Introduction to Religious Theories of Morality

sense of the righteousness or wrongness of actions or their consequences that does not stem
from knowledge of God’s will.
Second, DCT contradicts our intuitions about morality, actions, and consequences.
Most of us think that certain actions have intrinsic characteristics as actions that make them
morally right or wrong, and we could recognize this wrongness even if we didn’t know of a divine
commandment about the action, or even if we didn’t believe in God. For example, most people
would say that there is something heroic and righteous about attempting to save a life, even if
the attempt fails. We do not need to know God’s will concerning saving the lives of others to
recognize the righteousness of the action; even someone who is not religious would recognize
the value inherent in such an action. Moreover, most of us think that certain sorts of
consequences of actions have intrinsic positive or negative value relevant to the morality of
action, and this too can be recognized even if one does not know God's will, or even if one does
not believe in God at all. Most people would say that suffering is wrong (or at least bad), and if
this is true then the intentional action to promote suffering is wrong—and this is not something
that has to be connected with religious belief. There is something that seems obviously bad
about suffering and needless pain that doesn’t require any further explanation or justification of
its wrongness. It seems ridiculous to say that we would not know if suffering were good or bad
if we didn't know what God thought of it! Even nonhuman animals that cannot even conceive of
God recognize that suffering is bad and avoid it; some even instinctively act to alleviate suffering
where they recognize it. Hence the claim that moral right and wrong are determined exclusively
by God’s will and commandment seems indefensible.
Another challenge to DCT is that without knowledge of God’s will it becomes impossible
to know whether or not an action is right or wrong. Abraham is able to make a judgment about
what to do because God speaks to him to issue a commandment, but few would say that God
speaks to them in any clear or direct way. Without a clear commandment it becomes very
difficult to ascertain what God’s will is, and hence for someone who accepts DCT it becomes
very difficult to ascertain what right and wrong are. Perhaps one might argue that we should
look to scripture to identify God’s commandments, since they are promulgated quite clearly
there. But are they? There are disagreements about the interpretation of scripture and its
significance to moral decision-making. For example, different denominations within Christianity
take different stances on how to interpret scriptural statements regarding sexuality; where there
is disagreement there is evidence that a commandment is not clear or obvious (or even that
there is dispute about whether or not there is in fact a commandment!). Moreover, there are
commandments issued in scripture that not many take seriously anymore—for example,
punishment of adultery by stoning. Arguably some commandments clearly fit the needs of
people at the time the commandments were issued, but would not be appropriate in the modern
world where human needs and problems are different. However, notice that this argument
actually implies that there are consequentialist reasons for changes in God’s commandments—
which is inconsistent with DCT. To sum up: if we can question whether scripture provides
consistently relevant moral guidance, we have reason to question whether it is sufficient as a
source of evidence for identifying God's will.
Finally, some might argue that God reveals commandments through one’s sense of
conscience. According to this argument if you consult your inner sense of right and wrong
through reflection or prayer, you will know God’s will. But this can be challenged as well, on the