It began with a discussion about the belief that standards of morality are located within the will of God. Known as Divine Command Theory (DCT), this assertion about the source of moral standards is generally followed by the question “Does God command what is good because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?” (aka Euthyphro’s Dilemma) This either-or question certainly deserves to be answered, but it requires a bit more than the question offers.

Part 1 of his question suggests there might be a moral code that exists outside and independent of God such that whatever God commands comes from this alleged external, universal, and objective source. Part 2 of the question concerns itself with possibility that what God commands is based on God’s arbitrary choice. The question, “is it good because God commands it,” suggests that if the good is simply what God commands, then good and evil could on a whim be interchangeable.

Euthyphro’s dilemma is a false dilemma because it doesn’t account for a third option, that the good is indeed what God commands, but good only because the good is derived directly from his nature. This option eliminates the problem of arbitrariness because God’s character and nature are fixed. God does not change (Malachi 3:6). In theological terms, we call this his immutability. This third option also eliminates the problem of abstract moral objects that exist (somehow) universally and independent of God. That anything could exist universally and independent of God should cause us to reconsider the idea of God for if something could exist without any dependence on him for its creation and sustained existence, that thing would logically be equal to or greater than God. This would force us to reconsider our previous theological understanding of God’s omnipotence.

So why is it so necessary for us to locate standards for morality in God’s nature? And how does this relate to apologetics and evangelism?

1. To say that something is moral, immoral, good, or evil presupposes a way to measure each of these terms—an objective source. That is, to say something is good suggests we know the difference between good and not good and that there is an objectively known way to make such a determination.

2. If culture or other individuals are the standard for what is good, if people are the ultimate source for moral knowledge, then terms like good and evil will lose their meaning because human reason is flawed. For example, society has changed its views on the institution of marriage over that last few decades, leaving us now with tremendous disagreement on same-sex marriage and civil unions. The human population is not an objective source for anything as we have as many views on morality as there are stars in the heavens.

3. We need to explain why people want to be moral. Everyone who claims there is no fixed standard for morality has forgotten the last time they were treated unfairly. There is a sense in which everyone holds to an objective right and wrong, and this serves as a point of contact for outreach to the unbeliever.

So in ascertaining what an authoritative source for morality might be, I was asked by a woman “is there really a difference between ‘my mom said so’ and ‘god said so?’” The difference is one of authority and power. Mom’s views on right and wrong have the potential to shift, Gods requirements are static, they never change because he never changes. Because mom’s existence is dependent on something outside of herself, so too is her knowledge. Though she may practice objective analysis of her world whenever possible, her knowledge is limited and ways are imperfect. She can never serve as an ultimate source for any kind of knowledge, including moral knowledge.

Understanding the nature of morality provides opportunities to engage others in their views of God, or lack thereof. If an individual believes that fallen humanity is a legit source of moral knowledge, a conversation about the difference between objective and subjective truth may help her to see the weakness of her view.

Finally, if opting for the independence thesis of Euthyphro’s dilemma, that abstract moral objects simply exist for all to utilize, knowledge of this needs to be accounted for apart from subjective experience. It’s one thing to describe moral positions most of us agree to, it’s another thing to jump from this description and posit something more substantive about the source of these moral positions. Even further, how can these universal, timeless, and fixed moral principles be accounted for in a universe so many advocates of this position believe came into existence by chance? If they have not always existed, they came into existence by the power of another, in which case they cease to be universal, timeless, and fixed.

Print PDF