Introduction to Religious Theories of Morality

moral philosophy from the Abrahamic traditions, and they are particularly influential in moral and
ethical thought in Western culture.
Divine Command Theory
There are two main theoretical approaches to religious morality that differ significantly
from typical deontological or consequentialist approaches. One is called Divine Command
Theory (DCT). According to DCT the moral value of a human action is extrinsic to both the
action and to the consequences of the action for human beings. Instead, the moral value of an
action is intrinsic to God’s will regarding that action. If God wills that one should perform an
action, then this gives the action positive moral value and hence makes it morally right, and if
God wills that one should not perform an action, then this gives the action negative moral value,
and hence makes it morally wrong. In other words, all moral value is situated in God’s will, and
without God’s will no action or consequence of an action could have any moral value. It is
God’s will that creates moral right and wrong, and so without God’s will there would be no such
thing as good or evil of any sort.
From a religious or spiritual perspective, there are some compelling aspects to DCT that
make it plausible. God is creator of the universe, and hence everything that exists owes its
reality to God. Why should morality be any different? From this perspective it is reasonable to
think of morality as another of God’s creations. Moreover, God is usually conceived to be
omnibenevolent—that is, wholly good. Again, it makes sense to think of God as the source of
all that is good, including the standards for what counts as good and, by that token, what counts
as bad as well. Finally, God as the creator is the ultimate power guiding the universe, and so
God is the only being who would have the authority and power to promulgate and fully enforce
moral law through judgment. Hence it makes sense to think of God’s will as law, particularly for
morality.
It is important to carefully distinguish DCT from deontological and consequentialist
approaches. DCT specifically locates moral value in God’s will and choice. Hence it is very
different from deontological or consequentialist reasoning about ethics. For example, consider
the Biblical commandment “You shall not kill.” Why is killing wrong? Suppose we say that
killing is wrong because it causes harm to the victim and those who care about him, and it also
harms the perpetrator because she becomes more vicious and morally deficient by taking such
actions. Then God issues the commandment because killing as an action has bad
consequences for those affected by the act. This is a consequentialist interpretation of the
commandment against killing because the wrongness of killing is intrinsic to the consequences
of the action. Thus even if God did not issue the commandment, we would still know that killing
would be morally wrong (or, more precisely, it would still be wrong, whether we knew it or not)
because its results are morally bad. This leaves God’s commandment out of the equation, and
so this interpretation is inconsistent with DCT.
Suppose instead that we say killing is wrong because it is a depraved and morally ugly
action. Then God issues the commandment against killing because of something intrinsically
bad about the act of killing. This is a deontological interpretation of the commandment against
killing. Thus even if God did not issue the commandment, killing would still be morally wrong
because of the intrinsic character of the action, which is what makes it morally bad. So this
interpretation is also inconsistent with DCT.