PHILOSOPHY - Religion: God and Morality, Part 2

Summary

In this philosophical discourse, Stephen Darwall from Yale University explores the divine command theory, questioning whether morality is inherently God's commands. He examines various reasons one might follow God's commands, such as God's knowledge, concern for our well-being, superior authority, or love for God. Darwall argues that in each case, the reasons imply the existence of independent moral truths, suggesting that the divine command theory, which posits God as the source of all morality, is flawed. He also discusses the implications of obeying God due to His omnipotence, highlighting the distinction between power and moral obligation.

Takeaways

• 📜 The divine command theory posits that morality is derived from God's commands, but Stephen Darwall challenges this view by questioning the nature of God's authority in establishing moral laws.
• 🧐 Darwall suggests that if morality is based on God's commands, it implies there are independent moral truths that God is aware of, rather than creating them.
• 🤔 He explores different reasons people might follow God's commands, such as considering God an 'epistemic authority,' but argues that this does not equate to God creating moral law.
• 👨‍⚖️ The concept of 'epistemic authority' is likened to trusting someone with more knowledge on a subject, but it does not grant them the power to create laws or truths.
• 🔍 Darwall examines the idea that following God's commands could be based on their benefit to human well-being, but this also presupposes independent moral facts about what promotes well-being.
• 🏛️ He discusses the possibility of God having 'superior authority,' similar to a sergeant or legislature, which can make something required or forbidden, but this too implies a pre-existing moral obligation to obey.
• 💖 The argument that one should follow God's commands out of love for God is also critiqued, as it assumes the moral correctness of responding to loved ones' wishes, independent of divine command.
• 🚫 Darwall concludes that if any of these reasons are valid for following God's commands, it suggests that moral truths exist independently of God's commands, thus contradicting the divine command theory.
• 💪 The alternative of following God's commands solely due to His omnipotent power is considered, but this reduces God's commands to force, which cannot create moral obligations.
• 🔒 Darwall emphasizes that morality cannot be created by force alone and that it is logically impossible for it to result from mere power.
• 📚 The script is a philosophical exploration of the relationship between divine authority and morality, challenging the divine command theory's validity.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the lecture by Stephen Darwall?

The main topic of the lecture is the exploration of the relationship between morality and God, specifically discussing the divine command theory and its implications.

What is the divine command theory?

The divine command theory is a philosophical view that suggests morality is derived from God's commands, meaning what is right or wrong is determined by what God commands.

Why does Stephen Darwall believe the divine command theory might be attractive to some?

Stephen Darwall suggests that the divine command theory is attractive because it can explain the sense that morality transcends earthly laws or social understanding.

What is an 'epistemic authority' according to the lecture?

An 'epistemic authority' is a term used by philosophers to describe someone or something that is believed to know better than others what should be done, and whose say-so is trusted without requiring personal knowledge of the subject.

Why does Darwall argue that treating God as an epistemic authority does not support the divine command theory?

Darwall argues that if one follows God's commands because God knows better, it implies that there are independent truths about morality that God knows, rather than God creating those moral truths through His commands.

What is the issue with the argument that we should follow God's commands because He knows what is good or bad for us?

The issue is that this argument assumes morality must concern what promotes human well-being and prevents suffering, which implies that there are moral facts independent of God's commands.

What kind of authority does Stephen Darwall discuss as a possible reason for following God's commands?

Darwall discusses the authority of a sergeant over a private or a legislature over its citizens as a type of authority that can make something required or forbidden by their command.

Why does Darwall say that if God's authority is the reason for following His commands, the divine command theory would be false?

Darwall argues that for any authority to create requirements or prohibitions, it must already be true that we ought to follow their commands, which implies that the moral obligation to follow God's commands is independent of His commanding them.

What is the alternative perspective that Darwall presents regarding following God's commands?

The alternative perspective Darwall presents is following God's commands out of love for God, suggesting that we should do what those we love ask us to do.

How does Darwall refute the idea of following God's commands out of love for God in relation to the divine command theory?

Darwall refutes this by stating that if love for God is the reason for following His commands, it assumes that responding to the wishes of loved ones is right independently of God's commands, which contradicts the divine command theory.

What does Darwall suggest would happen if we followed God's commands solely because of His omnipotent power?

Darwall suggests that if we followed God's commands only because of His omnipotent power, we would lose the moral obligation and instead be compelled by force, which is not how moral law can be created.

Outlines

00:00

📜 Divine Command Theory and Morality

Stephen Darwall, a philosophy professor at Yale University, introduces the concept of divine command theory, which posits that morality is derived from God's commands. He challenges this view by considering various reasons one might believe in the theory and argues that each reason implies the existence of moral truths independent of God's commands. Darwall uses the analogy of epistemic authority to illustrate that knowing something does not equate to creating law, and similarly, God's knowledge of moral truths does not mean He is the source of them. He also explores the idea of God's authority being akin to that of a sergeant or a legislature, suggesting that true authority would require adherence to commands based on a pre-existing moral framework, not merely on the command itself.

05:02

🛡️ Moral Obligation Beyond God's Power

Continuing the discussion on divine command theory, Darwall addresses the potential argument that one should follow God's commands due to His omnipotent power. He points out that viewing God's commands as obligatory only by force would equate them to laws created by coercion, which is logically inconsistent with the nature of morality. Darwall emphasizes that true moral law cannot be the result of force, and if one follows God's commands solely out of fear or obligation due to power, it loses the moral significance that comes from recognizing God's goodness and authority. The subtitles for the video are provided by the Amara.org community.

Keywords

💡Divine Command Theory

Divine Command Theory is the philosophical concept that moral obligation and rightness are derived from the commands of a deity. In the video, Stephen Darwall discusses this theory as a potential explanation for the source of morality, suggesting that it can account for the transcendent nature of moral principles. However, he also critiques it by arguing that it fails to establish that morality is inherently tied to God's commands alone.

💡Epistemic Authority

Epistemic Authority refers to the authority of an individual or entity to be trusted as a source of knowledge or information. In the context of the video, Darwall uses this term to describe the idea that one might follow God's commands because they believe God has superior knowledge of what is right and wrong. However, he argues that this does not imply that God creates moral law, but rather that there are independent moral truths that God is aware of.

💡Moral Law

Moral Law, in the script, represents the set of principles that define right and wrong conduct. Darwall discusses the possibility that these laws are independent of God's commands, suggesting that the existence of moral law is not contingent upon divine decree but rather exists as a set of truths that God may understand but does not create.

💡Transcends

Transcends, in this video, is used to describe the idea that morality exists beyond any earthly or societal constructs. Darwall uses this term to express the common belief that moral principles are not confined by human laws or understanding, which is a point that the Divine Command Theory attempts to explain.

💡Superior Authority

Superior Authority is the concept of having higher or greater power, often in a hierarchical sense. Darwall mentions this in the context of God having a kind of authority that could potentially make something right or wrong through command. However, he also points out that such authority presupposes that it is already morally right to follow the commands of those in authority.

💡Omnipotent Power

Omnipotent Power refers to the unlimited or absolute power that God is often believed to possess. In the video, Darwall suggests that if one were to follow God's commands solely because of His omnipotent power, it would not establish a moral obligation but rather a compulsion by force, which is not how moral law is created.

💡Human Well-being

Human Well-being is a concept that Darwall uses to discuss the idea that one might follow God's commands because they believe God knows what is good and bad for humans in terms of benefits and harms. This concept is tied to the argument that there are independent moral facts about what promotes well-being and prevents suffering.

💡Moral Truths

Moral Truths are the fundamental principles or facts about what is morally right and wrong. Darwall argues throughout the video that there are such truths that are independent of God's commands, which contradicts the Divine Command Theory's claim that God is the source of all morality.

💡Philosophy

Philosophy, in the context of this video, is the discipline that Stephen Darwall teaches at Yale University. It is the field of study that deals with fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. The video itself is a philosophical exploration of the relationship between morality and the concept of God.

💡Yale University

Yale University is an Ivy League research university in New Haven, Connecticut, where Stephen Darwall is a professor of philosophy. The mention of Yale University establishes Darwall's academic credentials and the context in which he is discussing the Divine Command Theory.

💡Moral Obligation

Moral Obligation refers to the sense of duty or responsibility to act in accordance with moral principles. In the video, Darwall explores the source of this obligation, questioning whether it comes from God's commands or from independent moral truths.

Highlights

Divine command theory suggests that morality is based on God's commands, but it doesn't necessarily mean morality is the same as God's commands.

If God's commands are followed because He knows better, it implies God is an 'epistemic authority', not a law-making authority.

An epistemic authority's knowledge depends on independent truths, not their own say-so.

Following God's commands for His superior knowledge implies there are independent moral truths that God understands.

If God's commands are followed for what is good or bad for us, it assumes morality concerns human well-being, independent of divine commands.

Authorities can create requirements or prohibitions because it is already true that we should follow their commands.

God's superior authority can make something right or wrong through His command, but it must be wrong to violate His commands independently of His commanding it.

Following God's commands out of love assumes it is right to respond to loved ones' wishes, independent of divine commands.

The divine command theory would be false if we follow God's commands for any of the discussed reasons, as it assumes independent moral truths.

Following God's commands solely due to His omnipotent power loses the moral obligation and reduces it to force.

Morality logically cannot result from force alone, as it must be based on independent moral truths.

The contrast between God's power, authority, and goodness is essential for understanding the divine command theory.

God's commands cannot be seen as simply imposed without obligating us morally.

Law, in general, cannot be created by pure force, and the same applies to moral law.

The discussion explores the philosophical implications of the divine command theory and its limitations.

The transcript provides a critical examination of the divine command theory and its assumptions about morality and God's role.

The philosophical arguments presented challenge the notion that God is the sole source of all morality.

Transcripts

(Intro music)

My name is Stephen Darwall,

and I teach philosophy at Yale University

in New Haven, Connecticut.

And today I want to discuss[br]morality and God.

The divine command theory[br]is an attractive view

precisely because it can explain our sense

that morality transcends any earthly law

or social understanding.

Still, that doesn't show that morality

is the same thing as God's commands,

in the sense that if there were no

divine commands, then nothing[br]would be right or wrong.

To see this, let's assume again that

(1) God exists and[br](2) that it's wrong to

violate God's commands.

And let us consider different[br]reasons we might have

for thinking that it's wrong[br]to violate God's command.

Suppose you think we[br]should follow God's commands

because God knows better than[br]we do what we should do.

If that's your attitude,

then you're treating God[br]as what philosophers call

an "epistemic authority."

You're believing something[br]on God's authority,

on his say-so,

that is, because God believes it.

This is a natural attitude to have.

We frequently believe[br]things on other's authority.

If a friend of yours knows[br]much more than you do

about the law of Missouri in the 1840s,

then you might reasonably be inclined

to believe something[br]just because she does.

But her having this epistemic authority

would not mean that she[br]has the kind of law-making

authority that can create law.

Her thinking something was the law

would not actually make it[br]the case that it was the law.

To the contrary, her[br]having epistemic authority

would itself depend on there[br]being independent truths

about the law in the 1840s

in Missouri, of which she has knowledge.

So by analogy, if your reason for thinking

you should follow God's command is that

God knows better than you do

what is morally right and wrong,

then it would not follow that God

makes the moral law.

To the contrary, it would[br]follow that there are

independent truths about the moral law

of which God has knowledge.

So if that were the reason[br]to follow God's commands,

the divine command[br]theory would not be true,

it would be false.

Or suppose you think you should follow

God's commands not because[br]he knows the moral law,

but because he knows what[br]is good and bad for us.

Not in moral terms, but[br]just what would make us

better or worse off,

what would benefit us or harm us.

But if that's your reason,

must you not be assuming that it is true,

independent of anything God commands,

that morality must somehow concern

what promotes human well-being[br]and prevents suffering.

So here again, if this is why you think

you should follow God's command,

you must be assuming that there are facts

about morality that are[br]independent of God's command.

Or suppose you think[br]you should follow God's

commands because God[br]has superior authority

over us, something in[br]the way a sergeant does

over a private, or a legislature[br]does over its citizens.

This reason does avoid the problem

that afflicted the last two.

Such authorities really do seem to be able

to make it the case that something

that would otherwise[br]not have been required

or forbidden in itself

is required or forbidden, just because

they forbid it or require it.

So if God has authority of this kind,

then he can make something right or wrong

through his command.

But notice that the only way authorities

can create requirements or[br]prohibitions in this way

is if it is already true that we

ought to do as they command.

It's only because the[br]sergeant has authority

over the private that the private must do

as the sergeant commands.

In other words, the fact that the private

must obey the sergeant can't itself result

from the sergeant's command.

That has to be true independently

of anything the sergeant commands.

So by analogy, if the reason we should do

what God commands is that he has superior

law-making authority over us,

then it must be true[br]that it would be wrong

to violate his commands,

quite independently of his commanding it.

And if so, the divine command[br]theory would be false.

Or suppose, finally, that[br]you think you should do

what God commands because you love God,

and we should do what[br]those we love ask us to do.

But here again, if that's[br]your reason for thinking

it would be wrong to deny God[br]obedience to his commands,

you must be assuming that it is right

so to respond to the[br]wishes of those we love,

and that this is true independently

of whether God commands us to do

what those we love ask us to do.

It seems, then, that if[br]we think we should do

what God commands for[br]any of these reasons,

we must also assume, not that[br]God is the source of morality,

but to the contrary:

that God cannot be the[br]source of all of morality.

In each case, we must assume[br]that there are moral truths

that are independent of God's commands,

so we must assume that the[br]divine command theory is false.

Now, we could avoid all of these problems

if we were to think not[br]that we should follow

God's commands for any of these reasons,

but just because of[br]God's omnipotent power.

But then we would lose the contrast

between God's power and his authority,

and his goodness.

We would have to see his commands

as simply imposed us[br]in a way that does not

obligate us morally,

but rather that obliges[br]or compels us by force,

just as law, in general, cannot[br]be created by pure force,

so neither can the moral law.

It's logically impossible for morality

to result from force.

Subtitles by the Amara.org community