Divine command theory

Followers of both monotheistic and polytheistic religions in ancient and modern times have often accepted the importance of God's commands in establishing morality.

Although "divine command" is the standard term in the literature, God addresses people in all sorts of ways.

The scholastics distinguished between five different forms of God's revealed will, and they can be summarized in a Latin dactylic hexameter, "Praecipit et prohibet, permittit, consultit, implet".

[3] Philosophers including William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), St Augustine (354–430), Duns Scotus (c. 1265–1308), and John Calvin (1509–1564) have presented various forms of divine command theory.

DCT can be a plausible theory to Christians because the traditional conception of God as the creator of the universe parallels the idea that he created moral truths.

[4] Saint Augustine offered a version of divine command theory that began by casting ethics as the pursuit of the supreme good, which delivers human happiness.

However, unlike Plato, he believed that achieving a well-ordered soul had a higher purpose: living in accordance with God's commands.

[10] Scotus argued that the natural law, in the strictest sense, contains only what is self-evidently analytically true and that God could not make these statements false.

And it is certain that all the precepts of the second table belong to the natural law in this second way, since their rectitude is highly consonant with first practical principles that are known necessarily.

Schools Relations with: Whilst Thomas Aquinas, as a natural law theorist, is generally seen as holding that morality is not willed by God,[16] Kelly James Clark and Anne Poortenga have presented a defence of divine command theory based on Aquinas' moral theory.

[6] The deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant has been cast as rejecting divine command theory by several figures, among whom is ethicist R. M. Hare.

[17] American philosopher Lewis White Beck takes Kant's argument to be a refutation of the theory that morality depends on divine authority.

[18] John E. Hare challenges this view, arguing that Kantian ethics should be seen as compatible with divine command theory.

[17] American philosopher Robert Merrihew Adams proposes what he calls a "modified divine command theory".

Adams writes that his theory is an attempt to define what being ethically 'wrong' consists of and accepts that it is only useful to those within a Judeo-Christian context.

Divine motivation theory is similar to virtue ethics because it considers the character of an agent, and whether they are in accordance with God's, as the standard for moral value.

[25] Zagzebski argues that things in the world have objective moral properties, such as being lovable, which are given to them through God's perception of them.

[26] The theory casts God as a good example for morality, and humans should imitate his virtues as much as is possible for finite, imperfect beings.

Proponents of the Euthyphro dilemma might claim that divine command theory is obviously wrong because either answer challenges the ability of God to give moral laws.

[31] Robert Adams defended Ockham's view, noting that it is only a logical possibility that God would command what mankind considers to be immoral, not an actuality.

[6] Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann have responded to the Euthyphro dilemma by appealing to the doctrine of divine simplicity, a concept associated with Aquinas and Aristotle which suggests that the substance and attributes of God are identical.

[32] American philosopher William Alston responded to the Euthyphro dilemma by considering what it means for God to be morally good.

Alston contended that God is the supreme standard of morality and acts according to his character, which is necessarily good.

Edward Wierenga counters this by claiming that whatever God chooses to do is good, but that his nature means that his actions would always be praiseworthy.

[6] Michael Austin draws attention to an objection from autonomy, which argues that morality requires an agent to freely choose which principles they live by.

Robert Adams challenges this criticism, arguing that humans must still choose to accept or reject God's commands and rely on their independent judgement about whether or not to follow them.