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!

[rikuoamero]

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!

Let me guess. It's wrong of the Canaanites to have sacrificed their children in bloody rituals to what they believed was God (Baal? Molech?) giving them commands to do so, but not wrong for the Hebrews to have come in and slaughtered them all when they believed their god, Yahweh, had given them commands to do so?

[For_The_Kingdom]

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?

[Goose]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[ttruscott]

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.

GOD can only command righteous acts. Causing death is not always considered unrighteous: death by execution, in self defence / war and sometimes, by accident, even euthanasia are not considered evil by many people. Therefore we can see that from our pov and from a GODly pov, causing death is not always evil.

A death that is a murder, that is, evil, when it is done with evil intents and purposes. The evil of death is not in the death itself but in the intentions of the one causing the death. Therefore to automatically call all deaths by GOD as evil is specious. If one's mind and emotions are set against the GOD of the OT, the deaths caused by GOD are often automatically deemed to be murders, that is, unwarranted deaths of innocent people which flies in the face of clear explanations of their capital crimes against GOD, their idolatry.

“It is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out before you…� (Deut. 9:5)

“Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.� (Lev. 18:24-25)

“When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations…because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you.� (Deut. 18:9, 12)

BUT:
Unfortunately, instead of completing the conquest of Canaan and driving its people out as commanded, the Jews capitulated (Judg. 1:28-33)....due to a public outcry against murder and genocide perhaps? Blending in with their enemy’s godless culture, they quickly were corrupted by it:
The sons of Israel lived among the Canaanites…took their daughters for themselves as wives, and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods. The sons of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and forgot the Lord their God and served the Baals and the Asheroth. Judg. 3:5-7

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 4 by Goose]

Goose says

Something that might otherwise be wrong for you or I to do would be justified because God commanded it.

Ted says

GOD can only command righteous acts.

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So basically your excuse is "it's moral when God does it but not when humans do it." That's a perfectly fine way to cop-out I guess but notice how it necessarily follows that neither God's commands or his nature are the true standard of morality. If God's nature or his commands allow for killing/murder then exactly why is it morally wrong for human beings to do so? Obviously, the answer must lie somewhere other than God's commands or his nature.

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.

Divine command theory (DCT) makes the concept of "objective moral values and duties" arbitrary and completely vacuous if things like genocide are allowed. That's why it is more akin to nihilism.Typically, I would assume, moral objectivists would consider genocide wrong in any context. Hence, the double standard becomes apparent with DCT which compromises the notion that morality is universal and absolute.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by YahWhat]

God commanded the Nazis to kill the Jews.
God commanded the Aussies to kill the aboriginal.
God commanded the US to kill N. American Indians.
God commanded the Cortes to kill the the S. American Indians.
God commanded the Saxxons to kill the Normans.
God commanded the Frankish to kill the everybody.
God commanded the Huns to kill everybody too.
God commanded the church to kill pagans.
God commanded the church to kill scientists.
....
This all seems consistent with God commanding the Hebrew to kill Canaan.

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with genocide, so long as God commands it.

[Goose]

So basically your excuse is "it's moral when God does it but not when humans do it." That's a perfectly fine way to cop-out I guess but notice how it necessarily follows that neither God's commands or his nature are the true standard of morality.

What I wrote was a logical refutation to your OP. Try dealing with the arguments rather than insinuating that I’m making excuses and copping-out.

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."

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

If God's nature or his commands allow for killing/murder then exactly why is it morally wrong for human beings to do so?

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

Divine command theory (DCT) makes the concept of "objective moral values and duties" arbitrary and completely vacuous if things like genocide are allowed.

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

That's why it is more akin to nihilism.

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.

Typically, I would assume, moral objectivists would consider genocide wrong in any context.

Yes, in any human context.

Hence, the double standard becomes apparent with DCT which compromises the notion that morality is universal and absolute.

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

[William]

[Replying to post 4 by Goose]

I think the problem of the biblical GOD (and any idea of this type of GOD) is that [he] is involved in the affairs of human beings and in that is inevitably stained by the immoral actions of human beings, as much as [he] is praised by the moral acts of human beings, and both moral and immoral are not altogether agreed upon by human beings.

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 read the link you gave and it reads like a variety of reasons which justify the slaughter, giving some context to the events in terms of the GODs long suffering patience and coinciding the suppose captivity of the chosen people for 400 years with the amount of time [he] allowed for the Canaanite clans to get their act together and stop being immoral.

Now it is supposed that without the right idea of GOD, no people are going to be able to get their act together morally, so at the very least there is a kind of pretentiousness involved in this type of reasoning.

Obviously time in not enough. If the ideas of GODs the Canaanite clans adhered to were false and helping to cause the immorality, and the true GOD was really the only GOD anyway, why then did not the true GOD intervene, and demand the Canaanite clans cease their wicked ways and repent?

Why did this supposed real GOD only focus upon one particular race and do these things in relation to that chosen people and not all people all over the world?

Why go about things in that manner?

Was this all that the real GOD could cope with dealing with? Shaping one race in order that other races might - through that chosen people - find their way to the real GOD and abandon the false ones?

It seems to me that this way of going about things does not speak of an idea of a GOD who is 'all powerful' but who is limited in what [he] can do and dependent upon factors which consistently require the acts of human beings on [his] part or on other beings when human beings are unavailable or unable to accomplish what [he] wants done.

GOD in relation to humanity is more accurately described as that which achieves an agenda related to human society based upon the strength, cunning, resourcefulness, brutality, situation of influence and power, financial stability etc et al.

Certainly this is how things have being shaped through that idea of GOD using a chosen people, extending that agenda through the Roman push, and from that push, the reality of today's world - wherever Christendom has managed to reach out and take, and hold on to, and in one circumstance, give to the Jew.

Islam is seen as a threat to that. That is why the author of the linked article finishes the whole thing with these words...

The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moral theory; it’s that it has got the wrong God. If the Muslim thinks that our moral duties are constituted by God’s commands, then I agree with him. But Muslims and Christians differ radically over God’s nature. Christians believe that God is all-loving, while Muslims believe that God loves only Muslims. Allah has no love for unbelievers and sinners. Therefore, they can be killed indiscriminately. Moreover, in Islam God’s omnipotence trumps everything, even His own nature. He is therefore utterly arbitrary in His dealing with mankind. By contrast Christians hold that God’s holy and loving nature determines what He commands.

The question, then, is not whose moral theory is correct, but which is the true God?

...which gives the impression that it never has been about morals but about competition and world domination.

But then, we don't have to read between the lines to see that the bible is really all about that.

The method is not important. The result is.

That hardly speaks to nihilism.

To those who complain about the method (you know who you are) I would just like to remind ya'll that without it you wouldn't be in your situations, had it not been for that method. It is all very well to say that if you were GOD you would have done things differently, and certainly I can see clearly enough why you say that, because you have been told the GOD is all powerful, so in that you can obviously think up better ways to use such power and the stories appear to contradict that the GOD truly does have such power.

So the reason given as to why the GOD does not use all-powerfulness is that the GOD wants each individual to accept [him] willingly and without reservation (but after critical consideration) but this seems to contradict the GOD having to intervene in any way, through such things as creating a chosen people - creating an individual to die for the sins of humanity, using humans to force and enforce [his] will to subdue the nations etc et al.

But again, I point out the reality of your situation and something of what about the history of the Jew and the Christian which allowed for you to now enjoy it. It isn't perfect, but it isn't as bad as it could be.

I do wonder (and have wondered for a long time) how things might be different (in relation to my opening paragraph) if any idea of this type of GOD had not been involved, and in wondering I have come to the conclusion that we would be worse off rather than better off. The GOD represents human audacity to not take no for an answer in the face of great odds, which is sometimes a good thing and other times, not.

But - in speaking to the future - I do also think that ideas of GOD have to develop/evolve if they are to take us anywhere good.

I do not think all ideas of GOD have to be expunged from the human being though. Even if that were possible to achieve.

Which is why I remain a theist. Happily so, as it turns out.