A common view among religious, and even some secular, philosophers is that just as conventional laws require lawmakers, morals also require some ultimate source. The Divine Command Theory is the view that moral actions are those that conform to God's will.
Charity, for example, is morally proper because God endorses it, and murder is wrong because God condemns it. But, where does God get these moral values? If they come from a still-higher power, he cannot be morality’s supernatural source. If they do originate with him, what if he commanded otherwise? If God is free to set moral principles as he chooses, he could just as easily have decreed murder morally right. If things are neither right nor wrong independently of God’s will, he cannot chose one thing over another simply because it is right.
“Where will be his justice and his wisdom if he has only a certain despotic power, if arbitrary will takes the place of reasonableness, and if in accord with the definition of tyrants, justice consist in that which is pleasing to the most powerful?” (Gottfried William Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, 1686)
We gain no advantage and are no more compelled to obey God’s commands than we would be to obey arbitrary rules set by our best friend or our worst enemy.
A Divine Command theorist might say such a situation is impossible; that God is all-good and, as such, would never accept killing as morally right. “Particularly important is the belief that (3) God is loving, and therefore does not and will not command such things as (e.g.) the practice of cruelty for its own sake.” (Robert Merrihew Adams, A New Divine Command Theory, Moral Philosophy: Selected Readings) The Divine Command Theory tells us that good actions are willed by a good supreme being, but it fails to tell us what makes something good. It does nothing to increase our understanding of morality.
If we cannot, with certainty, point to God as the creator of moral law, is it any more acceptable to see him in the role of divine enforcer? The Divine Command Theory tells us heaven is the reward good people get for being good and bad people who commit bad acts are banished to hell. If the fear of punishment is the only reason to obey God, he is little more than a schoolyard bully.
And, if the only reason for acting moral is a desire to go to heaven – if it is only out of self-interest or self-preservation (ie. avoiding hell) – it could be argued that such a person is not a good person and should be sent to hell.
Do human beings really need such threats in order for them to control their private behavior? Today, when moral arguments are made, the appeal is rarely to God’s power to punish. Instead, it is more often to practical rewards – a good reputation, a clear conscience and promotion of the public good. It must be recognized that these appeals influence the behavior of believers and non-believers alike.
Suppose, however, today’s preachers and moralists were to return to morality based on God’s will. One question remains: there are many different gods. Christians and Jews worship God; Muslims pray to Allah; Wiccans perform their ceremonies for the goddesses and Sikhs look to the ten Gurus for guidance. If only one of these is the one true source of morality, millions of people around the world may act morally, but are inspired by, commanded by the wrong god. The simple fact that these people are behaving morally, regardless of their religious affiliation, should put to rest the idea that there is only one God who is the source of all things moral.
And, what of atheists? People with no belief in any form of god have shown themselves capable of behaving morally. Buddhism is a very different religion from Christianity. It stands against sin and immorality, but it ignores the issue of God’s existence. It provides no answers about the ultimate meaning of existence. By denying the ultimate meaningfulness of life, Buddhism provides its followers with little motivation to conquer evil or to work for justice. Although the nearly 400 million Buddhists worldwide follow many different forms of Buddhism, all of its traditions are characterized by non-violence, tolerance of differences and the practice of meditation to develop wisdom and compassion. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
Many philosophers agree that universal moral standards are required for the proper functioning of society, but a belief in God turns out to be unnecessary. As with criminal laws, so with morals: humans are quite capable of making sensible and sensitive decisions about their personal conduct. “Without in the least teaching common reason anything new, we need only to draw its attention to its own principle, in the manner of Socrates, thus showing that neither science nor philosophy is needed to know what one has to do in order to be honest and good, and even wise and virtuous.” (Immanuel Kant, Morality and Rationality, Moral Philosophy: Selected Readings)
We have developed moral and legal systems and we have improved them. As interpersonal relationships develop, rules are established. These rules work toward mutual satisfaction and, with them, we develop a sense of right and wrong. From this basic need for cooperation come laws and ethics. People can find common ground on the issue of moral behavior without a knowledge of, or belief in, Divine Command. Morality does not come from God. Morality emerges because it serves humanity.
