Divine Command Theory (DCT) attempts to preserve God's "good" status by essentially
defining good in terms of God's commands. Here's how:
* Good is what God commands: DCT argues that an action is morally good if and only if God commands it. Conversely, an action is morally wrong if and only if God forbids it. In its purest form, there is no independent standard of goodness; God's commands *create* the standard.
* God's nature ensures good commands: Proponents of DCT often argue that God's nature (e.g., omnibenevolence, omniscience) guarantees that God will only command things that are ultimately good or beneficial. They reason that a perfectly good and all-knowing God would never command actions that are inherently evil or harmful in the long run. Some versions of DCT say that God commands what is good because it is good, meaning God's nature makes the act good and, thus, God commands the act. Other versions of DCT say that an action is only good because God commands it.
* Resolving moral dilemmas: DCT provides a seemingly clear way to resolve moral dilemmas. If you're unsure whether an action is morally right, you simply determine what God has commanded (or would command) in that situation.
Here's a breakdown of why this approach is used to preserve God's "good" status:
* Avoids a higher standard: Without DCT, you might be forced to judge God against some external standard of morality. For example, if you believe that causing unnecessary suffering is inherently wrong, and then you see something in religious texts that appears to depict God commanding or allowing such suffering, you might have to conclude that God is not perfectly good. DCT avoids this by claiming that God *is* the standard, so God cannot violate a standard that God defines.
* Maintains God's authority: If morality is independent of God, then God's commands become advisory at best. If moral laws exist independently of God, then God is subject to them. Thus, God is not supreme. DCT safeguards God's sovereignty by asserting that moral authority originates from God.
However, there are some classic criticisms of DCT that should be considered:
* The Euthyphro Dilemma: Plato's dialogue *Euthyphro* raises the question: Does God command what is good because it is good, or is it good because God commands it? If the former, then morality exists independently of God, undermining DCT. If the latter, then morality seems arbitrary. God could command cruelty and it would be good simply because God commanded it.
* Arbitrariness: If goodness is solely defined by God's commands, there's no reason why those commands couldn't be completely arbitrary. God could command anything, no matter how intuitively evil, and it would instantly become morally good. This seems to undermine the very idea of a meaningful moral system.
* Empty Praise: If "God is good" simply means "God does what God commands," then it's a tautology and doesn't offer any meaningful information about God's character.
* The Problem of Interpretation: How do we know what God actually commands? Different interpretations of religious texts can lead to conflicting moral conclusions.
In conclusion, Divine Command Theory is a philosophical attempt to ground morality in God's will, which is used to preserve God's status as the ultimate standard of goodness. However, it faces significant philosophical challenges related to arbitrariness, the nature of goodness, and the interpretation of divine commands.