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.