The Two Trees

[mediamogul]

One objection is that Divine Command theory is utterly irrelevant to speak of outside of religion. One cannot divorce the idea of god who insists upon his subjects submitting to his will from the idea of a god who has revealed what his will is. Monotheism as we know it is the supposed revealing of god's will to his people. So reject religion and you reject essentially divine command theory. God's will must be made manifest otherwise it is abstract and based on human reason. The type of god who would demand submission is also not the kind of god who would not reveal his will.

If we start talking about an "internal moral sense" we are no longer talking about pure obedience. We are talking about a feeling that guides human conduct. It is a red herring if we say that god implanted this sense so that we may do his will. Then we are following the moral sense and not god's will directly. This argument is not sound for many reasons so I will not go too deeply into it.

What is the nature of a deity that would require divine command as the only consideration of "morality". I think you are right to point out that obedience is not morality, it is something else. What is the utility of setting up a relationship such as this in a world where there are clearly other considerations that drive human conduct. Compassion is an utterly useless feeling within the context of divine command.

God wills things either because they are good within the system of existence (actually moral relating to good and bad) or because obedience in itself is good. If obedience in itself is good, then there is still a gap left of why obedience is good. The argument becomes circular when we say obedience of gods will is good because it is obedience of gods will. There must be another reason why obedience or submission to god's will is good and if there is then submission to god's will is not good in itself, it is good for some other reason.

Hope that helps.