Modified Divine Command Theory is an altered version of the original Divine Command Theorydeveloped by Robert Adams. The original Divine Command Theory is a theory which teaches that moral truth does not exist independently of God and that morality is determined by divine commands. However The Euthyphro Dilemma-written by Plato raises the question; ‘Is something good because God commands it? Or does God command it because it is good?’- In summary; does God make the standards or does he follow them?
Christian thinkers believe Divine Command Theory is an explanation for The Euthyphro Dilemma; however from this belief that whatever God commands is objectively good, stems some significant criticisms.
One of which is the problem of abhorrent or commands; If God commands things to be good then he can surely command things like murder and terrorism to be good? This would mean God can make evil things good; thus redefining the meaning of good. An example of this in the book of genesis is the story of Abraham; when God arbitrarily commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac in a burnt offering, although God doesn’t persist and allow Abraham to carry out the sacrifice, the command still remains arbitrary and seemingly not the action of an omnibenevolent God.
Another main issue arisen from Divine Command Theory is the fact that if goodness is independent of God, then God is hampered and must refer to a standard of goodness; hence he isn’t needed to determine what goodness is.
Robert Adams offers an updated version of Divine Command Theory, in which he states we must assume God is omnibenevolent, and that this is in fact a nature or characteristic of God.
Adam’s states that a ‘wrong action means contrary to God’s commands’. This idea that God is all loving can be used to counter-argue that God could make abhorrent commands, although Adam states that in modified Divine Command Theory it’s possible that God could make abhorrent commands, however it is ‘unthinkable that God should do so’-based on the fact that God is all-loving. Adams states that ‘an action is wrong only if it goes against the commands of a loving God should be a necessary truth not a contingent one’, meaning it’s a fact God is all loving therefore this statement is true, therefore God will not make abhorrent commands due to his perfect nature.
The modified Divine Command Theory also succeeds in avoiding the first horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma (that if an act is morally good because God commands it, then morality becomes arbitrary).The issue that arises from this first horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma is that we could be morally obligated to inflict cruelty upon others simply by God commanding us to. This is avoided in Modified Divine Command by stating that morality doesn’t come from God’s commands, instead it’s rooted in his nature, which is unchangeable. Therefore morality is not arbitrary nor would God command cruel acts for his own sake because God’s Omni benevolence is unchangeable and part of God.
Modified Divine Command can also be viewed to avoid the second horn of The Euthyphro Dilemma; which is God is the source of morality, and morality is rooted in the nature of God- therefore God is not subject to an external law because he is, in a way, the moral law. The moral law is part of God’s nature, which is absolute and unmodifiable.
However modified Divine Command is not an absolute answer, and does appear to have flaws-one of which Baggini pointed out, Adam’s Modified Divine Command could be seen to simply further extend the dilemma- and now raises the question; ‘Is God’s nature good because it is good, or good because is it Gods?’.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
