Formally Disproving Divine Command Theory

[The Reality Salesman01]

Let's say that I am in a situation where someone is about to die. I have the opportunity to save their life if I lie though, so I do. According to the Bible, lying is a sin and therefore I am "morally bad" if we say the Bible is 100% correct morally.

For those Christians who say that lying in this case would have been justified, then it logically follows that Divine Command Theory falls apart:

p: there exists an objective moral code
q: lying is always wrong

First, we assume two things: p and "if p, then q". From this it logically follows that q, because if p, then q. For those of you who say lying was morally right in this case, it means you're assuming ~q (i.e not q). Here we have a contradiction where you're wanting to say q & ~q, which means that our conclusion must be one of our premises (p, if p then q) in the negated form; either ~p or ~(if p then q) because that way we avoid the conditions needed for this contradiction to arise.

Surely the believer will want to salvage p meaning that we must negate "if p then q". So our conclusion is therefore "it is not the case that if there exists an objective moral code then lying is always wrong". The problem is that the Bible asserts that "if p then q" but we have concluded that ~"if p then q". A contradiction arises which means we are left with questioning the validity of p as being a true statement, unless you wish to avoid this conclusion by simply saying you wouldn't have saved the person's life by lying.

Is not saving the person's life morally wrong? Are we obligated to save someone's life. What if I just shot the offender, wouldn't that solve the problem, I did not have to lie and I did not murder because it would be deemed a defensive killing, right?
With all that said which is probably not much why don't you give us a description of the situation, this way we will have more ground to argue and can do away with the Ps and Qs of it all. In other words what was the lie you told?

Welcome to a paradox!

[Neo-Scholastic]

The commandment, "Thou shall not bear false witness." is less about deception and more about justice. Deception can be a good, like laying a false set of tracks to evade a robber. In contrast, purgery (sp) thwarts the process of justice and false accusations harm the innocent.

[FallentoReason]

The commandment, "Thou shall not bear false witness." is less about deception and more about justice. Deception can be a good, like laying a false set of tracks to evade a robber. In contrast, purgery (sp) thwarts the process of justice and false accusations harm the innocent.

Right. So is the statement "the Bible says not to lie" true at all i.e. is there an alternate verse that specifically deals with lying?

---

Anyways, Divine command theory is possible without the Bible or Torah or a Holy Book. It can be stating that our morality is a command from God.

Then you have yourself a new Holy Book by definition. If God tells you how to live, then that stops being Deism and it starts being Theism i.e. the belief that God has revealed some nature about himself.

---

I've given a similar situation to people, before, though with them being the almost direct cause of somebody's death. It goes like this:

If someone broke into your house in the middle of the night and your wife and children were able to fit in the closet - but there wasn't enough space for you, so you wait for the intruder.
The intruder has a gun and asks where the rest of your family are.

We say that you have two choices; tell the intruder where your family is hiding; or lie and say "They're out of town for the weekend."

If you lie, you have sinned and when the intruder murders you - you go to hell, but you have saved the lives of your family.
If you don't lie, you have caused the death of your wife and children.

My scenario seems a lot more harsh, but you may take it how you will. Tell me what you think.

I'm pretty sure that the teacher who died in the Connecticut shootings did exactly this -- the one that hid her students in the closets and told the shooter that they were all at the gym.

Your scenario pretty much sums up what I'm highlighting but also deals with justice as well (the whole bit about being morally right but going to hell).

[John V]

The problem is that the Bible asserts that "if p then q"

Where does it assert this?

And, where does it assert that saving a life is always right?

---

An example of this situation in the Bible is Rahab in Joshua 2. She lies in order to save the lives of two men. Joshua later spares her and her family. Further, the NT commends her for doing the right thing twice (Heb 11, James 2). So, the premises of this argument are faulty.

[Mystic]

Then you have yourself a new Holy Book by definition. If God tells you how to live, then that stops being Deism and it starts being Theism i.e. the belief that God has revealed some nature about himself.

If God tells you in words, then yes, you are right. But if it is morality as we know it and that's God voice in creation, then Deism originally had the position, that we know God's will via morality and rationality, and we don't need him to reveal words.

[fr0d0]

There is no commandment not to lie. And in your example you are coupling the righteous action with a lie. So the overarching good in your example would involve telling the lie. Your refutation is shallow beyond belief.

[Undeceived]

This "disproving" only works if God commands "Lying is always wrong." If "bearing false witness" has a broad connotation that builds in intent, SDCT holds up. Even if you can prove that God commands never to lie, the existence of two wrong actions does not invalidate a theory. It merely means that whatever you do, you do something wrong--letting someone die, or lying. In a sinful world, that's not implausible. But for the life of me, I cannot imagine the scenario you're trying to put forth. Take the famous axe-murderer scenario. An axe-murderer shows up at your door and asks where your friend is hidden. To save your friend, you have to lie. But is this bearing false witness against your neighbor? No. It's merely depriving someone of true information. And ultimately, the scenario would never had arisen if the world was sinless.

Of course, all this is a defense of Strong Divine Command Theory, which says that an action is right if and only if and because God commands it. Weak Divine Command theory states that an action is right if God commands it, but not because God commands it.

[Foxaèr]

It is interesting how believers choose what to believe in that supposedly holy book of theirs. Scripture related to lying:

http://www.openbible.info/topics/lying

[John V]

It is interesting how believers choose what to believe in that supposedly holy book of theirs. Scripture related to lying:

http://www.openbible.info/topics/lying

I find it interesting that atheists chide believers for being dogmatic, and also chide us for not being dogmatic.

[Joel]

You stick to your dogma when it suits you, then when there's something you don't like; you dismiss it or twist it to seems like it's a good thing.