What is the Divine Command Theory and what are its effects?

[playhavock]

Hello and welcome, the topic of this debate will be on:

"What is the Divine Command Theory and what are its effects on ethics?"

Truely Free has agreed to this with an eagerness that I think will show up in the debate.

This debate will not be to the high standards of Informal Logic that I normally adhere to, although I will be sighting problems in Truely Free's logic and augments, and pointing out logical fallacies, I will not be dismissing Truely Free's points merely due to the fallacies themselves, rather the point will be to educate Truely Free on informal logics stance in such matters and my goal will be to dismantle the points via the augments themself.

To make sure this is clear for the readers and my worthy opponent, I will say (X) is (Y) logical fallacy, but I will not be dismissing (X) due to this.

I will dismiss (X) only if I can argue against (X) using Truely Free's own logic and previous augments, it should prove quite a challenge for me to do this - but I welcome it.

The reason for the lesser degree is due to Truely Free's understanding of informal logic is not high as yet, and I want to encourage them to learn more about it, part of that will be in doing this debate, as often we learn by doing and the rest will be up to them to go and learn logic for themself. (Although I offer any help I could in that matter)

Our format will be the standard format of welcome, opening, rebuttal to opening, and rebuttal to rebuttal (tentatively, we have 3 possible rebuttals set up, this might be reduced to 2) and closing augment and conclusions at the end.

I thank Truely Free for her time to debate this matter and her eagerness to learn logic, something that I support her effort in doing!

With all this said, it is time to set aside emotions and focus on our augments at hand. Let us begin.

========


DCT is in essence the idea that God commands and we follow those commands and are thus doing moral actions. (Reference 1 & 2)

For the purpose of this debate I will not be arguing if there is or is not a God but focusing solely on DCT itself.

Although there are already several objections to DCT, Euthyphro dilemma, Moral motivation, Semantic objections, and so on (reference 1), I will not be addressing these augments but instead attempt to make new augments. (Although mine might be similar to some of the augments presented due to overlap of key issues)

References are included for overlapping points.

I am making here three augments that I am going to be defending throughout the debate.

If the augments are sound, this will show that DCT is:

Destructive to ethics (argument 1).
Useless in functionality (augment 2).
Lacking in utility (augment 3).

--

Augment One:

DCT destroys ethical choices.


Premise One: DCT suggests that whatever God orders is moral and we should do whatever God commands.

Premise Two: Ethics requires us to be able to make choices of what is or is not moral, to be able to question ideas and morals and choices.

Conclusion: DCT destroys the idea of the ethical choice making in whole.

(Reference 3)

--

Argument Two:

There is no way to know what God has or has not commanded, thus no way to know what morality is.

Premise One: Everyone who believes in any God makes claims of knowledge regarding this God, be those claims from their religion, or personal ideas, or some combination there-of.

Premise Two: There exists no empirical method of deducing if God said any of the things claimed to be said of God.

Conclusion: There is no way to be sure that you are in fact doing the moral orders that God commanded to do or not to do, making DCT useless in functionality.

(Reference 4)

--

Augment Three:

Devine Commands found in Christianity and some other religions do not cover modern problems thus are not a comprehensive morality system.


Premise One: Most religions are old - that is to say they have been around awhile, even modern religions like the Mormon Church or Scientology offer morals and ethics that are grounded in things that seem not relevant to modern issues and problems of ethics. Business practices, Human rights, scientific advancement (i.e.: cloning) are all some examples of things that many religions say nothing about.

Premise Two: DCT indicates that God commands moral things for us to follow yet we find no commands for or against many of the modern things we deal with.

Premise Three: Most religions project that God knows the future; as such we should expect God to tell us how to deal with problems of this era in writing if not in words today, yet God remains oddly silent on the issues we face.
Premise Four: Since God is apparently not saying anything on today’s issues we should conclude that the morality it offers is not comprehensive as it does not cover modern issues.

Conclusion: Morally ordered by God of the Christians and some other religions as well is not comprehensive. Although this does not mean it is false, it does show the weakness of DCT - even if morals ordered by God are valid, we must now derive morals from something else as God is no longer active in giving commands. This makes DCT useless in utility.

(Reference 5)

--


These conclusions lead to several critical questions:

If we cannot gain morals for current problems from Divine Commands, we must gain morals from something other than God - and if this is the case for modern issues where we must make our own morals, why do we need God to issue any commands at all?

If we cannot be sure if God is even commanding the morals it is said to, then why not use human moral made commands?

If we can and it seems we must make our own morals to deal with current problems, why rely upon commands that are not comprehensive?

--

It is reasonable to conclude that DCT is not only destructive to ethics, but even if true it would still be useless in practical functionality, and its utility in regards to modern problems is non-functional.

As such, we should dismiss DCT as an ethical or moral grounding and instead look to secular ideas for ethics and moral grounding.


====

Reference 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory

Reference 2 - Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Ethics; Chapter 4, Page 38

Reference 3 - Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Ethics; Chapter 4, Page 39

Reference 4 - http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ch ... s-problem/

Reference 5 - Ethics Without God, Kai Nielsen - http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/ (number 6 on the list, final paragraph)

[Truely Free]

[playhavock]

Rebuttal to Truely Free's opening. (Several notes are given to help her in parentheses for sharping logic)


Truely Free

All that is necessary for this argument is that I provide a basis that the Christian world-view (true or false) provides a platform on which the finds a positive outcome.

Even if I granted all 3 arguments, I do not see this being the result - the goal here is not yet met, the dots are not connecting to this end. The current three arguments taken in total suggest that DCT produces the idea that God commands (X) and that a person obeys those commands out of love, rather than fear.

The problem that I see is although this seems to shine a positive light (love vs. fear), it does not show the commands themselves are in fact moral; one can obey, or not - but one cannot question the commands. Thus, the ethical ability to question is still dismantled and destroyed. (My first argument).

Having not quite met your goal, I'd say that this sharpens my first argument, tentatively speaking.

(Note One for logical fallacy: If this was the conclusion, it would be the informal fallacy of "Does not follow," due to the conclusion not following the arguments - the arguments or conclusion should be reformatted to avoid this error if possible)

---
Truely Free

As argued it states that ethics, like all other things, require a beginning. This theory states that ethics have it’s beginning in the Command of God. It states that the reason why we as humans can define something as objectionably good or evil above and beyond definition of culture or personal preference is because God has created the definition. I will be using this definition in my first argument.

Is the beginning of ethics God? This seems to be the question this conclusion assumes, but even if God, which one? Even if we grant a general God not of any religion - what commands did it issue?

These questions point right to my second argument and its conclusions.

Now, the question of objective morals or ethics is a tricky one - and one I'd rather not go into for this debate, as it would require its own debate by and large. I will grant in this debate that morals are objective, but not grant that this means they are from God.

I would say that morals are as objective as any law we have. By objective, we mean it is true even if a person does or does not know it is true. A law like running a red light is objectively true, even if someone had no idea it was - breaking that law can have serious consequences - it might not, but there must be a fine or punishment assigned no matter the ignorance of the person to that law.

Similarly, it is said of many Christians that everyone has knowledge of either the law or morals (depending on who you ask) written in their heart, and so in the end, no one is with an excuse; we all "know" how to behave well - some Christians claim.
My point here is that morals can be seen as objective even if humans have made them.

Since morals could be objective from humans, then we do not need commands issued by God. More to the point, since we cannot be sure what God is the God who first issued said morals, what choice do we have than to rely upon human made ethics? Even if God did in fact make ethics and morals, given my second argument, we still it seems discard DCT as a viable way to formulate ethical grounding.

----

Now to deal with the arguments Truely Free presents.

Truely Free

Argument 1:

Premises 1: Divine Command Theory addresses the origin of morality.

Premises 2: Moral Obligation does not address the origin of morality.

Conclusion: The Divine Command Theory does not address Moral Obligation.

I must congratulate Truely Free on a perfectly formatted argument here.

p1: (A) addresses (B)
p2: (C) does not address (B)
C: (A) does not address (C)

Very well done here! I find no logical flaws to pick apart.

Also, upon its conclusion I agree and in fact it will be used to argue in favor of my arguments. and thus I grant this argument in full.

I will be referencing this argument as "TF1".

Truely Free

Argument 2:

Premises 1: God gives Commands.

Premises 2: One can choose to obey or disobey commands.

Conclusion: Once can choose to obey or disobey God.

Here we have a slight error in formatting. One could argue the language of "commands" in P2 is not necessarily the commands of God, and thus the conclusion no longer follows. This would be the logical fallacy of equivocation. You could fix this minor issue by adding "of God" to the end of P2. Alternately, you could add a third premise to clarify the matter.

This might seem like a quibble, but although we call the system "informal logic" (and yes, people debate the wording of that!), the structure and rules are such that we must iron out even the smallest problems to have the best argument possible.

As it stands, I cannot grant the conclusion, as P2 might not be referring to God's commands, and thus the conclusion might not follow. Although I am assuming to know what your argument is in order to illustrate the correct approach to a logical argument format.

However, in light of the fact that I can assume this to lead where I think it leads, and I am sure you will fix the error in formatting, I think that I should allow this to be.

The conclusion here if I do grant it would not, as far as I can fathom, interfere with my arguments at all. I will then, be tentatively granting this argument on the contingency that Truely Free will fix the formatting in P2 and/or add a third (or fourth) premise to clarify the issue.

I will be calling this "TF2"

--
Truely Free

Argument 3

Premises 1: Fear of punishment influences the choice to obey or disobey a command

Premises 2: The Christian doctrine of Salvation relieves fear of punishment.

Conclusion: The Christian doctrine of Salvation removes the influence of punishment on the choice to obey or disobey a command.

Here we run into a different type of problem with P1 - for it cannot be said that fear of punishment influences choices for all people at all times.

To make this argument stand correctly, it would need to be changed into what is known as a probability argument - those differ from deductive arguments as TF1 and TF2.

The probability argument makes a probability statement like "most, many, typically," or other terms such as that to indicate that the statement is not to be viewed as globally universal in nature. Such arguments can be sharpened with data to show how often people will in fact do or not do what the argument is arguing for (or against). In this case, if Truely Free could show that (X) number of people are, in fact, influenced by fear of punishment from various studies, then she could have a very strong probability argument.

Since P1 here seems to be global, it would have to be rejected on that ground.
However, I see other issues with the argument other than logical formatting, as if I granted it even tentatively speaking, I would have to ask what reasons Christians now have to obey commands if fear is not the factor.

We can see, looking back on Truely Free's goal, that we could extrapolate an assumed idea here that seems warranted.

I think that Truely Free's goal here was to say that love, not fear, drives the Christian to obey commands - but that argument is simply not made; the premise does not exist, and it should! This would not only make the argument more robust, but also lead towards Truely Free's goal.

Now as it stands, I happen to not be concerned with this argument either, as it does not pose any issue for my arguments. Because I want to ask those critical questions, I will again be granting this argument tentatively speaking, and contingent upon it being properly formatted so I can do so.

I shall be referencing this argument as "TF3".

---

I am granting all three arguments because I do not view any of them being consequential to mine, as none of the conclusions pose problems for my standing.

TF1:

Moral Obligation is a factor in some ethical ideas and some ethical foundations, not all of them. The fact that DCT does not address Moral Obligation could be seen to make DCT less utilitarian than my third argument concludes. Thus, by granting TF1, I sharpen my third argument.

Argument Four: Moral Obligation can be included, and its exclusion shows a lack of utility for DCT.

P1: Moral Obligation can be part of a comprehensive moral system.

P2: Moral Obligation is not addressed by DCT as TF1 concludes.

Conclusion: Since Moral Obligation is not addressed and can be part of a comprehensive moral system, and it is not found in DCT, this means that DCT lacks in this area, and thus can be seen to be not comprehensive.

Possible objections: Other Ethical systems also lack Moral Obligation. However, grouping DCT with those systems does not help DCT to be more comprehensive, and thus this possible objection must be discarded.

-

TF2 & TF3:
What reason is there to obey the Commands issued by God? And again, what God?

TF3 suggests that fear of punishment is removed, so why should one obey the commands issued by God?

Since I've tentatively granted TF2 here, I must point out that TF2 and TF3 taken together actually promote no positive reason to obey the DCT itself!

Argument Five: There seems to be no positive reason to obey Divine Commands.

P1: DCT does not have to be obeyed from TF2.

P2: TF3 removes fear of punishment for not obeying Divine Commands.

P3: DCT offers no positive reason for obeying it thus far.
Conclusion: DCT cannot promote a positive reason for obeying commands from the divine.

----
Truely Free

Conclusion:
Because of my first argument, we cannot argue the efficiency of Moral Obligations ( I must do this, I must not do this) based on the DCT alone, but must apply a method of translating the DCT into action:

Because, God commanded this I must obey this. This is how I know it is true. This is how I account for mistakes exc.

How does one apply DCT into a method? There is no argument for this idea. I agree that efficiency of Moral Obligations based on DCT alone is not warranted - thus sharpening my argument that DCT lacks utility given above (argument four). I cannot, however, grant the conclusion that the action entails what Truely Free suggests.

(informal fallacy note: The "Does not follow" fallacy would be applied to this conclusion)

----
Truely Free

Because of my second argument we can conclude that, even if we were to apply religion, there is no obligation placed on man to be moral. Even with fear of punishment and with the presence of a conscience people have every ability to choose to disobey moral guidelines, thus ensuring that morality is always achieved by choice. One chooses to be good, just as one chooses to be evil.

I do not see this following from TF2. I would agree that the conclusion that God's commands do not place any burden on man to be moral, as I raised this issue in
Argument Five.

I do not see any connection, however, to moral guidelines other than directly related to DCT - and this seems to suggest all moral guidelines. (Global reference rather than particular reference)

You suggest here that people choose to be good or evil, and I agree; it seems that people can and do choose these things without using the DCT at all, bringing into question why the DCT is useful at all, reflecting upon the issue that DCT is useless -

I could then include this as another argument to build up my second argument thus:

Argument Six:

P1: People can do good or evil without the DCT.

P2: Ethics and morals are concerned with doing good or evil.

Conclusion: DCT is not required for ethics or morals, making it rather useless as a system.

-
Truely Free

Because of my third and final conclusion we see that even the compulsion of fear of punishment if banished through the doctrines of the Bible. Whether the doctrines are true or not, they provide a frame of mind where the only compulsion for moral living is love, not fear.

The conclusion of the compulsion being love is not made in any previous argument, as I've already pointed out this issue above, but must do so again since the same error is made here. It simply does not follow since it has no arguments to support it.

Although it seems that I do agree that fear is being banished as I granted (tentatively) TF3, I cannot as yet accept this conclusion with no argument to support it.

(Informal Fallacy note: A secondary fallacy might be one of irrelevance - what does it matter if the compulsion for moral living is love, fear, or any other emotional or physical desire?)

Truely Free

This provides for a pure and selfless moral law in all who live by it.

I must ask if "moral law" is taken to be equal to "divine command," because they are very different terms and mean very different things.

Since we are not debating moral law but divine commands, I must take this to be a conclusion that is not connected with the debate at hand.


(Informal fallacy note: "Does not follow" as well as the formal fallacy involving Natural language - here ‘moral law' might mean ‘divine command,' but we are not informed of this; thus, we can’t extrapolate the meaning of these words without proper definitions and/or arguments)

-

To summarize - every argument my opponent has made I've either granted or tentatively granted, and then used to strengthen my own arguments.

The conclusions either help my arguments or do nothing to affect my arguments at all, and do not lead us to conclude that DCT is useful to ethics at all, or even that it is neutral in regards to its effects on ethics and morals. DCT still stands as a potentially useless system, lacking in utility, and being still, by definition, destructive to ethics.


Conclusion:

I cannot at this time conclude that DCT is worth salvaging as an ethical or moral system; as such, I still submit that we turn to secular ideas for ethics and morals.



Perhaps my opponent will show how my arguments are flawed and thus my conclusion is somehow in error during her rebuttal to my opening. We shall see.





==============================
(Notes: since my opponent reads my rebuttals, she gets to plan ahead, shoring up her previous arguments as she argues against my arguments, and planning for the rebuttal of these arguments as well. Recall that my opponent must rebuttal my opening; still, she does have a chance to fix problematic errors in reference to these rebuttals. This is allowed in the format of informal logic.

As long as she is not addressing the rebuttals I've made, there would be no formal issues. Some formats are looser than others in this regard; typically a moderator of the debate would iron out any issues and/or lay out the rules and enforce them.)

[Truely Free]

[playhavock]