I offer any help I could in that matter)

Our format will be the standard format of welcome, opening, rebuttal to opening, and rebuttal to rebuttal (tentatively, we have 3 possible rebuttals set up, this might be reduced to 2) and closing augment and conclusions at the end.

I thank Truely Free for her time to debate this matter and her eagerness to learn logic, something that I support her effort in doing!

With all this said, it is time to set aside emotions and focus on our augments at hand. Let us begin.

========


DCT is in essence the idea that God commands and we follow those commands and are thus doing moral actions. (Reference 1 & 2)

For the purpose of this debate I will not be arguing if there is or is not a God but focusing solely on DCT itself.

Although there are already several objections to DCT, Euthyphro dilemma, Moral motivation, Semantic objections, and so on (reference 1), I will not be addressing these augments but instead attempt to make new augments. (Although mine might be similar to some of the augments presented due to overlap of key issues)

References are included for overlapping points.

I am making here three augments that I am going to be defending throughout the debate.

If the augments are sound, this will show that DCT is:

Destructive to ethics (argument 1).
Useless in functionality (augment 2).
Lacking in utility (augment 3).

--

Augment One:

DCT destroys ethical choices.


Premise One: DCT suggests that whatever God orders is moral and we should do whatever God commands.

Premise Two: Ethics requires us to be able to make choices of what is or is not moral, to be able to question ideas and morals and choices.

Conclusion: DCT destroys the idea of the ethical choice making in whole.

(Reference 3)

--

Argument Two:

There is no way to know what God has or has not commanded, thus no way to know what morality is.


Premise One: Everyone who believes in any God makes claims of knowledge regarding this God, be those claims from their religion, or personal ideas, or some combination there-of.

Premise Two: There exists no empirical method of deducing if God said any of the things claimed to be said of God.

Conclusion: There is no way to be sure that you are in fact doing the moral orders that God commanded to do or not to do, making DCT useless in functionality.

(Reference 4)

--

Augment Three:

Devine Commands found in Christianity and some other religions do not cover modern problems thus are not a comprehensive morality system.


Premise One: Most religions are old - that is to say they have been around awhile, even modern religions like the Mormon Church or Scientology offer morals and ethics that are grounded in things that seem not relevant to modern issues and problems of ethics. Business practices, Human rights, scientific advancement (i.e.: cloning) are all some examples of things that many religions say nothing about.

Premise Two: DCT indicates that God commands moral things for us to follow yet we find no commands for or against many of the modern things we deal with.

Premise Three: Most religions project that God knows the future; as such we should expect God to tell us how to deal with problems of this era in writing if not in words today, yet God remains oddly silent on the issues we face.
Premise Four: Since God is apparently not saying anything on today’s issues we should conclude that the morality it offers is not comprehensive as it does not cover modern issues.

Conclusion: Morally ordered by God of the Christians and some other religions as well is not comprehensive. Although this does not mean it is false, it does show the weakness of DCT - even if morals ordered by God are valid, we must now derive morals from something else as God is no longer active in giving commands. This makes DCT useless in utility.

(Reference 5)

--


These conclusions lead to several critical questions:

If we cannot gain morals for current problems from Divine Commands, we must gain morals from something other than God - and if this is the case for modern issues where we must make our own morals, why do we need God to issue any commands at all?

If we cannot be sure if God is even commanding the morals it is said to, then why not use human moral made commands?

If we can and it seems we must make our own morals to deal with current problems, why rely upon commands that are not comprehensive?

--

It is reasonable to conclude that DCT is not only destructive to ethics, but even if true it would still be useless in practical functionality, and its utility in regards to modern problems is non-functional.

As such, we should dismiss DCT as an ethical or moral grounding and instead look to secular ideas for ethics and moral grounding.


====

Reference 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory

Reference 2 - Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Ethics; Chapter 4, Page 38

Reference 3 - Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Ethics; Chapter 4, Page 39

Reference 4 - http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ch ... s-problem/

Reference 5 - Ethics Without God, Kai Nielsen - http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/ (number 6 on the list, final paragraph)

User avatar
Truely Free
Apprentice
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:15 pm
Contact:

Opening argument.

Post #2

Post by Truely Free »

Welcome:
Welcome both readers and opponent. I am pleased to be able participate here in my first formal one on one debate. My opponent, Playhavock, is a capable and intelligent opponent. His background as a former professing believer has show itself in his knowledge of Christian doctrine, while his desire for intelligent debate and learning is clear in the way he conducts himself on the forum. In my most recent interaction with him I have found him to be civil and respectful in debate and easy to respond too. Because of that I was eager to make my first formal debate against him, trusting that he will be fair and knowing that I have much that I can learn from him.

The topic of the debate today centers on the Divine Command Theory and whether or not it’s implications on Ethics are positive or destructive. My position is as follows:
The Divine Command Theory in and of itself only gives an explanation for where a objective morality Comes from. It does not dictate any actions or provide a premise for action either negative or positive. The theory does provide a platform for which action can build.
My hope in this argument is to show that the Divine Command Theory through the world view of an Orthodox, Biblical, Christian doctrine provides a solid and trustworthy foundation for a healthy code of ethics on an individual basis.


My opening argument will be composed thus:
Definitions.....I feel as if properly and clearly defining the terms I will be depending upon for my argument is supremely important to the proper application of my arguments.

Arguments..... I have three points for which I will provide arguments. These arguments will hopefully provide basis for my assertion.


Closing thoughts.... I will summerize my position again to keep the focus of the debate on the Subject agreed upon, although I will do not fear for that with this opponent.

Here are some things I will not be doing in this particular debate.

I will not be arguing the validity of the Divine Commandment Theory. Both Playhavock and I have agreed before hand that the DCT is a given for this argument.

I will not be arguing for the validity of the Christian doctrine. All that is necessary for this argument is that I provide a basis that the Christian world-view (true or false) provides a platform on which the the DCT finds a positive outcome.

I will not be proving that the DCT always results in a positive ethical world view. That would be impossible. My efforts are to prove only that the logical and common out come of the DCT applied to the Christian world-view is a positive one. However, all that is needed to disprove Playhavock’s assessment is for me to prove that the logical outcome is neutral.


Definitions

The Divine Command Theory.
The Divine Command Theory theorizes that an action is morally good or evil, as defined by God’s commands. (Sources, Wikipedia, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, exc)
As argued it states that ethics, like all other things, require a beginning. This theory states that ethics have it’s beginning in the Command of God. It states that the reason why we as humans can define something as objectionably good or evil above and beyond definition of culture or personal preference is because God has created the definition. I will be using this definition in my first argument.

The Bible;
By this I am referring to the “Protestant� Bible , most of my sources are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise indicated.


Biblical Christianity.
For the purpose of this debate I will not be holding to any particular denomination of the Christian faith, but to the Bible and the most probable explanations of it’s texts. I will be using scripture verses in contexts and applying them to theology to explain how my outcome will be reached. Once again, I am not going to be proving if Christianity is real, only that the mentality that it produces through it’s doctrine, when built upon the foundation of the Divine Command Theory provides the opportunity for morality.



Arguments:



Argument 1:
Premises 1: Divine Command Theory addresses the origin of morality.
Premises 2: Moral Obligation does not address the origin of morality.
Conclusion: The Divine Command Theory does not address Moral Obligation.

Argument 2:
Premises 1: God gives Commands.
Premises 2: One can choose to obey or disobey commands.
Conclusion: Once can choose to obey or disobey God.

Argument 3
Premises 1: Fear of punishment influences the choice to obey or disobey a command
Premises 2: The Christian doctrine of Salvation relieves fear of punishment.
Conclusion: The Christian doctrine of Salvation removes the influence of punishment on the choice to obey or disobey a command.

Conclusion:
Because of my first argument, we cannot argue the efficiency of Moral Obligations ( I must do this, I must not do this) based on the DCT alone, but must apply a method of translating the DCT into action:
Because, God commanded this I must obey this. This is how I know it is true. This is how I account for mistakes exc.

Because of my second argument we can conclude that, even if we were to apply religion, there is no obligation placed on man to be moral. Even with fear of punishment and with the presence of a conscience people have every ability to choose to disobey moral guidelines, thus ensuring that morality is always achieved by choice. One chooses to be good, just as one chooses to be evil.

Because of my third and final conclusion we see that even the compulsion of fear of punishment if banished through the doctrines of the Bible. Whether the doctrines are true or not, they provide a frame of mind where the only compulsion for moral living is love, not fear. This provides for a pure and selfless moral law in all who live by it.

I feel as if all of these arguments support my point:
The Divine Moral Commandment gives opportunity for morality through the doctrines of the Orthodox, Biblical Christianity.

User avatar
playhavock
Guru
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:38 am
Location: earth

Rebuttal to Truely Free's opening.

Post #3

Post by playhavock »

Rebuttal to Truely Free's opening. (Several notes are given to help her in parentheses for sharping logic)


Truely Free
All that is necessary for this argument is that I provide a basis that the Christian world-view (true or false) provides a platform on which the finds a positive outcome.
Even if I granted all 3 arguments, I do not see this being the result - the goal here is not yet met, the dots are not connecting to this end. The current three arguments taken in total suggest that DCT produces the idea that God commands (X) and that a person obeys those commands out of love, rather than fear.

The problem that I see is although this seems to shine a positive light (love vs. fear), it does not show the commands themselves are in fact moral; one can obey, or not - but one cannot question the commands. Thus, the ethical ability to question is still dismantled and destroyed. (My first argument).

Having not quite met your goal, I'd say that this sharpens my first argument, tentatively speaking.

(Note One for logical fallacy: If this was the conclusion, it would be the informal fallacy of "Does not follow," due to the conclusion not following the arguments - the arguments or conclusion should be reformatted to avoid this error if possible)

---
Truely Free
As argued it states that ethics, like all other things, require a beginning. This theory states that ethics have it’s beginning in the Command of God. It states that the reason why we as humans can define something as objectionably good or evil above and beyond definition of culture or personal preference is because God has created the definition. I will be using this definition in my first argument.
Is the beginning of ethics God? This seems to be the question this conclusion assumes, but even if God, which one? Even if we grant a general God not of any religion - what commands did it issue?

These questions point right to my second argument and its conclusions.

Now, the question of objective morals or ethics is a tricky one - and one I'd rather not go into for this debate, as it would require its own debate by and large. I will grant in this debate that morals are objective, but not grant that this means they are from God.

I would say that morals are as objective as any law we have. By objective, we mean it is true even if a person does or does not know it is true. A law like running a red light is objectively true, even if someone had no idea it was - breaking that law can have serious consequences - it might not, but there must be a fine or punishment assigned no matter the ignorance of the person to that law.

Similarly, it is said of many Christians that everyone has knowledge of either the law or morals (depending on who you ask) written in their heart, and so in the end, no one is with an excuse; we all "know" how to behave well - some Christians claim.
My point here is that morals can be seen as objective even if humans have made them.

Since morals could be objective from humans, then we do not need commands issued by God. More to the point, since we cannot be sure what God is the God who first issued said morals, what choice do we have than to rely upon human made ethics? Even if God did in fact make ethics and morals, given my second argument, we still it seems discard DCT as a viable way to formulate ethical grounding.

----

Now to deal with the arguments Truely Free presents.

Truely Free
Argument 1:

Premises 1: Divine Command Theory addresses the origin of morality.

Premises 2: Moral Obligation does not address the origin of morality.

Conclusion: The Divine Command Theory does not address Moral Obligation.
I must congratulate Truely Free on a perfectly formatted argument here.

p1: (A) addresses (B)
p2: (C) does not address (B)
C: (A) does not address (C)

Very well done here! I find no logical flaws to pick apart.

Also, upon its conclusion I agree and in fact it will be used to argue in favor of my arguments. and thus I grant this argument in full.

I will be referencing this argument as "TF1".

Truely Free
Argument 2:

Premises 1: God gives Commands.

Premises 2: One can choose to obey or disobey commands.

Conclusion: Once can choose to obey or disobey God.
Here we have a slight error in formatting. One could argue the language of "commands" in P2 is not necessarily the commands of God, and thus the conclusion no longer follows. This would be the logical fallacy of equivocation. You could fix this minor issue by adding "of God" to the end of P2. Alternately, you could add a third premise to clarify the matter.

This might seem like a quibble, but although we call the system "informal logic" (and yes, people debate the wording of that!), the structure and rules are such that we must iron out even the smallest problems to have the best argument possible.

As it stands, I cannot grant the conclusion, as P2 might not be referring to God's commands, and thus the conclusion might not follow. Although I am assuming to know what your argument is in order to illustrate the correct approach to a logical argument format.

However, in light of the fact that I can assume this to lead where I think it leads, and I am sure you will fix the error in formatting, I think that I should allow this to be.

The conclusion here if I do grant it would not, as far as I can fathom, interfere with my arguments at all. I will then, be tentatively granting this argument on the contingency that Truely Free will fix the formatting in P2 and/or add a third (or fourth) premise to clarify the issue.

I will be calling this "TF2"

--
Truely Free
Argument 3

Premises 1: Fear of punishment influences the choice to obey or disobey a command

Premises 2: The Christian doctrine of Salvation relieves fear of punishment.

Conclusion: The Christian doctrine of Salvation removes the influence of punishment on the choice to obey or disobey a command.
Here we run into a different type of problem with P1 - for it cannot be said that fear of punishment influences choices for all people at all times.

To make this argument stand correctly, it would need to be changed into what is known as a probability argument - those differ from deductive arguments as TF1 and TF2.

The probability argument makes a probability statement like "most, many, typically," or other terms such as that to indicate that the statement is not to be viewed as globally universal in nature. Such arguments can be sharpened with data to show how often people will in fact do or not do what the argument is arguing for (or against). In this case, if Truely Free could show that (X) number of people are, in fact, influenced by fear of punishment from various studies, then she could have a very strong probability argument.

Since P1 here seems to be global, it would have to be rejected on that ground.
However, I see other issues with the argument other than logical formatting, as if I granted it even tentatively speaking, I would have to ask what reasons Christians now have to obey commands if fear is not the factor.

We can see, looking back on Truely Free's goal, that we could extrapolate an assumed idea here that seems warranted.

I think that Truely Free's goal here was to say that love, not fear, drives the Christian to obey commands - but that argument is simply not made; the premise does not exist, and it should! This would not only make the argument more robust, but also lead towards Truely Free's goal.

Now as it stands, I happen to not be concerned with this argument either, as it does not pose any issue for my arguments. Because I want to ask those critical questions, I will again be granting this argument tentatively speaking, and contingent upon it being properly formatted so I can do so.

I shall be referencing this argument as "TF3".

---

I am granting all three arguments because I do not view any of them being consequential to mine, as none of the conclusions pose problems for my standing.

TF1:

Moral Obligation is a factor in some ethical ideas and some ethical foundations, not all of them. The fact that DCT does not address Moral Obligation could be seen to make DCT less utilitarian than my third argument concludes. Thus, by granting TF1, I sharpen my third argument.

Argument Four: Moral Obligation can be included, and its exclusion shows a lack of utility for DCT.

P1: Moral Obligation can be part of a comprehensive moral system.

P2: Moral Obligation is not addressed by DCT as TF1 concludes.

Conclusion: Since Moral Obligation is not addressed and can be part of a comprehensive moral system, and it is not found in DCT, this means that DCT lacks in this area, and thus can be seen to be not comprehensive.

Possible objections: Other Ethical systems also lack Moral Obligation. However, grouping DCT with those systems does not help DCT to be more comprehensive, and thus this possible objection must be discarded.

-

TF2 & TF3:
What reason is there to obey the Commands issued by God? And again, what God?

TF3 suggests that fear of punishment is removed, so why should one obey the commands issued by God?

Since I've tentatively granted TF2 here, I must point out that TF2 and TF3 taken together actually promote no positive reason to obey the DCT itself!

Argument Five: There seems to be no positive reason to obey Divine Commands.

P1: DCT does not have to be obeyed from TF2.

P2: TF3 removes fear of punishment for not obeying Divine Commands.

P3: DCT offers no positive reason for obeying it thus far.
Conclusion: DCT cannot promote a positive reason for obeying commands from the divine.

----
Truely Free
Conclusion:
Because of my first argument, we cannot argue the efficiency of Moral Obligations ( I must do this, I must not do this) based on the DCT alone, but must apply a method of translating the DCT into action:

Because, God commanded this I must obey this. This is how I know it is true. This is how I account for mistakes exc.
How does one apply DCT into a method? There is no argument for this idea. I agree that efficiency of Moral Obligations based on DCT alone is not warranted - thus sharpening my argument that DCT lacks utility given above (argument four). I cannot, however, grant the conclusion that the action entails what Truely Free suggests.

(informal fallacy note: The "Does not follow" fallacy would be applied to this conclusion)

----
Truely Free
Because of my second argument we can conclude that, even if we were to apply religion, there is no obligation placed on man to be moral. Even with fear of punishment and with the presence of a conscience people have every ability to choose to disobey moral guidelines, thus ensuring that morality is always achieved by choice. One chooses to be good, just as one chooses to be evil.
I do not see this following from TF2. I would agree that the conclusion that God's commands do not place any burden on man to be moral, as I raised this issue in
Argument Five.

I do not see any connection, however, to moral guidelines other than directly related to DCT - and this seems to suggest all moral guidelines. (Global reference rather than particular reference)

You suggest here that people choose to be good or evil, and I agree; it seems that people can and do choose these things without using the DCT at all, bringing into question why the DCT is useful at all, reflecting upon the issue that DCT is useless -

I could then include this as another argument to build up my second argument thus:

Argument Six:

P1: People can do good or evil without the DCT.

P2: Ethics and morals are concerned with doing good or evil.

Conclusion: DCT is not required for ethics or morals, making it rather useless as a system.

-
Truely Free
Because of my third and final conclusion we see that even the compulsion of fear of punishment if banished through the doctrines of the Bible. Whether the doctrines are true or not, they provide a frame of mind where the only compulsion for moral living is love, not fear.
The conclusion of the compulsion being love is not made in any previous argument, as I've already pointed out this issue above, but must do so again since the same error is made here. It simply does not follow since it has no arguments to support it.

Although it seems that I do agree that fear is being banished as I granted (tentatively) TF3, I cannot as yet accept this conclusion with no argument to support it.

(Informal Fallacy note: A secondary fallacy might be one of irrelevance - what does it matter if the compulsion for moral living is love, fear, or any other emotional or physical desire?)

Truely Free
This provides for a pure and selfless moral law in all who live by it.
I must ask if "moral law" is taken to be equal to "divine command," because they are very different terms and mean very different things.

Since we are not debating moral law but divine commands, I must take this to be a conclusion that is not connected with the debate at hand.


(Informal fallacy note: "Does not follow" as well as the formal fallacy involving Natural language - here ‘moral law' might mean ‘divine command,' but we are not informed of this; thus, we can’t extrapolate the meaning of these words without proper definitions and/or arguments)

-

To summarize - every argument my opponent has made I've either granted or tentatively granted, and then used to strengthen my own arguments.

The conclusions either help my arguments or do nothing to affect my arguments at all, and do not lead us to conclude that DCT is useful to ethics at all, or even that it is neutral in regards to its effects on ethics and morals. DCT still stands as a potentially useless system, lacking in utility, and being still, by definition, destructive to ethics.


Conclusion:

I cannot at this time conclude that DCT is worth salvaging as an ethical or moral system; as such, I still submit that we turn to secular ideas for ethics and morals.




Perhaps my opponent will show how my arguments are flawed and thus my conclusion is somehow in error during her rebuttal to my opening. We shall see.





==============================
(Notes: since my opponent reads my rebuttals, she gets to plan ahead, shoring up her previous arguments as she argues against my arguments, and planning for the rebuttal of these arguments as well. Recall that my opponent must rebuttal my opening; still, she does have a chance to fix problematic errors in reference to these rebuttals. This is allowed in the format of informal logic.

As long as she is not addressing the rebuttals I've made, there would be no formal issues. Some formats are looser than others in this regard; typically a moderator of the debate would iron out any issues and/or lay out the rules and enforce them.)

User avatar
Truely Free
Apprentice
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:15 pm
Contact:

Rebuttal

Post #4

Post by Truely Free »

To begin my rebuttal, I feel it important to remind our readers of the arguments being offered by both sides.

My Opponent is arguing that the DCT (Divine Command Theory) has destructive effects on ethics. His own words are “Destructive to ethics . Useless in functionality .Lacking in utility.�

My position is that DCT is a neutral but can find a positive effect on ethics through the means of the Christian world view.

Let me submit my first rebuttal, which, I think if I argue it correctly will debunk all 3 of my opponents arguments.

I feel my opponent has a wrong view of the very nature of the DCT argument. My opponent, in his second and third argument seems to suggest that DCT replaces “morality� with “Commandments�.

Granted, DCT greatly ranges in it’s fundamentals depending on who is arguing for it. Therefore, I will provide an argument for my definition of the DCT.

By arguing DCT we presuppose there is a Objective Morality.
Objective morality is a purely human trait. No animal other than the human shows any signs of an objective moral code. An objective moral code states that something is wrong despite interpretation.

For an example. Common belief in early African tribal culture was that twins were produced by an evil spirit entering the womb, cohabiting with an existing child and taking on the form of a child. There for most twins were killed at birth because one of the two was believed to be an evil spirit and there could be no way to tell the difference between evil spirit and actual human child.

Objective morality would say that despite culture, religion or any other circumstance those deaths were morally wrong.

Subjective morality states that the deaths were not immoral, maybe only ignorant. It would be better if the children had not been killed, but their murders were not morally wrong in the least.

In order to argue DCT the first must be accepted, as it is a law and not a loose interpretation of data. Only a rigid law would require the scrutiny from DCT.


So our first presupposition of DCT is this: Objective Morality exists.

Next we must seek origin. Has objective morality always existed. If so, there is no need to seek explanation.

Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma asks “"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods? Commonly phrased today: “Did God command it because it was good, or is it good because God commanded it.

To answer this question of origin we will ask this question. If God commanded it because it was good: Good preexist God. If it is good because God commanded it, than God preexist good.

Moral law is an abstract law, much like mathematics. It does not exist physically, but is only existent in the mind of man. That is why it is denied by the Naturalist and Nihilist. Because of this a conscious mind is necessary for the exitance of good. Therefore, good is not self-existent and cannot pre-exist God. God is self-existent. He does not require anything other than Himself in order to exist. Because of this we see that God can pre-exist good, but Good cannot pre-exist God.
Leading to the assumption that it is good because God commands it.

Therefore our second presupposition is this: Good is not pre-existent and must have a beginning. I.E. A creator.

But wait, we must ask, must this “creator� be God. Here is where the DCT comes in.

If morality requires a conscious mind that conscious mind can just as easily be early man as God.

We have really only two options here. God created morality or man created morality.

Law requires authority. My commands have no effect on anyone. If the U.S. President makes a command however, it must be followed.
Moral law is superior to all human authority.

A police officer enforces a speed limit. Because of that the police officer is not subject to the speed limit. If authority makes a law, they are not subject to that law.
However, all authority are subject to moral law. Therefore, moral law cannot be made by any human authority.

Furthermore, if moral law was created by humans, it could also be unmade by humans. The same authority that was used to put the law into being could be used to remove it. This would make moral law subjective, not objective.

If God is the ultimate authority, and through his command and his character created a moral law, this law would not be subject to change by human authority and would have authority over all humanity no matter their social status.

Final Presupposition of the DCT: God created Moral Law.

Thus we see DCT deals with the origin of Moral Law, and not the nature of Moral Law. (Why is there Good and Evil, not what is Good and Evil)

Now let me explain where I feel my opponent has gone wrong.
My opponent seems to be seeing DCT as a definition of Moral Law rather than an explanation for the Origin of Moral Law.

In doing this he has made an equation never supposed in the DCT argument.
He has equated Moral Law with Religious Law. He has assumed that the DCT arguments state the the Biblical Laws are our source of Moral Law.
This simply is not so.
If this were true we would see two major results.

First, as the Biblical Commands began only in the book of Exodus only actions after the giving of the Biblical Commands could be judged as moral or immoral.

Yet even in the Bible we see people condemned on accounts of immoral actions before the giving of the ten commandments and following laws: Cain slaying his brother Able, the actions of the pre-flood civilizations, the murder of the innocent Hebrew boy children by the Egyptian Pharaoh and Moses’s murder of the Egyptian man are only a few.

Secondly, it must than be assumed that no non-religious person can be considered “good�. However, once again in the Bible we see Christ condemning religious persons, following the law; by calling them hypocrites.
Today we have no ground to stand on if we say “Only Christians are good people� or
“Only Muslims are good people� or any other religion for that matter.

We see therefore that Moral Law and Religious Law cannot possibly be equated. DCT is not stating that God is the creator of Religious Law, that is a given if you believe the tenants of religion, and requires not theory. DCT only theorizes that God is the creator of Moral law.

But why then is it called a “Command� theory?

In Genesis we see God “commanded� that light come into being.
One does not need to obey the Biblical commands of God to experience light, one can enjoy light even if in complete rebellion to God. I can tell you the difference between light and dark without God telling me they are light or dark. God’s commands only went as far as to create the nature of light. The “command� was only for light: “Let there be light.�
Similarly, DCT states that God “commanded� good to come into being.
One does not have to be obeying God’s commands to experience or be subject to moral law. Even some one in complete rebellion to God can be judged by moral law to be a good person. Even a person completely subject to God can be a “evil� person. I can know something is “good� without ever being told by God. We call this the “conscious�.


We will call this “Creative Command� and “Judicial Command�.
DCT deals with God’s “Creative Command� Religious law, which is subjective, as dealt with in my second argument, deals with God’s “Judicial Command�

This brings me back to my first argument. TF1 as called by my opponent.

Argument 1:
Premises 1: Divine Command Theory addresses the origin of morality.
Premises 2: Moral Obligation does not address the origin of morality.
Conclusion: The Divine Command Theory does not address Moral Obligation.

Let us apply this to all of my opponents arguments.

Augment One:

DCT destroys ethical choices.


Premise One: DCT suggests that whatever God orders is moral and we should do whatever God commands.

Premise Two: Ethics requires us to be able to make choices of what is or is not moral, to be able to question ideas and morals and choices.

Conclusion: DCT destroys the idea of the ethical choice making in whole.

TF1, which was accepted as true by my opponent dismantles DCT. DCT Does not suggest we should do whatever God Commands. DCT only suggests that when we do good, that good is good because God commanded that it was good. When we do evil, that evil is defined as evil because God commanded that it was evil. Note, this is the “Creative Commandment� argument.
For this reason premise one is undone, and therefore, DCT has no effect on premise two, making the conclusion illogical.

Argument Two:

There is no way to know what God has or has not commanded, thus no way to know what morality is.

Premise One: Everyone who believes in any God makes claims of knowledge regarding this God, be those claims from their religion, or personal ideas, or some combination there-of.

Premise Two: There exists no empirical method of deducing if God said any of the things claimed to be said of God.

Conclusion: There is no way to be sure that you are in fact doing the moral orders that God commanded to do or not to do, making DCT useless in functionality.

Once again. DCT only deals with the origin of morality. It explains why Good is good and Bad is Bad. It does not explain what is good or what is bad. That is the realm of ethics. It is constantly going to be a matter of debate: what defines good and bad. For a Christian this is where the Religious Law comes in, but that is a separate matter. Even if than, the grant both premises and the conclusion, all it proves is that DCT is useless as a religious law. But that is not the purpose of the DCT. The DCT is meant to explain the origin of moral law. At the very best this argument supports my own: that DCT is a neutral, not damaging to Moral law at all.

Augment Three:

Divine Commands found in Christianity and some other religions do not cover modern problems thus are not a comprehensive morality system.


Premise One: Most religions are old - that is to say they have been around awhile, even modern religions like the Mormon Church or Scientology offer morals and ethics that are grounded in things that seem not relevant to modern issues and problems of ethics. Business practices, Human rights, scientific advancement (i.e.: cloning) are all some examples of things that many religions say nothing about.

Premise Two: DCT indicates that God commands moral things for us to follow yet we find no commands for or against many of the modern things we deal with.

Premise Three: Most religions project that God knows the future; as such we should expect God to tell us how to deal with problems of this era in writing if not in words today, yet God remains oddly silent on the issues we face.
Premise Four: Since God is apparently not saying anything on today’s issues we should conclude that the morality it offers is not comprehensive as it does not cover modern issues.

Conclusion: Morally ordered by God of the Christians and some other religions as well is not comprehensive. Although this does not mean it is false, it does show the weakness of DCT - even if morals ordered by God are valid, we must now derive morals from something else as God is no longer active in giving commands. This makes DCT useless in utility.


Once again, this wrongly assume that the Moral law and religious law are the same thing. Even DCT does not provide even moral law, only the origin of it.
This may be a good argument about Religious Law, but has no impact on the DCT. Even if I grant premise 1, 3 and 4 (as premise 2 cannot be granted with what we know about DCT) this only prove that the utility that DCT is useless for is one is was never meant for. DCT was not meant to explain what is good or what is evil, DCT was meant to explain where good an evil come from.

So we see that DCT is a neutral foundation, not a defective system.
If I could compare it too a tool we could say that DCT is like the glue used to install the kitchen sink. It works marvelously when applied correctly. However, if I were to use that glue as a dish detergent, and attempted to was my dishes with them; of course it would seem useless and even damaging. The glue was made to hold the sink onto the counter, not to clean food off of the plates.

Tool only work when correctly applies. Like DCT, which has perfect function when answering the question “where do morals come from?� and “Why do I consider one thing to be good and another to be evil?�
If I apply the DCT to the questions such as “Can I morally allow this?� “Is this okay for me to do?� or “Is this moral?� of course it will appear ineffective.

If I have proven when my definition of the DCT my opponents arguments will be seen lacking.

At this point we are left with the question of what fits into the moral law.
Some issues are easily resolved. To end a human life is wrong. To take something that is not yours is wrong. To cause pain to another human being is wrong.
Others are less so. Is abortion wrong. Or sexual promiscuity. What about ambition at the expense of others, what about self-destructive behaviors.
The list goes on.
When faced with these question we must leave DCT behind to function as it is meant to. It is a foundation upon which to build a moral law, not a moral law in and of itself.
When faced with this problem I feel as if the best moral law on which to base my actions is that given in the Bible.
Now, my opponent has addressed those arguments in his rebuttal to my opening statement. For that reason I will end my rebuttal here and leave those arguments for the next round.

I look forward to my opponents answer, and I hope my arguments have been sufficiently made, though perhaps being slightly amateurish.





Sources.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/

William Lane Craig and Shelly Kegan in debate. Is God Necessary for Morality?

The Holy Bible

User avatar
playhavock
Guru
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:38 am
Location: earth

Secondary rebuttal to Truely Free

Post #5

Post by playhavock »

Secondary rebuttal to Truely Free:

Truely Free has stated in her opening:

Truely Free
The Divine Command Theory in and of itself only gives an explanation for where a objective morality Comes from.
In my opening I state:

playhavock
DCT is in essence the idea that God commands and we follow those commands and are thus doing moral actions. (Reference 1 & 2)
In my first rebuttal I reference the issue of Objective Morality as such:

playhavock
Now, the question of objective morals or ethics is a tricky one - and one I'd rather not go into for this debate, as it would require its own debate by and large. I will grant in this debate that morals are objective, but not grant that this means they are from God.
Truely Free says in her latest rebuttal the following:

Truely Free

By arguing DCT we presuppose there is an Objective Morality.
On this point I must disagree. My definition of DCT was given in my opening as was hers; she brings to the table that DCT gives an explanation for where an objective morality comes from.

However, even if we grant objective morality as being true with or without God – does DCT lead one to bring to the table objective morals?

Truely Free has said that DCT can be viewed as neutral, but if it presumes objective morals, then DCT is already no longer neutral – it already seems to be built in favor of Western theism rather than a more neutral stance, where it could accommodate Eastern theism as well.

This to me seems more problematic than it might be worth if one wants to argue that DCT is neutral on its own – as step one, and then to argue that it is served best when one brings Christian precepts to it as step two.

We seem to be skipping step one to presume DCT assumes part of Christian ideas in Objective Morality.

The critical question I must raise is if DCT must presuppose Objective morality – it seems Truely Free thinks this is the case and she has certainly argued for this.

If DCT does not presuppose Objective morality – then it cannot explain the source of Objective morality – since it cannot include something that it does not suppose in its explanations.

So the whole of Truely Free’s arguments can be seen to hinge on this point.
Readers will recall that I granted every argument Truely Free made, and she has made a wonderful comeback in words to try to use this to her advantage. I commend her for this, as later she adds that her effort might be amateurish – I would not see it as such; the makings of a fine debater are clearly here. All positive encouragement aside, can I hope to dismantle the idea that DCT includes or assumes Objective Morality?

Even if I do not or cannot, I must ask if this really removes the problems I have raised as objections.

First, allow me to attempt to dismantle the idea that DCT must assume objective morality, as well as give a positive reason why one should not think it would include objective morality.

-

First, DCT is simply Divine Command Theory.
We understand Divine to be of or from God.
We understand Command to be orders, rules, lists, or ways of doing things.
We understand theory to be explanation of events or ideas.
Nowhere do I see any indication that objective morality is included or presumed.

Divine does not point to any particular God, and the idea of God does not necessarily mean that morals are, in fact, objective – it depends on what God you are speaking of and what version of said God and so on.

I think that DCT, if one places objective morals in there, would make DCT less neutral than my opponent wants it to be, and less neutral in general than it is.

So I would submit that DCT is best viewed without objective morality as a presumption.

-

Let me, however, grant the idea that DCT simply explains where Objective morality comes from.

I stated that ethics is destroyed by DCT as it destroys our ability to question morals. Ethics requires us to ask WHY (X) is good or (Y) is bad.

If one has “GOD SAID (X) is GOOD� as a final answer, as the objective answer that is true no matter what - you still are unable to ask WHY it is good. God saying that it is good is simply a non-answer.

I realize that many object to this idea that God simply commanding (X) to be good makes (X) good, but to me this is akin to the Father or Mother saying that (X) is good and thus it is. If we cannot ask WHY it is good, then we do not have ethics.
I will use the example my opponent provided to further my argument here.

Truely Free
Common belief in early African tribal culture was that twins were produced by an evil spirit entering the womb, cohabiting with an existing child and taking on the form of a child. There for most twins were killed at birth because one of the two was believed to be an evil spirit and there could be no way to tell the difference between evil spirit and actual human child.
If God has said that it is good to kill the evil spirit, and there is sadly no way to know the difference, then it is good to kill both children as it kills the evil spirit.
We cannot ask why it is good – God has said it is good.

My first objection still stands: DCT destroys ethical choices.

If one could question God – or the sprits – and ask WHY it is good or why the sprit is evil, then we would have ethics that function. When we stop being able to ask WHY, we must accept whatever the morals are told to us by whoever is telling us they are FROM GOD. Thus leading to my second argument: that we simply do not know if God is, in fact, telling us that this, that, or the other thing is GOOD.

My opponent wants to argue that DCT simply says there are objective morals, and that they came from God – but those objective morals are still unknowns; they are up for grabs, as it were. Anyone can claim that any God has them, and thus to be moral, you ought to do the moral thing – you do not have to; perhaps you are not being ordered to – but don’t you want to be moral? A very convincing emotional argument could be made in this way – if one believes there are objective morals coming from God – could not one use DCT to make killing twins a good thing?

I submit they could, and perhaps did in fact do this.
I am not suggesting that DCT will lead to further evils; this cannot be known. What can be known is that the problems that come with DCT are still there.

The idea that DCT simply explains where morals come from, be they objective or not, does not get it ‘off the hook’ as the source of morality. A particular deity (A) still gives people the notion that morals (B) are good, and as such, no one can question WHY moral (B) is good, it simply IS good; thus ethics are still ruined.

(As a side note – this has always been the problem for the moral argument – although many theists use the moral argument for God that objective morals exist … therefore God; they never stop to tell us what the morals are – making the objective morals irrelevant. If we do not know what they are, how does having objective morals help at all? It seems to suggest there is an absolute right or wrong way to do things, and they never inform us of what the things are! This makes any reference to objective morality totally useless in functionality.)


=========================
~Analysis begins~

I want to address the analogies used here as a study point for my opponent and not to forward my debate:

Truely Free
So our first presupposition of DCT is this: Objective Morality exists.
Law requires authority.
My commands have no effect on anyone.
If the U.S. President makes a command however, it must be followed.
Your commands can and do have effects on people, one could sight that when you tell someone “Watch out!� that this is a command of sorts – we run into natural language problems here, but one could argue this point.
What we have here is argument to analogy and such arguments can be very problematic.

However, I’d like for you to consider the question – who gives the president the ability to issue such orders, and could we question those orders. Who gives the police the ability to issue orders, can we question those orders?

Truely Free
Moral law is superior to all human authority.
I disagree. I understand the point – it is “right� to do (X) and no one can disagree that (X) is not “right� because the morals are not subject to the whims of humans – this is your thrust, but without being able to question law, as we can with human laws and human authority, where is ethics? What can one say about our ability to critically analyze things? I fear that such an absolute approach to morals is more harmful than good. Of course, this is why we are debating the issue!

Truely Free
A police officer enforces a speed limit. Because of that the police officer is not subject to the speed limit. If authority makes a law, they are not subject to that law.
Well, not really – they ARE under law and can be subject to it if they are not acting within their job duties. Thus, again we have an analogy that is weak enough that one could deconstruct it.

(Argument from analogy fallacy)
~End Analysis.~
=====================

Truely Free

My opponent seems to be seeing DCT as a definition of Moral Law rather than an explanation for the Origin of Moral Law.
I am simply going by the definition provided by the dictionary, wikipedia, and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Ethics.

When we come to ask, “what is it my opponent is doing,� rather than forward what we think they are doing , it is always best to ask, “what do you mean by...,� thus avoiding strawmen.

The understanding of DCT as provided in my three sources – two of those known by the general populace – is what I must argue against .

Truely Free has never supported her definition of DCT with any citations. This is a big issue (and a formal fallacy of not citing sources), but her definition, even if true, still means that DCT is not useful other than saying, “morals came from God.� In that case, one does not need DCT at all, as the statement would serve better than “DCT.� How about “MCFG?� It works far better, and would fit Truely Free’s ultimate conclusion of what she thinks DCT is.

Still, if Truely Free is not after the actual DCT but her version of it, and her arguments stand to show that DCT is what she claims, then she wins the point – although this might not convince the dictionary people to change the definition!

So although I have granted the premises for arguments made by Truely Free, she never made the argument for her definition being the right one. This is why none of the arguments are ones I have to object to.

Even with this issue aside, DCT is being analyzed by Truely Free as if one already brings the Christian mindset to the table – and she has yet to prepare by showing DCT is neutral on its own. We are skipping ahead to step two as it were – without setting up step one.

Although Truely Free uses the Bible correctly, there are still critical questions about morals that I would want to ask, although such questions are not relevant to the topic. For example: Did Cain know murdering his brother was evil? How could he, without being told (or commanded)?

Truely Free
We see therefore that Moral Law and Religious Law cannot possibly be equated. DCT is not stating that God is the creator of Religious Law, that is a given if you believe the tenants of religion, and requires not theory. DCT only theorizes that God is the creator of Moral law.
Still, I press that the issues do not vanish with this new definition (creator of moral law) – then the laws are absolute and cannot be questioned – thus destroying ethical ability to question the morals or not.

They ARE GOOD, so one cannot ask why they are good. No more ethics. Things are simply Good or Bad. Secondly, we still do not know WHAT is Good or WHAT is Bad, so still lack the functionality, and finally, do the unknown morals address current issues? We cannot say, since we do not know what they are, making them useless in utility.

Same issues, different viewpoint. My arguments press forward regardless.


============================
~More notes for study~
But why then is it called a “Command� theory?
In Genesis we see God “commanded� that light come into being.
One does not need to obey the Biblical commands of God to experience light; one can enjoy light even if in complete rebellion to God. I can tell you the difference between light and dark without God telling me they are light or dark. God’s commands only went as far as to create the nature of light. The “command� was only for light: “Let there be light.�
Similarly, DCT states that God “commanded� good to come into being.
Equivocation problem – “commanded� means more than one thing, and you are saying that it means this and not that. If the definition of command was going to be this throughout your argument, then you should say so in the beginning of the argument and find a different word when referring to command as normally used – or even “C1� and “C2� would work. This definitely would be seen as the informal logic fallacy of equivocation because it was not defined early on.

~End notes~
============================

Truely Free
One does not have to be obeying God’s commands to experience or be subject to moral law. Even some one in complete rebellion to God can be judged by moral law to be a good person. Even a person completely subject to God can be an “evil� person. I can know something is “good� without ever being told by God. We call this the “conscious�.
The conscious is an abstract idea, one that we never covered earlier in the debate or agreed upon.

It is in essence, not a thing – it is a consequence of knowing a moral action. One is not born with this thing; it is learned behavior. When we see a human develop (and some animals), they do learn from watching or listening – from interacting in some way to their environment (this is why those who cannot see or hear have a very large issue in life to overcome, and must receive special teaching as soon as possible).

Without such observation of others’ behavior, no behavior can form. The early patterns set the benchmark for what some call consciousness, which becomes more complex as one learns more about humans and social interactions. Finally, not all people have this – as some humans are born with or gain the issue of sociopathic tendencies – they simply do not recognize what is right or wrong, no matter how often they are instructed on such matters, and again, special treatment of them is necessary for them to ever be able to be in society as a whole.

Thus, the idea presented here might be true for Truely Free, as she references herself as an example, but cannot be seen to be true for anyone else, as THAT argument is not given. (Note: Formal fallacy of not providing an argument)
We will call this “Creative Command� and “Judicial Command�.
DCT deals with God’s “Creative Command� Religious law, which is subjective, as dealt with in my second argument, deals with God’s “Judicial Command�
Please define Creative Command and Judicial Command, as they are currently undefined. They lack no arguments for or against them. Without these, I cannot properly analyze if they are or are not correct in this case.

Truely Free
This brings me back to my first argument. TF1 as called by my opponent.
Argument 1:
Premises 1: Divine Command Theory addresses the origin of morality.
Premises 2: Moral Obligation does not address the origin of morality.
Conclusion: The Divine Command Theory does not address Moral Obligation.
Let us apply this to all of my opponent’s arguments.
Argument One:
DCT destroys ethical choices.
Premise One: DCT suggests that whatever God orders is moral and we should do whatever God commands.
Premise Two: Ethics requires us to be able to make choices of what is or is not moral, to be able to question ideas and morals and choices.
Conclusion: DCT destroys the idea of the ethical choice making in whole.
TF1, which was accepted as true by my opponent dismantles DCT.
This is not in the conclusion of TF1. You are, I assume, meaning to say that it should be inferred that TF1 dismantles DCT, but there is no connecting argument to infer this as the case. (Formal fallacy: Failure to provide an argument)



Truely Free
DCT Does not suggest we should do whatever God Commands. DCT only suggests that when we do good, that good is good because God commanded that it was good. When we do evil, that evil is defined as evil because God commanded that it was evil. Note, this is the “Creative Commandment� argument.
For this reason premise one is undone, and therefore, DCT has no effect on premise two, making the conclusion illogical.
Allow me to reformat this into a format I can more easily deal with for now. Let (r) be “right� (right being equal to the word good) and (G) will be God.

1 (r) = (r) due to (G)
2 (G) says (r) is (r)
3 if we do (r) we do (r)
4 DCT offers 1 as the explanation of where (r) comes from.
5 So is (r) moral?
A) Yes: Doing the right (good) thing is moral.
B) No: Doing the right (good) thing is not moral.
If B then (r) is not (r) thus 1 is false and 4 does not follow.
If A then (r) is (r) and 1 holds.

Going back to my first premise:
playhavock
“Premise One: DCT suggests that whatever God orders is moral and we should do whatever God commands. “
What (G) orders (or commands into being if you like) is that (r) is (r) as seen in 1 above. Should we do this? If 5 is Yes, then my objection holds – if not, then both our arguments fall apart!

The word quibbling I see present is in how we view DCT. Again I agree to her premises, but never to her DEFINITION of the word! Ah, that makes all the difference in the world! I stand on my definition, as it is already supported by other writings. It seemed at first that we both had similar understandings of DCT, but due to our interchange, we can now see clearly this is not the case!
I will rest my rebuttals for the time being. I do not think continuing to hammer this point home is necessary. What Truely Free has to do is:


1: Provide the source for her definition of DCT, or, if no source exists, provide an argument that her version is correct.

2: Iron out the issues that I highlighted in notes for a sharper argument and more robust rebuttal.

3: Rebuttal my arguments made with the newly reinforced DCT idea and/or with pure logic alone.

If she can do all three, she will certainly win this debate and also teach me (and others) the correct meaning of DCT. If she succeeds only on point 1, I think that I would still admit a partial defeat, giving her a “technical win� (a win is a win, however).

Unless or until she can do these things, due to the number of errors and problems, I cannot at this time conclude what she wants me to conclude, and must continue to be skeptical of her conclusion.

Will her rebuttal to mine after reading my rebuttal might change these issues? We shall see!

Post Reply