Was God's Command Moral?

[Ray the atheist]

Preamble
 
This post hopes to demonstrate that morality and obedience are not the same thing.
Seems so simple to me, but not so simple for many Christians who defend the actions of God.

I have been mostly focusing on the story of the "Fall Of Mankind" where God first commands obedience to a human. I quickly noticed that no moral justification was offered for God's Divine Command.

Morality concerns whether an action is right or wrong, good or bad, by using moral principles and guidelines.
Obedience simply means following a command. A person can obey a command without that obedience making the action moral.

The Nuremberg Trials illustrate this distinction.
Obedience to an authority was not accepted by the judges as sufficient moral justification for the defendant's horrible genocides.
The same distinction applies to Adam and Eve.

God commanded them not to eat the fruit, but the command itself provided no independent moral reason explaining why eating the fruit was morally wrong.
The command established what God wanted them to obey. It did not establish morality. I sometimes think of the moral theory as "might makes right".

Hitler sure had the might.. And so did God.
The world didn't consider that Hitler's might made his commands "morally right".

QUESTION TO CHRISTIANS:
Do you consider God's command moral, and if so, why?
 
Definitions

Morality: principles or judgments concerning what is right or wrong, good or bad, permissible or impermissible.
Obedience: following a command or instruction given by an authority.
Authority: the power or right to give commands and require obedience.
Moral authority: authority claimed to determine what people ought or ought not do morally.
Moral justification: a reason explaining why an action is morally right, wrong, good, bad, permissible, or impermissible.
Divine command theory: the philosophical view that moral obligations are grounded in God’s commands.
Moral obligation:an action one is morally required to perform or avoid.
Independent moral reason: a moral justification that does not depend solely on the authority issuing the command.
 

Relevant Bible Verses
Genesis 2:16–17: “And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’”
Genesis 3:2–3: “The woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, “You shall not eat of the fruit that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.”’”
Genesis 3:17: “And to the man he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, “You shall not eat of it,” cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life.’”
 
Argument
P1: Adam and Eve’s command provided authority, but no independent moral justification.
P2: Morality requires moral justification, not merely authority.
C: Therefore, God’s command to Adam and Eve was not moral.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #1]

Don't touch the hot stove.

Does the instruction require a moral justification?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Mr E in post #2]

Don't touch the hot stove.

Does the instruction require a moral justification?

________________________________

Interesting question.

The proposition "Don't touch the hot stove" is not about morality, it's about safety.
So, my answer is "No, I don't think it needs any moral justification."

[Mr E]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #3]

Interesting question.

The proposition "Don't touch the hot stove" is not about morality, it's about safety.
So, my answer is "No, I don't think it needs any moral justification."

Ah... so then let's stipulate that "Don't eat from the tree" was also a safety issue, with no need for any sort of moral justification.

That's the thing about Fathers. Sometimes they tell you to do, or not to do certain things for our own good, without the need to justify, or explain themselves.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Mr E in post #4]

The proposition "Don't touch the hot stove" is not about morality, it's about safety.
So, my answer is "No, I don't think it needs any moral justification."

Ah... so then let's stipulate that "Don't eat from the tree" was also a safety issue, with no need for any sort of moral justification.

That's the thing about Fathers. Sometimes they tell you to do, or not to do certain things for our own good, without the need to justify, or explain themselves.

__________________________________

I am a father of two, grandfather of 3.
When the children could not understand ( one is 5 days old, the rest are old enough ) any kind of justification, I didn't bother trying to explain what I was doing. I just did it with as much tenderness and empathy as I could muster.

As they grew up a bit, say... around 2 years old, I did explain at their level.

That took patience and expertise.
I wasn't all knowing, but I sure loved them enough to take the time and the effort.
Your God is all knowing, and I think you might agree that he loves more than I can.. maybe.. but you might believe it.

How old were your children when they could start understanding your reasons?

[Bradskii]

P2: Morality requires moral justification, not merely authority.

I think that fails. Well, it fails from a Christian viewpoint.

If God commands something then it must be morally correct. It cannot be any other way. Therefore it doesn't need justication.