Divine Command Theory
The Divine Command Theory was pointed out by one of the commenters. The entire post is worth reading and I hope you have time to visit. In it, the Euthryphro Dilemma is considered, among other things. Here is a posited question:
“Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”
There follows discussion concerning several historical answers to that question. I will quote The Daily Duck here to ask the question another way:
Taking x to be any act agreed to be morally wrong (eg. child murder), then
(Horn 1) does God say that x is wrong because it is wrong; or
(Horn 2) is x wrong only because God says it is?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Welcome back. I hope you took the time to read the post. Even if you have not, I will continue.
I suggest that there is a basic flaw inherent in the question. The flaw is this: How is what is "morally wrong" determined? Who decides what is wrong or right?
If you say that God decides what is wrong or right, then only He has the right to declare what is right and what is wrong. Therefore if God is the final authority you would have to say say that "x is wrong because God says it is and since He is the one who determines right and wrong, it is also wrong because it is wrong." Therefore the question is not a matter of one or the other, it is actually both.
There is a good chance that you do not like that idea. Okay, so if God does not determine right or wrong, who does? Is it my decision? Is it yours? Give yourself a chance to consider.....
You may say that right and wrong just "is", not as a determination by God and not by man but as an absolute that is out there. Oh? Who said? Who has determined this?
You may say that the mature, responsible man must decide what is right and what is wrong. But will all men come to the same conclusion? Of course not.
I await the commments. However, from my point of view it is pretty simple. God created all things including the concept of right and wrong. He created right and anything that is not right is wrong. Wrong is available because although God himself did not create it, He allowed for it by giving choice to sentinent beings so that they might choose right or wrong in any given situation. He also gave them the option of avoiding that choice by remaining innocent.
Innocent? Yes, in the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve were unaware of the difference between good and evil. They were therefore innnocents. But they chose to acquire the knowledge of good and evil. Unfortunately once they had that choice that also meant that they would at least sometimes choose the evil.
Over the centuries the philosophy of man has blurred the distinction between good and evil in many instances and among men there is disagreement in many areas. There is not a concensus concerning good and evil. So if you decide that man must choose, that he is the one who is to follow his own moral code you will get different codes for different men. This is quite obvious. For a Humanist, therefore, when it comes to right and wrong there is not one absolute, there are no absolutes.
If you believe that God has set forth a moral code that is absolute then you have a standard to which you may adhere. This is the position of the Christian. It then falls to the Christian to understand God's code and follow it.
We know that Christians are not perfectly wonderful at following God's moral code. But they have a standard, an absolute, a goal to which they seek to attain. It is the same from generation to generation.
Humanists have no absolutes when it comes to right and wrong, for they have no final authority. It is then called into question how Humanists are ever certain that what they are doing is right or wrong, for in the end they are only doing what is right or wrong as determined by their own reasoning and conscience.
“Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”
There follows discussion concerning several historical answers to that question. I will quote The Daily Duck here to ask the question another way:
Taking x to be any act agreed to be morally wrong (eg. child murder), then
(Horn 1) does God say that x is wrong because it is wrong; or
(Horn 2) is x wrong only because God says it is?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Welcome back. I hope you took the time to read the post. Even if you have not, I will continue.
I suggest that there is a basic flaw inherent in the question. The flaw is this: How is what is "morally wrong" determined? Who decides what is wrong or right?
If you say that God decides what is wrong or right, then only He has the right to declare what is right and what is wrong. Therefore if God is the final authority you would have to say say that "x is wrong because God says it is and since He is the one who determines right and wrong, it is also wrong because it is wrong." Therefore the question is not a matter of one or the other, it is actually both.
There is a good chance that you do not like that idea. Okay, so if God does not determine right or wrong, who does? Is it my decision? Is it yours? Give yourself a chance to consider.....
You may say that right and wrong just "is", not as a determination by God and not by man but as an absolute that is out there. Oh? Who said? Who has determined this?
You may say that the mature, responsible man must decide what is right and what is wrong. But will all men come to the same conclusion? Of course not.
I await the commments. However, from my point of view it is pretty simple. God created all things including the concept of right and wrong. He created right and anything that is not right is wrong. Wrong is available because although God himself did not create it, He allowed for it by giving choice to sentinent beings so that they might choose right or wrong in any given situation. He also gave them the option of avoiding that choice by remaining innocent.
Innocent? Yes, in the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve were unaware of the difference between good and evil. They were therefore innnocents. But they chose to acquire the knowledge of good and evil. Unfortunately once they had that choice that also meant that they would at least sometimes choose the evil.
Over the centuries the philosophy of man has blurred the distinction between good and evil in many instances and among men there is disagreement in many areas. There is not a concensus concerning good and evil. So if you decide that man must choose, that he is the one who is to follow his own moral code you will get different codes for different men. This is quite obvious. For a Humanist, therefore, when it comes to right and wrong there is not one absolute, there are no absolutes.
If you believe that God has set forth a moral code that is absolute then you have a standard to which you may adhere. This is the position of the Christian. It then falls to the Christian to understand God's code and follow it.
We know that Christians are not perfectly wonderful at following God's moral code. But they have a standard, an absolute, a goal to which they seek to attain. It is the same from generation to generation.
Humanists have no absolutes when it comes to right and wrong, for they have no final authority. It is then called into question how Humanists are ever certain that what they are doing is right or wrong, for in the end they are only doing what is right or wrong as determined by their own reasoning and conscience.