Formally Disproving Divine Command Theory

[FallentoReason]

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.

[Godscreated]

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?

[FallentoReason]

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".

[Angrboda]

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.

[FallentoReason]

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


This is not a formal disproof of divine command theory, but simply a causistic 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.

No, you're right. Upon further thought, I've realised that what I have proven here is that the DCT subscribers have a choice to make: to stick to their guns and let an atrocity happen (in this case, someone dies) OR to follow their instincts and defy DCT, which in my opinion strongly suggests that moral absolutes don't exist because they aren't very practical to live by.

In essence, I have shown that DCT is at least a weak theory. But if the believer in DCT chooses not to save the person from the beginning, then I'll leave them to question their ethics on their own.

---

From "Morality IS without God" (http://atheistforums.org/thread-18077.html)

The commands God gives come from who He is, not from what He deems right or wrong. So, God's objective morality comes from who He is, this encompasses far more than we can understand, God says " your ways are not my ways and my thoughts are not your thought." In other words, God knows way more than we can begin to understand and His judgement will always be righteous, who is a liar and who is not will be determined by God according to who He is.

That's great GC, but the scenario shows that DCT isn't a practical way of going about morals. Moral absolutes don't seem to be logical.

[Joel]

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.

[Mystic]

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.

[Joel]

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.

Nowhere in the bible does it say that lying is permissable, given a certain situation.

[Mystic]

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.

Nowhere in the bible does it say that lying is permissable, given a certain situation.

It doesn't have to. It can be taken as a general rule of thumb regardless.

People do it here all the time. They say "Christians this and that..." and are generalizing and don't mean absolutely.

Unless it was stated "it is wrong to lie in any circumstance no matter what" or something on those lines, it's open to interpretation, that it's a general rule of thumb. That it's true 90-99% of the time.

[Joel]

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

and

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.

It's not very specific: you could very well be right.