The Purified Sacred Law - Divine Command Theory

Short Exposition of Divine Command Theory

        Divine Command Theory (DCT), also referred to as Theological Voluntarism, is the religious and philosophical belief that Moral Laws are ultimately determined by and grounded in the Divine Will, i.e., the Moral Law is legislated by Divine Command. This is a popular belief held by many religious people, including myself. I wish to briefly explicate it here, sketching out what makes such a position attractive and compelling to religious folks.

Oh you who have Faith! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and do not turn away from him while you hear. (Quran 8:20)

        It goes without saying that this belief presupposes the existence of God, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent reality that undergirds all of creation. For those of us who profess Theism, DCT is an attractive position to hold for several reasons. Firstly, it seems to attest to the Godliness of God, treating him as the absolute and supreme creator of all things. We already believe that the physical realm (with all its physical laws) is the creation of God, and so is the logical realm (with all of its logical and mathematical laws). It doesn't seem crazy to suppose that God is also the creator of the moral realm (with all of its moral laws, principles, values, duties and obligations). This image of God being the Celestial Legislator of the Moral Law is professed by a great many religious texts and traditions. This is one reason why we religious people may find DCT compelling: it philosophically defends a doctrine taught by our own scriptures, namely that God is the Moral Law-Giver.

        Of course, Moral Laws are more similar to entities in the logical realm than in the physical realm. Whereas physical phenomena are contingent (meaning they could have been otherwise), this is not so for logical and mathematical laws, which are necessary (meaning they could not have been otherwise). It is impossible for God to make 1+1=3 or four-sided triangles. Similarly, Moral Laws are also necessary, for it is impossible to conceive of evil acts like murder, torture, or rape to ever be morally praiseworthy. Although this necessity is clear, what explains it? The necessity of logical and mathematical laws seems to be explained by pure reason and definitions. Triangles cannot be four-sided as they can only be three-sided (because that's part of the definition!). 1+1≠3 as 3=1+1+1 (because that's what three is!). It doesn't seem like Moral Laws can be explained in the same way.

        To explain the necessary nature of morality, we should consider the nature of Creation itself. As religious people, we believe that the entirety of Creation is divine self-disclosure, an artistic expression of God's very self. From the greatest galaxies to the smallest shards of grass, there is a sense in which all of these realities reflect the Glory of God, that his infinite beauty manifests itself in finite forms. This truth applies not just to contingent physical phenomena but also to the necessary laws and truths related to logic, mathematics, and morality. In fact, this truth can be said more strongly of them because they are fixed and necessary, not subject to contingency, possibility or variation. They are permanent, stable and necessary, just like God himself.

        As everything is rooted in the divine nature, so too do the commands of God spring forth directly from his holy character. God commands against murder because he loves life. He commands against hate because he loves love. He commands compassion, justice, and truth because he loves these things, for they reflect his own glory and beauty. Moral Laws are the way they are because God is the way he is. His holy character is necessary, permanent and immutable. It could not have been otherwise, no more so than a triangle could've had less than three sides. The connection made between Moral Laws and the Divine Character is another strength of the DCT, as it gives a theistic explanation for the necessity of Moral Laws.

A depiction of 'al-Hayy' by Ahmed Kreusch, one of God's 99 names in the Islamic tradition. One can derive the Moral Law from these many beautiful names of Divinity. Al-Hayy means "the Living One, and this reveals God to be a lover of life and an enemy of those who shun life.

        Furthermore, it leads to the conclusion that Moral Laws are personal. They are not cold statutes of some distant cosmocrator who imposes his will unto the world. Rather, they are the expressions of an artisan who (to use Christian language) is the common Father of all. Moral Laws are not just abstract concepts and lofty ideals to be followed. Instead, they are personal and concrete duties we have to our Beloved God. It's as if God is writing a grand narrative, and he gave us a share in his authorship. Insofar as we follow his guidelines, we get the opportunity to participate in his great act of self-expression.

        Here is another way to support this line of reasoning: Morality is unique because it makes normative claims, not positive ones. It makes prescriptive statements about value, not descriptive statements about fact. It doesn't make claims about how the world is but about how the world should be. In philosophy, these types of propositions are called Imperatives, and they are a very unique type of proposition. Any moral theory must account for this uniqueness and give some sort of explanation for it.

        Imperatives most often arise from conditional goals and subjective desires. For example, if I desire to eat some food, then I should buy some food. The desire to eat food is the conditional goal, whereas the imperative to buy food is the Imperative. Conditional Imperatives flow directly from conditional goals. By consideration of a certain goal, it is possible to create a long list of Imperatives composed of should-do and shouldn't-do statements. These types of imperatives are called Hypothetical Imperatives, for they depend on hypothetical goals. This means they are ultimately subjective in nature because they depend on subjective intentions and desires. So far, so good. Such a theory gives an account of the imperatives we encounter in everyday life. But what about Morality?

        It seems that there exist some Imperatives that apply to the conditional goals we set for ourselves, promoting some and prohibiting others. In other words, conditional goals and desires themselves seem to be subject to should and shouldn't statements. People should desire to help one another and shouldn't desire to harm each other. One should desire to tell the truth and shouldn't desire to conceal the truth. Individuals should desire to respect one another and shouldn't desire to manipulate each other. These Imperatives are called Categorical Imperatives, for they are independent of conditional goals. These are the kinds of Imperatives that constitute the Moral Law. Unlike hypothetical imperatives, they are objective in nature because they remain independent of subjective intentions and desires.

        Because of their objectivity, Categorical Imperatives are hard to account for in moral philosophy. They seem to be mysterious and inexplicable, as it's difficult to ground Imperatives without conditional goals or subjective desires. 

        To solve this conundrum, DCT proposes an extremely heterodox solution: that Categorical Imperatives are just another form of Hypothetical Imperatives but of a divine origin. All Imperatives are actually Hypothetical Imperatives, but those that constitute morality are grounded in the Divine Will. Moral Imperatives flow from the Infinite Divine Subjectivity of God, which is why they are personal in nature. The Moral Law, being a universal set of Imperatives and Rules, requires something like a universe-sized subject or cosmos-sized person to be its source and origin. The conditional imperatives of morality flow directly from God's conditional goals and subjective desires, which, as established earlier, are grounded in his immutable and permanent nature. This is another way that DCT personalizes Morality. Instead of being a draconian code devised by a cold dictator, Morality becomes the graceful expressions and vocalisations of Divinity's most intimate desires and wishes.

"You must convince your heart that whatever Allah has decreed is most appropriate and most beneficial for you." - Imam al-Ghazali.

        To summarise, the reasons DCT may be a compelling philosophical position to hold, especially for religious folks, are as follows:

1. DCT affirms the religious view that God is the Cosmic Legislator of the Moral Law.
2. DCT gives a theistic explanation of the Moral Law's necessary and permanent nature.
3. DCT conceives of Morality as a deeply personal endeavour, constituted not by an abstract set of rules but by concrete duties to one’s beloved God.

There are, of course, many more reasons DCT may be an attractive view to affirm, and also many possible questions/objections that could be raised against it, but this post was just intended to be a very informal and cursory explanation of the belief. I pray that this post accomplished that task well and that you now have a better understanding of this widely-held belief.