Formally Disproving Divine Command Theory

[John V]

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.

...he says dogmatically.

[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.

...he says dogmatically.

Whilst that doesn't even make sense: it doesn't matter how I say it. It doesn't counter the fact that it's done by many religious people: Christians specifically.

[fr0d0]

*holds up a mirror*

[Joel]

Is this your way of saying you have nothing more to say?

[fr0d0]

No I make a point. We are all guilty of seeing things our own way and I find it helpful to be reminded of that occasionally.

[Joel]

No I make a point. We are all guilty of seeing things our own way and I find it helpful to be reminded of that occasionally.

Oh! Okay. Yes, I totally agree.

[John V]

...he says dogmatically.

Whilst that doesn't even make sense:

It makes at least as much sense as saying that certain people are dogmatic, except when they don't want to be. What's the difference between that and being flexible?

It doesn't counter the fact that it's done by many religious people: Christians specifically.

It's done by many people period.

[Godscreated]

I'd say you're guilty of a bait and switch.


This is not a formal disproof of divine command theory, but simply a casuistic examination of particular interpretations and applications of divine command theory. So not only does it fail to accomplish its apparent goals, it seems to be the case that you aren't even remotely aware of what a formal disproof of divine command theory would be. (And this both because you appear to lack the philosophical sophistication in these matters as well as not truly understanding the meaning and nature of a formal proof.)

Anyway.... I'm out.

I do not care about philosophical sophistication, I actually gave a scenario that would avoid the possibility of the DCT having to come into play. I shoot the person in defense, isn't life suppose to be about avoiding moral impractical situations. As I see it life does not revolve around situations set up with limited info, life itself is full of information in situations that was proposed.

---

---

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?

---

Usually in philosophy, a scenario is given with the least amount of information i.e. variables. That way, the thing we're trying to analyse (in this case, DCT) can be analysed without too many "what ifs".

The scenario is simply this: you are given a chance to save someone's life by lying. For the sake of argumentation, let's say the lie was telling the killer that the victim was somewhere else, upon being asked for that information. In the OP, I showed that either we choose to tell the truth because otherwise we're immoral according to DCT OR we lie because we think that is the right thing to do and therefore it logically follows that DCT can't be true given that p and "if p then q".

Life is full of variables, take these out of life and what's left, an idea written on a forum, let's get real and quit beating around the bush.

---

That is an interpretation. In Islam, I know you had a concept of lying then you had "Taqiya", which included lying if you can save lives or did it out of fear of your own life. I'm not sure how Christians interpret the command not to lie, but it can be, that it is a general rule, and has it's exceptions.

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.

Christians do not call it a lie, which it is not, it is love and compassion. This is the real world. God would not judge a person as a liar in this situation.

---

---

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).

Christ said "no greater love doth a person have than to lay down their life for another." This would show us what the teacher did was not lie, she traded her's for the children, thus living as Christ stated. People are not in hell for love, they are there for denying Christ, seems this teacher understood what Christ was saying.

---

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.

We live in a practical world of common sense, a place where logic bites the dust, I would suggest you come to you senses and try living.

[FallentoReason]

Thank you theists for highlighting your problems with the OP.

---

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.

---

---

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.

---

---

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.

---

It seems like all of you are saying in one form or another that the Bible doesn't say we shouldn't lie. What should we do about these verses then?

Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

Proverbs 19:9
A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will perish.

Proverbs 12:22
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.

Colossians 3:9-10
Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.

Psalm 101:7
No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.

Ephesians 4:25
Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.

Proverbs 24:28
Be not a witness against your neighbor without cause, and do not deceive with your lips.

Revelations 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

[Joel]

We live in a practical world of common sense, a place where logic bites the dust, I would suggest you come to you senses and try living.

I've never had to twist logic to suit a situation.
Unlike your divinely inspired book of all knowledge.