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!

[Bust Nak]

It's his pitch. It's a standard Christian pitch. They pretend to be moral cretins in the hopes that we'll want to become like them.

I give them the benefit of the doubt: I assume they're lying.

But it's hardly unfair of me to report their claim. Their claim is that, absent god, no behavior is morally preferable to any other. Rape is as good as kindness.

It's perfectly fair to report their claim, the problem here is accuracy, the only thing wrong with X is Y, is quite different to there is nothing wrong with X, but he avoid X because of Y. Y is explicitly stated as the thing that is wrong with X.

He's saying, in effect, "I may not personally be into rape, just like you may not personally like the flavor of rhubarb, but, without god to make moral rules for us, there wouldn't be any reason to condemn rape. Morally speaking, it would be as good as any other behavior. There would be nothing wrong with it. In fact, there is nothing wrong with it aside from the fact that god has forbidden it. The only thing wrong with rape is that god forbade it. My personal distaste is not morally relevant."

That's the point, the essence of divine command theory.

That much is accurate, I can grant you that, but the fact is as far as divine command theorists are concern, there is a god to make moral rules for us, hence rape is not as good as any other behavior, there is something wrong with it.

The fact that they always pick an example that we think is wrong anyway is telling.

Granted.

His point is that there is nothing actually wrong with rape...

No no no. His point is there is one thing actually wrong with rape!

Or with any other behavior. (I'm not calling him a sociopath; I'm calling him a liar.) He doesn't do terrible stuff because of his god delusion. According to him, that's all that holds him back.

According to him that's all that is making it wrong. That's quite different from that all that is holding him back. You are suggesting that according him, he would start raping if there is no god to ban it. (and he wouldn't thus making him a liar.) Where as he hasn't said that he would at all.

He follows orders like a guard at an extermination camp. That's his idea of morality. It doesn't matter what the orders are as long as you follow them. He personally doesn't like rape, so he personally is happy that the order is to not do it rather than to do it, but morality consists of following the order.

That much is accurate.

The moral argument does not consist of saying...

I am no supporter of the moral argument, I'll let WLC's supporters handle this bit.

[Bust Nak]

I'm with wiploc on this one, BN. I issue you a challenge: put yourself in WLC's shoes, and explain to me what is wrong with rape, and all without mentioning or even hinting at God/divine command theory.

No can do. The one and only thing wrong with rape is because God says it is. You don't get to accuse me [in WLC's shoe] of saying there is nothing wrong with rape.

This matters because as the resident moral subjectivist, I am known for stating things along the lines of "the one and only thing wrong with rape is that it goes against my personal preference." Are you guys going to start accuse me of saying I don't see anything wrong with rape, and the only reason I avoid it is my personal distaste?

[Goose]

And your own argument goes something like this: Rape is only wrong because god says so, and god only says it is wrong because he is good and rape is bad.

Setting aside the self contradiction, and the fact that I have fudged some subtlety in the first clause because I don't understand your position (do you really not think command theory has to do with commands?), the difference that I can see in your position and Craig's position is that he uses the deliberately inflammatory phrasing.

No, that’s not my argument (nor would it be Craig’s I’m quite sure). Also, I explained why it isn’t my argument in my last response in the section regarding the Euthyphro dilemma. But you ignored that portion of my post altogether. Alas here you are assigning the very same argument to me once again.

You said that divine command theory entails objective moral values and duties. I'm trying to learn how that works. I don't think it does work. I think it's just a claim. So I want to see an explanation.

You’ll have to explain what you mean by you don’t think it works. Clearly it works in one sense. It has been working for millions people for a very long time. Or when you say you don’t think it works, do you mean to say the logic is invalid? But then how is the logic invalid to say divine command theory entails objective moral values and duties? Or maybe you mean to dispute the existence of objective moral values?

And I'll never get that explanation of your your morality works if we start talking about how my morality works.

False. We can examine both at the same time. I’m just as interested in your morality as you are in mine. We can compare your meta-ethical theory to divine command and see which is a better overall framework.

Look, you’ve already conceded the point of the thread. So the thread is effectively over as far as I'm concerned. From where I stand we are now just discussing things because there are some interesting talking points. I see no reason for you not to discuss your morality. What’s more is you are continually making moral judgments about God. Which invokes the question, on what moral grounds are you making these moral judgements?

Right back at you. If you aren't willing to defend divine command theory, then don't claim that it produces objective moral values and duties.

I have defended it. And you haven’t overturned that defence.

I am willing to defend my morality, as I have previously stated. But I am not willing to be thrown off the scent. I'm not willing to abandon this discussion and switch to another.

I’m calling your bluff. I don’t think you can defend your morality. I think what’s happening here is you wish to sit back and pick apart divine command theory and morally judge God without having to justify anything yourself. Sadly, this is become the all-too typical atheist approach.

You won't explain it. You just think we should surrender because you call him god. I'm asking why we should obey god, and you won't explain.

I think you should surrender because he is God. That it’s God giving the commands is more than sufficient reason that you should align your behaviour with those commands.

That's absurd. A nonexistent god would be far greater than the Christian god. Fewer genocides, fewer absurdities and self contradictions. You can't just declare that something is the greatest thing possible and expect to be taken seriously.

~(X) > (X). Talk about absurd.

And you certainly can't say it as a matter of definition. Because, for all we know, that rock over there is the greatest thing in existence, and you just declared it to be your god.

One absurd statement after another.

There we go. A reason for your morality to be universally binding. That's what we want from you, that reason. Don't try to change the subject, just answer the question.

Divine command theory 1, atheist morality 0.

I said, don't try to change the subject.

You are missing your chance to even the score.

How does that work? Why is he the ultimate standard? What's good about him?

He’s the ultimate standard of good because he is God. Your last question isn’t coherent in light of what I just said. If God is the ultimate standard of good (if he defines what is good – i.e. God is the Good), then to ask what is good about God is incoherent. It would be like asking what is good about the standard of what is good? How does one rationally answer such an incoherent question? It only makes sense to ask what is good about X in relation to God.

We have opinions about what is good. Rape is bad. Niceness is good, that kind of thing. Your god is arbitrary. vicious, genocidal, tortures people forever. Not a nice guy. Not even a medium guy, to hear the Christians describe him. What with that stuff about eternal torment in Hellfire, I think it's fair to say that Jehovah is the worst person ever. Or he would be if he existed.

Meaningless argument from personal outrage without justification for your morality. On what moral grounds is God “the worst person ever�?

You say rape is bad. But why, on atheism, is rape bad? Why, on atheism, is genocide bad? Take God out of the picture and morally justify why these things are immoral.

So when you say he is the standard of goodness, that leaves people dumbfounded. "If that's goodness, who needs it?" That's obviously not what anyone else means by "good." That's not a standard that is useful. It's pointless. If that is goodness, why would anybody want to be good?

But what is your standard of goodness and why is that morally binding on me?

Hand waiving much? You say this isn't handwaiving, but you refuse to explain what is good about your god. You won't even say how he's a better standard than Charles Manson.

I can’t say how God is a better standard than Manson because to do so implies either Manson is the standard of good (which seems absurd) or there is some other ultimate standard of good aside from God by which we are measuring God in relation to Manson. It’s like asking how is the standard of good, better than Manson? It’s not a coherent question to ask a divine command theorist. Or if you are asking how is God better than Manson is relation to standard (X), then I need you to articulate what standard (X) is and why that is the standard of good.

Serious questions should get serious answers. This is an opportunity. You have an audience here, people who want to know the answer to this specific question. Don't waive it away.

I’ve given you a serious answer.

I don't get it. He doesn't seem good. What if I said he was the standard of evil? Would you accept that unchallenged?

You can say whatever you wish about God. But without a moral foundation of your own, why should I take seriously anything you say about God’s morality?

And this is characteristic of theistic apologists. The conclusion I draw is that you don't really have an argument. You just have some formulaic assertions that you can't defend. And you can't defend them because there is no defense. It's not just you personally, but Christians as a group. None of you know of a reason to obey a god.

I’ve logically defended the theory at every single point you’ve raised. All you’ve done up until now is ask questions like how does that work, demand further explanations, and thrown around some moral rants. Aside from pointing out the Euthyphro dilemma (which I addressed) I can’t see where you’ve offered anything which seriously threatens divine command theory.

I'm sure there are good things about your god, just as I'm sure there are good things about Manson, but Manson never drowned the world, and he never tortured anyone for eternity. So, I think it is fair to say that, as far as unbiased observers are concerned, your claim is unsubstantiated.

You are assuming there is some ultimate standard of morality out there by which we can measure God’s actions and Manson’s. What is that standard?

Plus, you seem once again to be holding your god up to some standard of goodness that is prior to him.

I think I’ve been very clear that God is the standard.

So you know the reason, but you choose to keep it secret?

The reason for what? That Manson falls short of God’s standard for good? That should be self evident.

That's a circular argument.

Okay then, grounding for morality in the ultimate standard of good. Divine command theory 2, atheist morality 0.

That's your assertion again, not an explanation of your assertion, not a justification of your assertion. How is a god's command more binding than Manson's command?

Because God is the ultimate authority. Manson is merely a man. But you are free to follow Manson if you so wish. No one is stopping you.

The assertion is that God’s commands are binding. The justification for why they are binding is because they come from God, the ultimate authority. So I have provided justification despite your assertion that I haven’t. Now, you might argue that isn’t sufficient justification which is something different and I might ask why it isn’t. But what you cannot say is that I’ve not offered justification. That’s simply false.

People want to know the answer to that question, and the appearance is that your team has no answer.

Well so far my team is winning 2-0. Even a child intuitively understands this simple principle of authority. The moment little Bobby tells his younger sister, Sally, it’s eight o’clock and time to go to bed Sally rightly objects, “You aren’t the boss of me.� Sally understands that Bobby’s command carries no weight and she under no obligation to comply because Bobby isn’t an appropriate authority. It’s just Bobby, another child like her. Who is Bobby to say it’s time to go to bed? It’s only when Bobby says to Sally, “Mom and Dad said so� does sally recognize this as a command which carries weight and is binding upon her because it has been issued by an appropriate authority.

You have to admit that I could easily match that performance in justifying atheist morality.

I don’t have to admit any such thing because you simply won’t offer any justification for atheist morality whatsoever. When asked to do so, you just accuse me of shifting the burden. Then you sneak in these little comments about how atheist morality is just as good. Then I ask you to justify that and you accuse me of shifting the burden. It’s kinda funny actually.

So tell me about atheist morality. What is it ultimately grounded in? Why is it morally binding?

[wiploc]

Or with any other behavior. (I'm not calling him a sociopath; I'm calling him a liar.) He doesn't do terrible stuff because of his god delusion. According to him, that's all that holds him back.

According to him that's all that is making it wrong. That's quite different from that all that is holding him back. You are suggesting that according him, he would start raping if there is no god to ban it. (and he wouldn't thus making him a liar.) Where as he hasn't said that he would at all.

No, I don't say that he would rape, even according to him.

Other terrible stuff, he would presumably do, but rape doesn't appeal to his personal tastes.

If he saw someone doing rape, it would be like seeing someone eating strawberry ice cream when he prefers chocolate. He wouldn't choose that himself, but there are no grounds there for censure.

---

I didn't say Craig claimed he would be a rapist without god. That is a misunderstanding which I disavow and repudiate. I apologize if my verbal clumsiness lead to that impression.

[Bust Nak]

No, I don't say that he would rape, even according to him.

So why compare him to a sociopath?

Other terrible stuff, he would presumably do, but rape doesn't appeal to his personal tastes.

Why presume there are terrible stuff that does appeal to his personal taste?

If he saw someone doing rape, it would be like seeing someone eating strawberry ice cream when he prefers chocolate.

He wouldn't choose that himself, but there are no grounds there for censure.

Without a God then sure, but that much is obviously since divine command theory wouldn't work without the divine.

[wiploc]

No, I don't say that he would rape, even according to him.

So why compare him to a sociopath?

He claims to be one. He doesn't use that word, but he claims that he's just doing as he's told, that he doesn't have any morals of his own.

Other terrible stuff, he would presumably do, but rape doesn't appeal to his personal tastes.

Why presume there are terrible stuff that does appeal to his personal taste?

We make a lot of choices in the course of a lifetime. If we assume that he made god in his own image, then he can agree with god on everything, and that will make sense. But if we assume that god is a separate person--particularly if we assume that god is not the kind of moral nitwit who doesn't even know that rape is wrong--then it would be a real fluke if they just happened to agree on everything. The odds against that would be astronomical, like the odds against a tornado constructing a 747 in a junkyard.

[William]

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!

nihilism
noun
the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.

I am still not convinced that the idea of the biblical GOD-creator even fits the criteria of DCT let alone who's commands resulting in immoral actions by others can be aligned with the generic understanding of nihilism.

The understanding I get from the overall stories assigned to the biblical GOD is not that [he] wants all life to end on the planet, but rather that [he] wants (specifically) all human life to behave in a particular manner which reflects the outward manifestation of maturity -in action - rather than the outward manifestation of immaturity.

In all cases (that I can recall anyway) where [he] is said to have curtailed the life of those who [he] regarded as acting in persistently evil (immature) manner, [he] used some type of natural device in which to do so.

Also it is noted that [he] protected what [he] considered to be good (mature) although there are instances where 'supernatural' device was used for that purpose - something otherwise unable to be explained and thus thought to be miraculous.

My point being that the GOD is not altogether against human life living nor for that matter is the GOD definitively shown to viewing all human life as meaningless, which of course, nihilism does.

There are times where the GOD is said to have been sorry for making a command and having it done. This does no speak of a being who looks lightly upon any action [he] takes, decision [he] makes or lacks understanding or basic concern regarding the consequences of [him] visiting evil upon others through the device of others.

I am not convinced that the commands attributed to this GOD are altogether proven to be overall bad for the human race (see my post #10 for more detail re that) but I do appreciate that this can and has been used inappropriately in history and it is extremely hard to tell the genuine from the contrived, but this is why I think any immoral actions done in the name of any GOD - including the biblical one - have to be recognized as immoral of itself so that there can be no confusion. In that, I would also include all ancient documentation as been in that category. Thus, the biblical stories as well. Those who believe in such - as far as I am concerned - are morally questionable and their belief in such stories as not only being true, but something any GOD would implement on command, are beliefs of the willfully misled.

Willfully misled = immature.