How many wars and arguments could be resolved with the answer to one question: Who is God; to unquestioningly understand where we come from and the detailed characteristics of that Being who made this world, reality? It’s been the cause of both bloodshed and enlightenment. But we are left to ponder and discover the answers for ourselves; often with the aid of some truly brilliant minds. Nearly 2,400 years ago Socrates questioned Euthyphro, “[I wish to understand whether] the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.” The Euthyphro problem has deep complex roots questioning the character of God and motivations to follow our ultimate Judge. Is God impotently bound to eternal principles of morality which in turn He asks us to follow; or is He the author, judge, and executioner; omnipotently commanding His furiously righteous desires upon us? The divine command theory, according to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, “holds that all moral requirements derive from God’s commands.” This definition would suggest the later question of God’s commanding, unchecked omnipotence; that morally good acts are morally good solely because God has deemed them so, completely depending upon Him. The support of and discountenance of the divine command theory is the philosophical core to the Euthyphro problem. Renowned philosophers have reinforced and abased the theory since it was proposed by Socrates. In debating this theory you debate the divine characteristics of God. That He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. The prime characteristic that comes into question with the divine command theory debate is His omnipotence.
In support of the divine command theory enthusiasts have said that because God is omnipotent that means He can literally and freely do whatever He pleases. Lord of lords and King of kings; He is not dependent on anyone, anything or any principle. In saying that, this means that He can make good, evil and evil, good. With this omnipotence comes an omni-dependence of literally everything (mathematics, principles, existence itself) upon him. William J. Wainwright quotes Descartes, “’Eternal truths,’ such as those of mathematics or morality,’ depend on God alone, who, as the supreme legislator, ordained them from all eternity.’” Perhaps the angles of a triangle equal two hundred degrees on another world simply because God wants it to equal two hundred degrees there; however, He wants it to equal one hundred eighty degrees here and so that should be the only reason necessary and be the end of all debate. Suppose however that there are eternal principles that drive morally good choices. Does that mean that God is impotent because he chooses (and it is solely His choice) to obey eternally true principles? Does driving on the correct side of the road make you impotent to driving on the incorrect side of the road simply because you choose to obey the law? You still have the option; you can choose to drive wherever you want. What if it is the will of God to want eternally true principles so wholly, that His will would never contradict the eternal principles? He would still be omnipotent, He would still have the power to do whatever He desires but His will is so refined that it is perfectly in sync with eternal truths: triangles’ angles equal one hundred eighty degrees everywhere because it is an eternal truth and it is the will of God. But also in saying this you could say that eternal truths and God are dependent upon one another and for God to disobey an eternal truth would cause Him to no longer be God. And for God to no longer exist we could no longer exist. God being omnipotent yet limited to eternal truths at the same time becomes very complicated and contradicting, which inversely, is where the divine command theory excels.
The divine command theory is so very simple – God is all powerful, therefore, whatever He commands is truth. If He commands two plus two to equal five then it would happen. The human mind is limited to human logic and illogical statements such as two plus two equals five could never exist, but it could make sense if God wanted it to. For us to understand Him we need God to be the greatest conceivable being. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy states, “[God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent] Many philosophers (influenced by Anselm) have seen these properties as deriving from the property of being the greatest conceivable being. God is the greatest conceivable being and so he has all the great-making properties.” Omnipotence is all in the definition of itself; in which an impotent being opined of knowing what omnipotence should be defined. Is the pen truly mightier than the sword? The answer is subjected to the eyes of the beholder. All in all there is one thing that both divine command theorists and disputers can agree on: there is a God. To believe in God it is not too far-fetched to also believe in the existence of the devil.
Ultimately what is the reason for our existence here on earth? Is it not to test our will to see if we will choose the things loved by God over those loved by the devil? Or did God simply create us for His entertainment; to watch the ultimate reality show? Life has a purpose and it is to return to live with God in heaven. God is supremely benevolent; He did not create evil. But evil is prevalent wherever you look. Suppose that God is not bound to eternal principles; why then would he allow the devil to exist? Is the idea of the devil simply an idea to lay blame on whenever we sin and there is no devil at all? That cannot be; this proposition suggests that God Himself is the creator of evil, thus making him not supremely benevolent. Wainwright paraphrases George Rust saying, “If God isn’t essentially just and truthful, if nothing in his nature prevents him from lying to us or breaking his covenant with us, then we have no basis for trusting him or for believing that what he has declared to be his will (in scripture, through the church, and so on) really is his will. A commitment to theological voluntarism [divine command theory] thus makes the practice of morality impossible.” Perhaps God cannot do evil simply because whatever He will’s is good even if it was once evil (as the divine command theory suggests) and created evil which in a divine command theorists mind could only be good because it is His will to create it. If this were the case there could never be evil because God’s will is always good. Suppose we set this idea aside and we reason that which is against God’s will is to be considered evil. One question remains: why allow evil to even persist? It is because we are here to be tested! God did not create us just for fun. He has a plan. To think otherwise simply makes no sense and we might as well abandon this whole discussion if there essentially is no reason to live this life in accordance with God’s commandments. We are just as dependent on the good in this world as we are dependent upon the evil. We depend on the evil to exist because we need to prove that we can be trusted to not commit evil acts. We need to be pulled in opposite directions to see what we will do; therefore, the suggestion that there needs to be evil in this world reasons that God depends upon something outside of Himself and according to the divine command theory, God cannot depend upon anything. This is where opposition to the divine command theory pulls ahead: to know that God does depend (notwithstanding is in perfect sync) with eternal truths. Does this make God impotent? As was previously stated, an impotent being cannot comprehend what omnipotence is; therefore, suggesting that God depends upon something outside of Himself does not strictly mean He is impotent.
The divine command theory is simple and drives home that simplicity with some force; however, fails when saying that everything depends upon God. Wainwright explains, “Note first that not even the voluntarist can reasonably claim that everything depends on God’s will, ‘for instance, this will itself; his own existence…’ and so on…Nor can one reasonably assert that the fact that God’s will and existence don’t depend on his will limits his sovereignty.” In the end the idea of God relying on eternal principles to uphold his righteousness begins to be just as simple as the divine command theory but with a more solid logical foundation. All in all, the true reason to study God is to grow closer to Him, discover His will, and become more like Him. Either thought process puts the mind in a correct direction; on a path of becoming a more morally conscience person.
WORKS CITED
Honderich, Ted. Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford, GBR: Oxford University Press, 2005 http://site.ebrary.com/lib/apus/docDetail.action?docID=10233754&force=1&p00=the+oxford+companion+philosophy
Plato (translated by Benjamin Jowett). Euthyphro. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
Rahimi, Simin. “Forum Philosophicum.” International Journal for Philosophy; Autumn2009, Vol. 14 Issue 2, p307-328, 22p http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=106&sid=de665b9b-7e2b-4462-84d2-91b273baafbb%40sessionmgr114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=47567575
Wainwright, William J.. Religion and Morality. Abingdon, Oxon, GBR: Ashgate Publishing Group, 2005 http://site.ebrary.com/lib/apus/docDetail.action?docID=10211471
