Divine command theory entails moral nihilism

[YahWhat]

I just watched a video of William Lane Craig explaining away the Canaanite genocide in the Bible. Basically, killing all those children "wasn't really wrong" because God commanded it. The problem I see with this is how is that any different from a form of moral nihilism that is just religiously motivated and asserted? It seems to me any act, no matter how atrocious, can be justified under divine command theory. So nothing really is "wrong" if commanded by God. Well, welcome to moral nihilism theists!

[William]

[Replying to post 6 by rikuoamero]

I'd like to ask.
Let's say that God really does, for realsies, command the two of you to kill my best friend tomorrow.
You come up, I'm there as well, and you tell me "God told me to kill your best friend, rikuo".

How am I supposed to respond to that?
Should I stand aside and allow the killing to proceed? Should I prevent it? Should I aid you?

I don't think that this is a very useful analogy, contextually.

Rather, if a country sent soldiers to kill you and your best friend and everyone else because they were doing so under the belief that it was GOD ordained, how would you respond to that?

On the other foot - If your country in the name of a GOD, conscripted your child as part of an army to invade another country and kill other people and their best friends, how would you respond to that?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 11 by William]

The only thing you changed about my challenge was making more about a group of people than just a single individual. Either way, the challenge is the same.

So how about you respond to my challenge, since you seem to be interested in it? Someone (or a group of someones) claim that God has told them to kill your best friend(s).
What do you do?

[JJ50]

Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[Goose]

...That hardly speaks to nihilism...

Hi William. I'm not sure if that post was entirely directed at me or not. Since it seems you are not arguing that divine command theory entails moral nihilism, as thread title states, I will leave alone the other points in your post which I think may lead us off topic if I engage them.

[Kenisaw]

I just watched a video of William Lane Craig explaining away the Canaanite genocide in the Bible. Basically, killing all those children "wasn't really wrong" because God commanded it. The problem I see with this is how is that any different from a form of moral nihilism that is just religiously motivated and asserted? It seems to me any act, no matter how atrocious, can be justified under divine command theory. So nothing really is "wrong" if commanded by God. Well, welcome to moral nihilism theists!

If God exists, then why is killing children wrong?

Why does the existence of gods affect the moral question about the killing of children?

[Kenisaw]

I just watched a video of William Lane Craig explaining away the Canaanite genocide in the Bible. Basically, killing all those children "wasn't really wrong" because God commanded it.

I don’t know which video you are referring to but I suspect, as far as the Canaanite slaughter goes, this is an over simplification of Craig’s arguments. He has offered a more comprehensive explanation of those events here.

I was going to break his comprehensive explanation apart a little bit, but I fear it would take too much time and space. I'd still like to comment on it however.

Try as I might, I cannot see where YahWhat's comment is an "over simplification". Craig's argument is simply that morals don't apply to his god, and he can do whatever he wants. The innocent Canaanite children weren't really harmed since they got to go to heaven after they were slaughtered, so he says nothing bad was actually done. "The death of these children was actually their salvation", he writes.

There's actually a lot more to untangle in his disturbing view of things. At one point he writes: [ It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity. God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.] If that doesn't remind me of Hitler's final solution, nothing does.

He also writes this: [Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.] This is exactly what jihadists tell you when asked why they use children as human shields, or blow up schools. Yet Craig tells us at the end of his musings that Islam has the wrong god. And how do we know this? Because "Allah has no love for unbelievers and sinners. Therefore, they can be killed indiscriminately."

Kinda like the Canaanites, no?

The problem I see with this is how is that any different from a form of moral nihilism that is just religiously motivated and asserted?

Moral nihilism says there is nothing which is moral or immoral; that there are no moral facts. For example under moral nihilism murder is neither moral or immoral.

Conversely, divine command theory entails the existence of objective moral values and duties. So under divine command theory for you or I to murder, for example, would be objectively immoral.

So I just don’t see how you can properly argue divine command theory -> moral nihilism.

According to Craig however, your god is not subject to "objective moral values and duties". Craig writes: [Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are.] For your god, it certainly appears that it's divine commands don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. It's a do as I say, not as I do mentality up on heaven's throne apparently...

It seems to me any act, no matter how atrocious, can be justified under divine command theory.

I think what you are referring to here is the fear that under divine command theory it is possible that any act can be claimed to be justified simply by asserting something like, “But God told me to do it.� And that’s a legitimate concern. However, that really is a separate issue as to what you are proposing which is that divine command theory entails moral nihilism. To think so grossly misunderstands divine command theory.

Or, if I may, perhaps others are grossly misunderstanding the dual standards that their god set up that everyone has to play under.

So nothing really is "wrong" if commanded by God. Well, welcome to moral nihilism theists!

Something that might otherwise be wrong for you or I to do would be justified because God commanded it. Put another way, in the absence of a divine command to kill, murder is wrong. That’s not moral nihilism.

It's not for us, but it sure is for the Bible god...

[William]

[Replying to post 14 by Goose]

Hi William. I'm not sure if that post was entirely directed at me or not.

Hi Goose.

No - the post was not entirely replying to you. However, I did make comments regarding the item you linked to which you should be able to recognize and respond to.

[William]

[Replying to post 12 by rikuoamero]

The only thing you changed about my challenge was making more about a group of people than just a single individual.

Why would that surprise you, since my comment wasn't about changing the challenge but making a better one in which to reflect the context.

You're welcome.

Either way, the challenge is the same.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It may depend on what can be learned through you're answering my own.

So how about you respond to my challenge, since you seem to be interested in it?

I am interested in it as far as making a comment about its poor contextual reflection.

Someone (or a group of someones) claim that God has told them to kill your best friend(s).
What do you do?

How does your challenge, as is, reflect the context of the idea of divine command?

How about you answer my challenge?

If a country sent soldiers to kill you and your best friend and everyone else because they were doing so under the belief that it was GOD ordained, how would you respond to that?

On the other foot - If your country, in the name of a GOD, conscripted your child as part of an army to invade another country and kill other people and their best friends, how would you respond to that?[/quote]

[YahWhat]

Look, you asked in your OP how is divine command theory any different than a moral nihilism which is just religiously motivated and asserted. I explained how they are different. The former asserts there are objective moral facts. The latter asserts there are no moral facts. One asserts A, the other asserts ~A. They literally assert the contrary position. That’s about as different as atheism and theism. You may as well argue theism entails atheism. Does that sound like a logical argument to you? Because that’s the kind of contradictory argument you have asserted in the title to the OP where you say, "divine command theory entails moral nihilism."

According to DCT, no action - no matter how horrendous, is objectively wrong as long as it's commanded by God. In that way, DCT and moral nihilism are the same.

Now you say, “it necessarily follows that neither God's commands or his nature are the true standard of morality.� How does that necessarily follow?

Because it does. If God's nature or his commands call for genocide, but it's wrong for people to do so, then obviously God's nature or his commands can't be the standard of what is right or wrong for human beings to follow.

Why don’t you start by telling me about “the true standard of morality.� Tell me why it’s the true one.

There are plenty of meta-ethical theories out there that don't require theological explanations. Just read any intro textbook. If you're a proponent of the moral argument as proposed by Craig then premise 1, which states,

"1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist."

Can be reworded:

"Without God, objective morality is impossible."

Well, I'd like to see a demonstration of that rather bold claim. Please show us how all those objective meta-ethical theories put forth by philosophers fail.

It’s morally wrong for humans to murder because humans aren’t God. When God takes life it isn’t murder or genocide in any context.

You're trying to make the truth of morality relative to a person's status. The claim that morality is objective means that it applies to all persons regardless of their status. You can't claim morality is objective/absolute and then turn around and say it's relative based on if you're a human being or God. Just as the truth that the earth is round doesn't depend on a person or God's opinion, the same can be said about moral truths. They're just not relative to a person's status.

He can give and take life as he chooses. We are his creation.

It's true that God "can" do whatever he wants in the sense of having the power to do so. However, "might" doesn't make "right." So the fact that God "can" take life doesn't mean it is "right" for him to do so.

Well, in the absence of a divine command to kill, things like genocide are immoral and not allowed.

Where is your support for that bald assertion? Why can't things like genocide be immoral in and of themselves?

Let's analyze your claim.

"Genocide is morally wrong in itself if, and only if, God issues a command not to commit genocide."

In other words, it's impossible for genocide to be immoral without a divine command from God. Well, claiming something is "impossible" carries with it a significant burden of proof. Let's see your support for that assertion!

There is another problem, though, in that God does not command himself not to perform actions such as not committing genocide. So despite the absence of a divine command from God, it's not immoral for him to do so. Not only does this show that your claim "divine commands determine wrongness" is false, it also shows that your theologically based ethics is incompatible with objective moral wrongness since genocide is morally wrong in and of itself. The existence of God wouldn't change that necessary moral truth.

This doesn’t follow. Moral nihilism says there is nothing which is moral or immoral; that there are no moral facts. Divine command theory does say there are moral facts.

But notice how I can just replace your definition of moral nihilism with DCT. If God commands rape, slavery, torture, genocide, etc then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it! Those things become morally obligatory or "good" by definition which is even more absurd than nihilism! What kind of morality is that?

Yes, in any human context.

Ah, moral relativism. If you're going to play by the rules and use the definitions of "objective/absolute" then both you and God have to abide by them.

In the absence of a divine command to kill, it’s immoral for you or I to murder. Where’s the double standard there?

The double standard is that it violates universally held moral principles and the notion that morality is absolute. You're relativizing morality by saying it only exclusively applies to human individuals. Moreover, it calls God's nature into question. Goodness is as goodness does. To say God is "wholly good" or "morally perfect" despite all the evil things he does or commands is just reduced to a word game. It deprives the significance of what it actually means to be "wholly good" and instead makes it a synonym for "evil."

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 18 by William]

How does your challenge, as is, reflect the context of the idea of divine command?

Because then anyone seeking to murder or rape or steal or any number of (normally) horrible acts could just say that God told them to do so, and those advocates of Divine Command Theory have no leg to stand on when it comes to opposing them.

User Goose is advocating DCT. So let's say someone (or an army, it doesn't really make much difference the numbers) come to his city and say they're here to destroy the place and massacre everyone, and that God Almighty has told them to do it.
What is Goose supposed to do? According to Goose,
He can give and take life as he chooses. We are his creation.
Well, in the absence of a divine command to kill, things like genocide are immoral and not allowed.
Well, apparently, in this scenario, a divine command HAS been issued. Or so its claimed by the soldiers.
Goose has no method by which to ultimately refute the soldiers. He can claim that God is love, would never issue such a command...but the soldiers could (like I have done in the past myself) just cite precedent from the Old Testament, of God issuing instructions to Hebrew commanders like Joshua.
There is no actual bona fide method to discern whether someone is REALLY hearing God. So Goose can't be sure one way or the other that the soldiers are hearing God.

Is Goose supposed to just allow himself and his loved ones to be killed? Should he take the risk of displeasing God, of going against God?
Or maybe...just maybe...genocide is wrong and shouldn't be done irrespective of God commanding it?