Does Morality Originate from Deity?

 by Daisy Sissons

Moses with the Tables of the Law (1624)
 by Guido Reni (Galleria Borghese)

One of the main theories that would support morality originating from God would be The Divine Command Theory, which is the belief that God created objective and eternal morals for all people to follow in every situation. This raises the thought ‘non-religious people must be immoral’ which many theories would disagree with. For example, Plato’s world of Forms is an example of reason and objectivity as an origin of morality.  It suggests that there is one objective world of forms from which morality can be found. Therefore, this suggests that morality is objective and universal.

A Divine Command Theorist would argue that morality originates from God because he created objective morals from his nature which is omnibenevolent. The morals that he created are clearly laid out in religious texts such as the 10 Commandments in the Bible. A strength of the Divine Command Theory is that it provides an objective moral code and objective set of moral principles for all religious people to follow. St. Thomas Aquinas said that humans need faith to be ethical and this is because God created humans in his image and therefore we must follow the morals which he commands, because we have a need to find eternal happiness, in the form of heaven. 

However in Plato’s book, Euthyphro he raises what is commonly known as the Euthyphro Dilemma. It has two main criticisms of the Divine Command Theory. Firstly the Independent Standard side, which asks: does God command a moral law because it is right? If yes, this would lead us to believe that God is following some kind of moral code from an external source. This challenges the Divine Command Theory because it suggests that God is not omnipotent and thus he is not omnibenevolent either. If this is true and God is receiving orders from an independent standard, why not go directly to that rather than through the medium of God? Secondly, the Euthyphro Dilemma raises the Arbitrariness Problem which states that if the Moral Law is right because God commands it then the Moral loses meaning and becomes arbitrary as God could simply change his mind at any time. For example the story of the plagues of Egypt would suggest that God commanded murder, thus making murder moral which goes against the 10 Commandments. 

In response to this dilemma, theologian Robert Adams came forward with the modified Divine Command Theory which aimed to give an answer to both of these problems. Adams claimed that, because God’s nature is all-loving and perfectly good, it is impossible for him to be immoral. Adams proposed the idea that an action is wrong if, and only if, it is against God’s will. This is because his commands are bound up in his nature, and therefore He would not and could not command something immoral. Adams proposed the idea that an action is wrong if and only if it is against God’s will. I would counter that this is a relatively weak argument because, although God could be an omnibenevolent being, the Modified Divine Command theory does not provide sufficient explanation for the inconsistencies, highlighted by the pluralist objection, within the area of morality. 

In addition, the argument from pluralism notes that there are many different ethical views and laws in different religions which further challenge the Divine Command Theory. For example, in Islam it is seen as immoral to eat pork, however in Christianity there a very few (almost no) food laws. This subjectivity implies we, as humans, should make up our own minds as to what is wrong and what is right, which disproves the statement that God created objective morals. Additionally, within religions there are many different ways in which scriptures are interpreted differently. The story of Abraham being ordered by God to sacrifice his  son Isaac is an example of this. Some theologians might argue that this is simply a parable that is not necessarily historically accurate but instead shows the importance of trusting in God because ultimately God stops Abraham and saves Isaac. However, others might take it more literally and suggest that God is commanding murder, therefore going against the 10 commandments and this must surely be immoral. In my opinion, these examples provide a strong argument against the Divine Command Theory because it clearly shows the arbitrariness of God’s commands, particularly in relation to God’s supposedly good nature and his loving commands; this does not stand up to scrutiny..

Lastly, the psychologist Eric Berne suggests that although children are born ‘tabula rasa’ (as a blank slate) they quickly pick up morals from their parents (extero psyche) which are internalised and then acted upon in later life. So, if a young child sees that shouting will win an argument, they will likely utilise this in later life, and therefore their morality originates from context and environment. There are many examples which support this such as the fact that children who have an alcoholic parent are more likely to become an alcoholic themselves in later life. This would support Berne’s theory because there is a clear correlation between a child’s upbringing and its later formation of moral principles. I believe that this does directly challenge the Divine Command Theory, alongside the strength of the Euthyphro dilemma, and provides a logical explanation for the origins of morality. Therefore, there is clearly evidence to support a different source of morality other than of God.

In conclusion, I believe that the Euthyphro Dilemma strongly challenges the Divine Command Theory. The arbitrariness problem disproves the existence of objective, eternal morals as God can choose to command whatever he wishes. This is supported by the passage in the Old Testament in which he orders Abraham to murder his son; this appears not only arbitrary but also unloving in nature. Secondly, the pluralist objection highlights the inconsistency of God’s commands, such as the different food laws in different religions. Therefore, morality cannot originate from God but rather other sources of morality such as the environment, seem more convincing. But ultimately, the problem lies with connecting a supposed all-loving God with a series of arbitrary commands. In the final analysis, the weight of evidence points towards morality not originating from a divine being.