The Crippling Effect of Divine Command Theory on Moral Reasoning

Summary

In this discussion, Ozzie explores the appeal of Divine Command Theory, particularly among religious individuals, suggesting that it offers a simplified approach to moral reasoning. He argues that adherents to this theory bypass the complex, introspective process of moral deliberation by focusing solely on what they believe to be God's will. This reliance on divine commands often leads to a limited moral imagination, making it difficult for them to understand how non-religious individuals arrive at moral decisions. Ozzie emphasizes the intellectual demands of moral reasoning without divine guidance, contrasting it with the 'quick and easy' path of Divine Command Theory.

Takeaways

• 🧠 Religious believers often insist that moral reasoning presupposes a God, influenced by divine command theory.
• 📜 Divine command theory claims that morality is based solely on God's will or commands.
• 😌 A psychological appeal of divine command theory is that it simplifies moral reasoning, removing the need for deep deliberation.
• ⚖️ Non-religious moral reasoning requires careful consideration of multiple factors, including consequences and consistency with previous beliefs.
• 💭 Developing a consistent moral philosophy is an ongoing process involving reflection, reading, observation, and dialogue.
• ⏳ Moral deliberation is challenging because it often occurs under time constraints and limited information.
• 👥 Adherents of divine command theory focus primarily on determining God's will, which can lead to less consideration of real-world consequences.
• 🤔 The belief that 'the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it' is an example of how some avoid complex moral reasoning.
• 💡 People who follow divine command theory may find it difficult to understand how non-religious individuals arrive at moral conclusions.
• 🔍 A lifetime of divine command-based moral reasoning can lead to a lack of imagination and emotional capacity in considering alternative moral systems.

Q & A

What is divine command theory?

Divine command theory is a moral philosophy that asserts that moral values and obligations are dependent on God's will. According to this theory, actions are morally good, bad, obligatory, or prohibited solely based on God's commands.

Why do some religious people insist that morality presupposes a God?

The speaker suggests that religious people may feel that morality presupposes God because divine command theory allows them to avoid the complex, introspective process of moral reasoning. By relying on God's will, they can bypass the hard work involved in moral deliberation.

What is the 'hard work' of moral reasoning referred to in the script?

The 'hard work' refers to deeply reflecting on various factors, considering the interests of those affected, being consistent with previous moral decisions, and self-examining one’s biases. This process requires ongoing deliberation, emotional and intellectual effort, and revisiting one’s beliefs.

How does divine command theory spare individuals from moral deliberation?

Divine command theory spares individuals from moral deliberation because it simplifies moral reasoning to the question: 'What does God want me to do?' This allows individuals to bypass the complexities of evaluating moral situations and instead rely on their interpretation of God's will.

What are some potential dangers of divine command theory according to the speaker?

The speaker warns that divine command theory can lead to harmful actions being justified if they are believed to be divinely commanded, such as killing an 'infidel.' Since the individual's moral reasoning is centered on obedience to God, they may ignore the consequences of their actions.

What is the significance of the slogan 'The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it' in this context?

This slogan exemplifies the mindset of divine command theory followers who do not engage in deep moral deliberation. They believe that whatever is written in their sacred text is the ultimate truth, leaving little room for personal moral reflection or discussion.

Why does the speaker believe that divine command theory hinders moral imagination?

The speaker argues that divine command theory hinders moral imagination because it reduces moral reasoning to the interpretation of sacred texts, leaving individuals with limited intellectual and emotional tools to consider moral issues outside of a religious framework.

How does the speaker describe the process of reaching moral conclusions without divine command theory?

The speaker describes it as a lifelong project involving constant reevaluation, self-examination, and exposure to new arguments and evidence. The goal is to form moral convictions based on thoughtful reflection, not just passive acceptance of cultural norms.

What does the speaker mean by 'reflective equilibrium' in moral reasoning?

'Reflective equilibrium' refers to a state where a person's moral intuitions are consistent with their principles after careful reflection, adjustment, and revision. Achieving this balance is seen as a long-term goal of moral reasoning.

What is the speaker’s objective in discussing divine command theory?

The speaker aims to explain why many religious people feel that morality is impossible without God. This belief stems from their reliance on divine command theory, which constrains their ability to understand non-theistic approaches to moral reasoning.

Outlines

00:00

🧠 Exploring Divine Command Theory and Moral Reasoning

In this introduction, the speaker discusses the idea that religious individuals often claim moral reasoning requires belief in God. The focus is not on philosophical arguments about the ontology of morality, but rather on the psychological reasons behind why religious people may subscribe to divine command theory. Divine command theory posits that moral decisions are based solely on God's will or commands, which simplifies the complex process of moral reasoning for its adherents.

05:01

🤔 The Challenges of Moral Reasoning Without Divine Command

The speaker elaborates on the demanding nature of moral reasoning without the framework of divine command theory. It involves weighing multiple factors, considering long-term consequences, and striving for consistency across decisions. Moral reasoning requires deep reflection, self-examination, and an ongoing process of aligning one's beliefs with new evidence. This is contrasted with the simpler approach of divine command theory, which bypasses much of this effort by relying on God's will.

10:02

🧐 Consistency and Moral Intuition Through Reflection

Moral intuition, the speaker argues, should not merely be the product of cultural conditioning but rather emerge from thoughtful reflection. Achieving a consistent moral framework is an open-ended project requiring continuous reassessment. Moral beliefs should remain flexible and open to revision, rather than ossifying into prejudices. The speaker cautions against the temptation to dismiss objections from others, as doing so can prevent moral growth and understanding.

⚖️ Divine Command Theory’s Simplification of Moral Decision-Making

This paragraph delves deeper into how divine command theory simplifies moral decision-making by focusing on one primary question: what does God want? The speaker contrasts this with the complexities of secular moral deliberation. The divine command theorist may adhere strictly to religious teachings, even when those teachings could result in harmful consequences. The certainty provided by this belief system allows the individual to act without considering the broader implications of their actions, often resulting in a lack of deeper moral reflection.

🛠 The Consequences of Limited Moral Imagination

Here, the speaker explains how adhering to divine command theory can limit a person’s moral imagination and their ability to engage in comprehensive moral reasoning. By focusing solely on religious texts and theology, proponents of divine command theory may struggle to understand how non-religious individuals form their moral beliefs. This limitation leads to a failure to recognize that morality and moral knowledge can exist independently of belief in a deity.

📚 Moral Inquiry Beyond Divine Command Theory

In this concluding section, the speaker emphasizes that divine command theory is not being disproven, but its limitations are being highlighted. Many religious individuals who subscribe to this theory often believe that morality is impossible without God. The speaker suggests this belief stems from their narrow experience with moral reasoning, which lacks the complexity and reflection required in secular moral deliberation. The conclusion points out that divine command theory leads to a limited understanding of moral reasoning practices outside religious frameworks.

Keywords

💡Divine Command Theory

Divine Command Theory is an ethical theory that posits that moral values and duties are rooted in the commands or will of God. In the video, this concept is central as it explores how religious people, particularly those subscribing to this theory, rely on divine guidance for moral decisions. This approach is contrasted with the more complex and reflective moral reasoning that does not presuppose a deity.

💡Moral Reasoning

Moral reasoning refers to the process of determining what is right or wrong in a given situation through reflection, analysis, and weighing of consequences. The video emphasizes that for those who don't follow Divine Command Theory, moral reasoning is a challenging task requiring deep thought, consideration of multiple factors, and often revision of prior beliefs.

💡Reflective Equilibrium

Reflective equilibrium is the state of balance where a person's moral beliefs, intuitions, and principles align in a coherent manner after careful reflection. The video mentions this concept to illustrate the ideal goal of moral reasoning—a long, introspective process leading to consistent moral convictions.

💡Moral Intuitions

Moral intuitions are the immediate feelings or judgments about what is morally right or wrong without extensive deliberation. The script contrasts moral intuitions with deliberate moral reasoning, suggesting that relying solely on intuition, especially in religious contexts, can lead to inconsistent and self-serving moral decisions.

💡Psychological Factor

A psychological factor is an underlying mental or emotional element that influences a person's beliefs or behaviors. The video discusses how psychological factors, such as the desire for certainty and ease in moral decision-making, lead religious people to embrace Divine Command Theory, sparing them from the 'hard work' of moral reasoning.

💡Moral Deliberation

Moral deliberation refers to the careful and thoughtful process of considering various factors before making a moral decision. The video emphasizes that in contrast to Divine Command Theory, which simplifies moral reasoning to 'what does God want?', non-theistic moral reasoning requires extensive deliberation over potential outcomes, moral principles, and the interests of others.

💡Moral Calculus

Moral calculus is the process of systematically weighing different moral factors, such as consequences and ethical principles, to arrive at a decision. The video critiques Divine Command Theory for sidestepping this form of moral reasoning, focusing instead on divine instructions rather than the broader impact of one's actions.

💡Self-Serving Beliefs

Self-serving beliefs are convictions that primarily benefit oneself, often at the expense of others. In the video, it is suggested that followers of Divine Command Theory may adopt self-serving beliefs unconsciously, relying on the notion that 'God's will' aligns with what is ultimately good, even if it causes harm to others.

💡Moral Knowledge

Moral knowledge refers to an understanding of what is right and wrong. The video discusses how Divine Command Theory frames moral knowledge as something that comes from God, contrasting this with the idea that moral knowledge can be acquired through human reasoning, evidence, and argumentation.

💡Failure of Imagination

Failure of imagination, in this context, refers to the inability to conceive of how moral reasoning could function without divine guidance. The video argues that individuals who adhere strictly to Divine Command Theory may struggle to understand how non-religious people derive their moral beliefs, leading to a limited view of moral inquiry.

Highlights

Religious people often insist that moral reasoning presupposes a God due to psychological factors, not just philosophical ones.

Divine command theory states that morality is determined solely by God's will, making moral reasoning a simpler process for believers.

Divine command theory spares believers from engaging in the hard work of deep moral deliberation.

Moral reasoning, for those not subscribing to divine command theory, involves weighing numerous factors, including interests of those affected, precedents, and self-examination.

Arriving at moral conclusions requires ongoing introspection, revision of beliefs, and alignment with new evidence and arguments.

Achieving reflective equilibrium in moral reasoning is a lifelong process that requires emotional and intellectual effort.

A divine command theorist's moral reasoning is limited to interpreting what God wants, which simplifies the moral decision-making process.

Divine command theorists may act on commands they believe come from God, even when such actions may have harmful consequences.

The phrase 'The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it' reflects the simplicity of moral reasoning under divine command theory.

Divine command theory can lead to moral actions that ignore the suffering or consequences inflicted on others.

Believers in divine command theory may experience emotional and intellectual detachment from the real-world consequences of their moral decisions.

Such believers may justify harmful actions with the belief that God's commands are ultimately good, regardless of temporal suffering.

A lifetime of relying on divine command theory can impoverish a person’s moral imagination and hinder their understanding of non-religious moral reasoning.

For those who subscribe to divine command theory, the prospect of moral deliberation without God's commands seems daunting and hopeless.

The failure of imagination, resulting from lifelong divine command reasoning, leads some religious people to believe morality is impossible without God.

Transcripts

hi Ozzie here I thought it shares some

polemical thoughts about everyday moral

reasoning and specifically some thoughts

I had about why I think religious people

so commonly insists that moral reasoning

presupposes a God and I'm not talking

about the stated philosophical reasons

about the ontology of morality but

rather a kind of psychological factor

which is operating in people who

subscribe to something called divine

command theory and which influences

their attitude about how moral knowledge

can be acquired and before I proceed

though it's important to recognize that

not all religious people subscribe to

divine command Theory the expression

divine command theory is used in moral

philosophy to refer to any one of

several related ethical theories which

have in common that they take God's will

to be foundational to morality according

to divine command theory things are

morally good or morally bad or

obligatory or permissible or prohibited

solely because of God's will or commands

now in my view the broad appeal of

divine command Theory morality stems

from the fact that such a moral position

spares a religious person from having to

do much of the hard work that would

otherwise be involved in moral reasoning

what's this hard work I'm referring to

well if I'm asked what's the correct

course of moral action in such and such

a situation well I'll be forced to think

deeply about the situation if it's one

I'm not considered in order to identify

and way to the best of my abilities all

the relevant factors that seem to me to

be relevant to arrive at a correct moral

decision I'll take into consideration as

many of the short and long term

interests I can imagine of those who

will be directly and indirectly affected

by whatever courses of action I might be

evaluating I'll consider the sort of

precedent I'm setting for myself and for

others

I'll also strive to make my moral

decisions consistent with my previous

moral decisions in commitment

in the process I might find that I have

strong moral intuitions on the matter

sometimes even competing moral

intuitions and I may be forced to revise

my existing royal beliefs and jettison

some of them as a result of those

deliberations and as if that wasn't hard

enough I will commonly find myself under

the constraints of real time that is I

won't have as much time as I'd like to

deliberate on the matter I won't have

all of the informational and attentional

resources I would like to have about

what the intended and unintended

consequences of my action would be who

will or will not be affected and how

much such things are going to matter

further I'll have to strive toward an

unflinching self-examination of my own

interest and whatever moral intuitions I

already have to determine to what extent

my moral intuitions and inferences are

merely self-serving as opposed to

principled and I'm biased because we

operate under such constraints of time

and limited information and bias our

deliberations are frequently truncated

they're cut short or they're postponed

indefinitely in the worst cases when

we're lazy and we want to avoid the hard

work of moral deliberation we simply act

on whatever moral intuitions just bubble

up to the surface of our minds in that

moment

often in predictably self-serving ways

which contributes to the formation of a

highly inconsistent standard or position

out of a whole patchwork of mutually

contradicting decisions actions and

intuitions it takes years of serious and

deliberate and conscientious effort in

the form of introspection and reading

and observation and conversations and

sustained arguments with others before a

person can achieve a condition of

reflective equilibrium on moral

questions

so clearly producing workable and

durable moral convictions which are both

emotionally and intellectually

satisfying is an open-ended ongoing life

project so we owe it to ourselves to

deliberately expose whatever moral

conviction

we presently hold to new evidence and

new arguments other views on moral

questions as we work towards the ideal

of enduring principles that have wide

cross cultural and transgenerational

applicability it is no easy thing to

constantly reevaluate one's moral

conclusions in this way revising them

and adjusting our moral intuitions into

conformity with one another and with

whatever ideals were striving to emulate

one of the goals in all of this is to

reach a point where our moral intuitions

are not just products of what's being

passively pickled into us by our culture

but the product of the thoughtful

reflection analysis and evaluation until

our moral intuitions move us to speak

and act in a consistent way that feels

natural and automatic so that we're not

always engaged in a elaborate and

sophisticated rational process of

deliberation a permissive condition for

achieving any of this is to keep in mind

that one's moral conclusions

however hard-won and robust they might

feel to us at the moment are

nevertheless provisional and subject to

error and revision just like the most

robust scientific theory is patting

ourselves on the back and declaring that

the personal and collective enterprise

of moral inquiry is complete can only

hamper in this life project we have to

resist the tendency to dismiss

objections put forward by those whom we

disagree with or possibly regard as

moral retro sorry it reprobates because

they threatened to contaminate our

existing world vision the temptation to

insulate one's beliefs from

contamination is always strong and never

stronger than the moral beliefs are at

issue but we yield to that self-serving

and self-congratulatory temptation at

the risk of letting our moral beliefs

ossified into mere prejudices so all of

this is a heavy cognitive

a person operating under divine command

theory by comparison does not have to

exercise that much more muscle the

divine command theorists moral reasoning

is trained ultimately on only one

question what does God want me to do so

the advocate of divine command theory is

engaged in reading the mind of a

supernatural being and so the proponent

of divine commentary's and moral

reasoning is centered on trying to

understand what his theology can tell

them about what God wills if he comes to

believe that his theology says preach

the sinfulness condom use then that's

likely what he'll do more ominously if

he comes to believe his theology says

kill the infidel well then he will feel

he has a moral duty to kill the infidel

if you were to trick such a person into

believing some made-up moral preachment

was to be found in his holy texts and

thus issued from his God you probably

wouldn't need any other argument here's

a slogan you might have heard the Bible

says it I believe it that settles it

there's not a lot of moral deliberation

going on there yet some people have that

very slogan glued to their car bumpers

because a subscriber to divine command

and theories moral reasoning is

constrained in this way he's not

specially troubled by the potentially

devastating consequences of his actions

upon others both predictable and

unpredictable any suffering inflicted on

himself or others which might ensue from

this quick and dirty style of moral

reasoning is completely trumped by a

conviction that the action is right

despite any consequences which might

otherwise have intruded on his

subjective feeling of moral certainty if

he wasn't committed to the belief that

the Divine Will is the only relevant

factor in rural reasoning so long as the

proponent of divine commander is

convinced that his theology successfully

reads the mind of God he can sleep

easily at night no matter what harm he's

done no matter how much mischief he may

have done through unnecessary meddling

he will sleep well because he is adopted

into his belief set the self-serving

belief that God would never instruct him

to do anything that was not ultimately

good no amount of temporal suffering in

the here-and-now

or mischief no matter how predictable it

might be will impress him in his moral

calculus because these are all

outweighed by supernatural approval and

could even result in other worldly

rewards such as heaven now as I

described earlier producing and

intellectually and emotionally it's a

satisfying moral level

capable of guiding one's actions is a

lifelong endeavor that imposes serious

intellectual and emotional demands on a

person but by contrast the believer in

divine command theories entire style of

moral reasoning and the theological

discourse he's engaged with and reliant

upon steers him away from any of this

kind of moral calculus leaving him with

less actual experience in weighing

morally relevant factors and leaves them

with a paucity of emotional and

intellectual resources to even imagine

how moral reasoning can proceed without

divine marching orders instead all of

his intellectual and emotional resources

and energies have been diverted to a

narrow focus on what this or that sacred

text says or what this theologian or

theological tradition says about what a

supernatural being expects him to do

moral deliberation is thereby reduced to

a kind of psychoanalytic speculation

into the inscrutable preferences of a

super being a lifetime of crippling

one's moral capacities in this manner

would be enough to make anyone despair

when asked to ponder how non-theist

arrives at his or her moral beliefs it

should come as no surprise to us

therefore that people whose moral

imagination is constrained and

impoverished in this way find the

prospect of moral deliberation without

divine marching orders to be utterly

daunting and even hopeless so it's no

mystery why fundamentalists and others

who subscribe to divine command theory

reflexively repeat the Metra that

without a god morality and moral

knowledge is impossible now nothing I

said here should be construed as an

argument disproving divine command

theory though clearly some of the

liabilities i've alluded to will serve

to further discredit that style of moral

reasoning in the minds of those who

aren't given over to divine command

theory already but my objective here was

to make explicit why i think so very

many religious people feel in their very

bones that morality can't even exist

without a dog and that moral knowledge

is impossible without positing the dog

it's because they're quick and dirty

approach to moral reasoning when

practice over a lifetime results in a

failure of imagination with regards to

the moral reasoning practices of the

non-religious that's all for now and

thank you for watching