The Universality Of Morality

The Perils Of Divine Command Theory:

A hallmark of religiosity is the unshakable conviction that one’s own tenets offer something vital that cannot be gleaned in any other way; at least not in their pristine form.  Such a presumption stems from a dereliction of moral sense; as well as an abdication of intellectual integrity.  Yet this presumption has undeniable appeal. Such appeal explains why it has been so prevalent throughout history.

In her memoir, “The Girl With Seven Names”, Lee Hyeonseo (a refugee from North Korea) noted: “A child wants someone to be in charge of the world.”  She was, of course, referring to the purchase that “Juche” has upon the (brain-washed) citizens of North Korea.  But the point is a general one: There is something in all of us that likes to think that someone is in charge; has everything under control.

The perk of religionism is that it enchants us.  The danger of religionism is that it enchants us.  Intoxication is a double-edge sword.  Ecstasy feels great; yet it also deludes.  As we all know, people are often seduced by that which is deleterious to their well-being.  But, of course, that we are beguiled by X does not mean that X is worth exalting.  That we are helplessly enamored with X speaks nothing to the merits of X. And as we all eventually learn, it is a mistake to suppose that if something offers some kind of gratification, it must be good for us.

Upon even cursory scrutiny, one finds that the notion of “received wisdom” (which was often supposed to have originally been received from “on high”) is a fatuous concept–regardless of the brand.  This is the case whether one is talking about science, ethics, political theory, a handicraft, or anything else.  That’s not to say that wisdom (be it raw knowledge or key insights) cannot be “handed down”, passed from elders to younger generations.  It is merely to say that, AS WISDOM, its credence does not derive from the fact that people in the past happened to propound it.  Credibility knows no historicity.

In any case, wisdom PER SE is never “ancient”.  It is, by definition, timeless; and thus not predicated on any particular historical contingency.  Moral principles are, after all, CATEGORICALLY universal; and so transcend time and geography.  Nothing of true value (which may, by some accident of history, be included in this or that doctrine) is lost when one rises above a reliance on sanctified dogmas.  The universal principles–and the sources of key insights–were there all along; and remain after the garish dogmatic investiture is stripped away.  (For a concise explication of this point, see Kai Nielsen’s “Ethics Without God”.)

On the other hand, institutionalized dogmatism is, by definition, temporally bound; as is the case with ANY social construct.  No matter how consecrated, it is only an accident of history; which means that it is not written in the stars. Even the most sanctified dogmatic system is a byproduct of various circumstances…that could have come to pass differently had this or that contingency been altered.  The only way around this indubitable fact is to posit some sort of (divine) Providence.

So what of the heteronomy that lay at the root of dogmatism?  Does it not undercut the sacrosanctity of the claims being made? Such quandaries are difficult to resolve. This is where “divine command theory” comes into play.  Let’s see how it works.

Whenever a cultic mindset is operative, all “right thinking” is seen as a function of unwavering obedience. In other words: It’s all about following orders.  The appeal of this arrangement is that it is so magnificently straight-forward.  Epistemically-speaking, we can be certain of what’s “true” by just taking the deified figure’s word for it (be it a god or a demagogue). We get the satisfaction of being righteous without having to exert any cognitive effort. Everything’s already been figured out FOR us. This is perfect for those who seek a dopamine rush whilst remaining mentally lethargic.

Morally-speaking, the implication of this schema is equally straight-forward: You are “good” only to the degree that you COMPLY / CONFORM.  (After all, piety is merely a function of compliance / conformity…done with some combination of zest and solemnity.)  It should come as no surprise, then, that questioning the ultimate authority (which we know is the ultimate authority because we have DEFINED it as such) is discouraged.

Due to the authoritarian nature of such cosmogony, this is the case throughout Abrahamic scripture (that is, pace the invitation to engage in a “struggle with god” found in the Talmudic tradition…though at no point in the Hebrew Bible do any of the prophets intimate that Talmudic studies would be required in some way).

We are thus furnished with a wonderfully simple equation: rightness = obedience.  But in order to obey, one needs a master issuing commands. Such is the nature of divine ordinance–whereby following the master’s orders is the sine qua non of all ethics; and the designated master is the ultimate authority.  So go ahead and shuckle ’til your heart’s content.  Just make sure you keep tassels on the corners of your garments!  (That’s from Numbers 15:38-40.)  Why?  Well, because the ultimate authority said so.  And if you have a hamburger, don’t you dare put any cheese on it!  Why not?  Because the ultimate authority said so (Exodus 23:19).

Divine command theory is faulty for a simple reason: It is relativist through and through; as it is whatever people make it to be.  This is simply to say that it stems from nothing more than one or another social construct. As with any social construct, it is created by someone, somewhere, at some point in history…for some reason or another. In any case, what is right and wrong is determined by fiat (that is: according to the decrees of the designated authority, whether worldly or celestial).

How seriously are we to take this?  Well, once we posit a cosmic master (i.e. a godhead), who’s word is unimpeachable BECAUSE he is the ultimate authority, we need only ascribe his say-so to whatever commands have been proposed.  With the imprimatur of such an authority, there’s not much left to say.

What is already quite spurious becomes EVER MORE spurious once we consider that the “inside scoop” must invariably be conveyed via some sort of worldly intermediary.  I enumerate myriad examples of revelations received in isolation (by self-proclaimed prophets) in my essay on “The History of Sacred Texts”; and I enumerated myriad examples of self-proclaimed prophets in my essay on “The History Of Exalted Figures”.  I show that this gimmick has been used since time immemorial, in cultures around the world; and is still employed to the present-day.

Never mind that revelation always has to be delivered by a PERSON; rendering it subject to all the foibles that are germane to human nature.  The question arises: Shall we heed the demands of a cosmic master?  This question becomes especially pressing once we observe the character of the Abrahamic deity.

Existential questions also arise. Is life ultimately about placating a super-being that resembles a petulant child more than an intrepid moral authority?  Thomas Paine put it well when he noted: “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God.  It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.” {3}

The protagonist of the Torah (Yahweh) was peevish, capricious, and sometimes inconsistent.  At one point, he condemned the Pharaoh of Egypt for seeking to kill all the first-born sons in his kingdom as a punishment (Exodus 1:15-20); yet later perpetrates that very crime–infant genocide–HIMSELF as soon as he felt slighted (Exodus 11:4-6).  So one can’t help but wonder: What kind of super-being are we dealing with here?

Yahweh was not only pathological vindictive; he was quite petty.  In Leviticus 21:17-18, we read: “For the generations to come, none of your descendants who have a [physical] defect may come near to offer the food of god.  No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; nor his nose or eyes be flat.”  Wait.  What?  You read that correctly.

Is this the adjuration of a towering moral authority?  Does such an edict indicate that we are dealing with the quintessence of compassion?  Hardly.  In both the Torah and the Koran, we are presented with a fickle, preening super-being…with an unquenchable thirst for vengeance.  What are we to make of this?

But that’s just it: What WE are inclined to think is rather beside the point–as Abraham learned when commanded to slay his own son. Insofar as we take the notion of divine ordinance seriously, it’s not about a moral compass; it’s about appeasing a fickle overlord. All of morality is thereby reduced to a list of DECREES.  In this way, every conceivable action can be distilled according to the dichotomy of “halal” and “haram” (that of which god approves vs. that of which he disapproves). The idea is to remain in the master’s good graces. If we succeed in placating this temperamental super-being, we are rewarded; if we fail, we are punished. That’s all there is to it.

Hence the ultimate way of categorizing things in ostensibly “moral” terms becomes: approved / unapproved by the anointed cynosure–be it worldly or celestial. (Recall that humans can be deified as well. Hence Stalinism, Maoism, Juche, and Scientology.)

The fatuity of divine command theory has been challenged since Socrates’ dialogue with Euthyphro of Prospalta–in which the audience was exhorted to challenge the notion that we can base all wisdom on the proclamations of the deities.

We might remind ourselves that what was–and has always been–wrong with divine command theory was not so much the content of the commands as the “COMMAND” part.  “Do as I say; because I say so.  If you don’t, you’ll be sorry!” is not the basis for a sound ethical framework…no matter how estimable the commands might happen to be; and no matter how magnificent the posited authority supposedly is.  “Do my bidding” is only as good as the bidding happens to be; and even then (that is: even in the best-case scenario), such an officious protocol discourages people from thinking for themselves.

It is for this reason that it is the more mentally lethargic, credulous people who tend to slip into the most delusive forms of religionism.  All the heavy lifting has been done for them.  There’s nothing left to do but follow instructions. Trying to figure out good reasons is no longer necessary. The “figuring out” part has been outsourced for all eternity.

By signing up for this program, supplicants become intellectually inert–misconstruing their piety for probity.  Worse, they are obliged to summarily dismiss all critics–deeming them some version of “evil”; equating impiety with iniquity.  True Believers end up justifying all manner of meretricious actions, as it is seen through the rosy prism of “god’s will”.  And because they have come to view their doctrine as inviolate BY DEFINITION, they will be incapable of seeing victims’ tears or hearing victims’ screams.  Alas.  With the imprimatur of the godhead, anything goes.

We saw earlier the conceit of cultic thinking.  Religiosity typically takes the form of collective narcissism: “WE have exclusive access to the Truth…which is unavailable to anyone else, seeing as how they are not with our program.”  Hence the wonderful impression that one group–and one group alone–has the “inside scoop” to, well, EVERYTHING.  Which group might that be?  Well, OUR group, of course.

Saner heads recognize the prudence of rejecting the maxim that the older the “wisdom” is, the more credence it may have. Otherwise, we are apt to play along with the charade. After all, the dogma-based approach to wisdom almost seems to make sense; just as it makes sense to the child seeking answers / guidance from a trusted parent.  It is precisely this assumption that permeates the world’s most religious societies.

Endemic to any cultic activity is an obsession with that nebulous thing known as “ancient wisdom”, whereby older means better.  We often fail to recognize that consecrated dogma is still just dogma. Put another way: “received wisdom” is legacy-dogma dressed up in regal vestments.  “It was considered ‘wisdom’ in days of yore, therefore there must be something to it!”  It’s as if antiquity somehow conferred merit.

The idea that anything and everything important that we know is to be attributed to some super-natural source goes back to the 3rd millennium B.C.  The Sumerians believed that they had other-worldly beings (known as the “Anunaki”; offspring of the godhead, An) to thank for all their wisdom–an impression surely encouraged by the cabal of High Priests as a means to maintain their vaunted status as anointed intercessors.  Such a scheme makes perfect sense; for once there exists sanctified lore, any insight–into the cosmos, into morality, into history, or into ANYTHING–can be rationalized in this manner.  Those with a hotline to the gods (that is: those who have the ability to divine inner workings of the cosmos) are especially well-positioned to benefit from this charade; so they will do what they can to perpetuate the ruse.

Such magical thinking (esp. claims of divine revelation) proceeds as follows: These special powers explain how we know X to be true.  That it is proclaimed by a “higher power” is why it is should be considered sacrosanct.  In other words: It comes from a super-human source, so it MUST be unimpeachable.  Hence the fantastical scheme serves as both explanation and justification.  

This is, indubitably, the optimal way to hit two very big birds with one stone–answering two pressing existential questions: Why are we here?  What should we do?  It should come as little surprise, then, that those of the Abrahamic tradition are inclined to attribute any profound insight–no matter how elementary–to the existence of their own delivery system (be it Mosaic law and/or the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and/or the recitations of Mohammed of Mecca).  The suggestion is: BUT FOR having this or that Abrahamic scripture at our disposal, humans would not have an objective basis for morality…or even an ironclad raison d’etre.

This contention is downright asinine.  For not only is it demonstrably false; it demeans our very humanity.  If anything, Abrahamic doctrine has positively HINDERED the development of civil society, and PREVENTED us from coming to an understanding of human origins, and the evolutionary psychology that might inform our treatment of ethics.

The alternative is to acquiesce to antiquated norms. Shall we harken back to an inebriated Lot engaging in incest with his daughters?  Shall we harken back to David sending a woman’s husband to his death so that he could seduce her?  Or perhaps we might refer to Numbers 15:32-36, where a man is stoned to death for gathering firewood on Saturday.  It would seem that so long as we’re not mixing fabrics or consuming meat with dairy or planting different seeds in the same field, all is well.

Yet when we look to things that actually matter to the well-being of PEOPLE, we find that such formalities are–at best–extraneous. We no more require religiosity to glean moral insights than we require an instruction manual to know that respect, say, for our parents is estimable…while domestic abuse is probably not a good idea.  There is NOTHING in such intuitions about eating ham and cheese sandwiches…or covering our faces in public if we’re female…or reciting certain (scripted) prayers at certain times.

Appeasing a tetchy master is certainly not the summum bonum of a meaningful life. (Pandering is NEVER a noble act, regardless of who we might be pandering to.)  And when it comes to notions of original sin (and the need for atonement / redemption), our nascent humanity is certainly not best realized by being made to feel guilty about our human-ness…let alone being obliged to apologize for being human.

At the end of the day, there should be no guilt in being human.  Any dogmatic system that makes us feel ashamed of our humanity is born of dubious motives.  Insofar as the Abrahamic religions hold humanity to be inherently depraved (STAINED, as it were), they are merely creating (the illusion of) a sickness in order to offer a cure.  The epitome of this is the notion of “original sin”, whereby our VERY HUMANITY is a stain to be erased.  This ploy–the standard gimmick of a snake-oil huckster–must be recognized for what it is: a vulgar ruse designed to guilt people into compliance / conformity.

It is no secret to even most children that following instructions PER SE does not a moral act make.  This is especially so when the incentive to follow those instructions is to secure a reward for oneself (and/or to avoid punishment).  And so it goes: Even when the Abrahamic scripture exhorts votaries to do nice things, it gives them bad reasons to do those things (when eminently good reasons are available).

Moreover, when readers are instructed to do something noble (e.g. be kind to people, abstain from usury, refrain from bribing public officials, etc.), no credible explanation for the goodness of such conduct is provided (other than “because god says so”).  In other words, even as the audience is told to, say, help the wayfarer, the orphan, and the destitute, they are given no MORAL BASIS for doing so.

“Because it is written HERE” is not a moral foundation; it is a flimsy rationalization. For any given point of any given sacred doctrine is itself a historical accident.  That is to say: A doctrine could have been virtually anything had it been formulated under different circumstances.  While the canon of mandates / strictures dictates a certain set of permissible / forbidden behavior, it is an accident of circumstance what, exactly, that ended up being.

Even a blank check must be filled out with SOMETHING.  It is up to the check-writer to decide what that is; but that decision is itself not necessarily delimited by moral bounds…which, of course, cannot be determined by the issuance of the check.  Otherwise, we find ourselves engaging in circular reasoning with a radius of zero.

But that is precisely what makes divine command theory so enticing. When the source is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, its ordinance is BY DEFINITION unimpeachable; and its validity incontrovertible. And THAT–whatever it happens to be–trumps everything.

By heeding commands that are seen as divine, what manner of folly are we asked to abide?  Well, feel free to smash disobedient children against the rocks; just make sure you don’t trim your sideburns (Psalm 137:9 and Leviticus 19:27 respectively).  And feel free to stone a maiden to death if she is found to not be a virgin on her wedding night; but whatever you do, you mustn’t wear mixed fabrics (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 and 22:11 respectively; also ref. Leviticus 10:6 and 19:19).

The modus operandi absolves us from having to employ any powers of discernment. Critical deliberation is completely un-necessary. (Don’t question it; just follow it to the letter!)  So Haredim won’t even touch elevator buttons for 24 hours starting on Friday at dusk.  Sane people can only be persuaded to do zany things via a hefty dose of religious zeal.  Meanwhile, good people require no doctrine to simply BE GOOD.

Suffice to say, “graven images” never–at any point–posed a serious threat to civil society.  Yet–against all common sense–one is expected to believe that such a frivolous thing was one of the primary ills holding the human race back from a better world.

What sort of pandemonium does this leave supplicants open to?  We need only look to the Judean Settler movement in Palestine for an answer. Violently evicting goyim from their homes, destroying their communities, and seizing their land by force are imbued with Messianic legitimacy. Such atrocities are seen as copacetic by Revisionist Zionists, even as they make any decent person recoil in disgust.  But True Believers don’t cringe; they applaud. After all, they are just taking what is rightfully theirs…according to claims that the Creator of the Universe is a real-estate agent who is simply honoring a contract. They’ve fulfilled their end of the bargain, so it’s time to claim what’s theirs.

And what of the CHARACTER of the godhead found in the Abrahamic tradition?  As we read the Torah OR the Koran, we quickly find that this emotionally needy, stultifyingly petty, temperamental super-being is completely full of himself.  One can’t help but wonder: Is this navel-gazing deity horribly insecure?  Tragically lonely?  Or just incredibly self-involved? {39}

Be it in the Torah or the Koran, the Abrahamic deity seems to spend a lot of time gloating.  Over and over again in the Koran, he finds the need to proclaim “I know what you do not know” to his audience–a rather peculiar thing for ANY pedagogue to say, let alone the ULTIMATE pedagogue.  In incessantly tooting his own horn, this celestial entity is evidently very proud of himself. {40}

When subjugation is the sine qua non of an entity with superior power, we are dealing with a ruler that sees mankind–above all–as subjects.  Behold a dictator who measures his followers’ fealty to the degree that they are sycophantic.  In keeping with the Abrahamic tradition, the Koran tells us that the Creator of the Universe created mankind for ONE REASON: to worship him (51:56).  What sort of entity is it that would create a race of sentient beings for the SOLE PURPOSE of being worshipped?  Such an overweening personage would have to be very needy (if not utterly consumed by vainglory).  And given the Abrahamic deity’s penchant for “showing everyone who’s boss”, we must wonder about his motives. It’s almost as though the Creator of the Universe were PREENING. {41}

In sum, throughout Abrahamic scripture, we are presented with a super-being that is astonishingly self-absorbed and–in light of his peculiar recommendations–laughably short-sighted.  In the authors’ overzealous attempt to depict their deity as more than human, they ironically ended up rendering an all-too-human protagonist. Such are the pitfalls of anthropomorphism.

But, some may protest, this is not what many confessors of the various Abrahamic Faiths ACTUALLY believe.  When it comes to those who–as it is commonly put–do not take scripture literally, religiosity is merely spirituality couched in a certain idiom.  Observance is a matter of communing with (that is: getting in touch with) the divine in the non-authoritarian sense; and thus in a non-dogmatic way.  Granted.  In that case, divine command theory is not salient, and the present critique does not apply.  Yet, in that case, neither does (conventional) Abrahamic theology. (!)

The implication of this mode of apologetics is that the present indictment is but a straw man–that is: a disingenuous caricature of “god” as he REALLY exists in the Abrahamic tradition.  Yet this contention is ITSELF disingenuous.  Indeed, such dissimulation might be called “doppelgänger-manning”: the false accusation of straw-manning, employed as an evasive maneuver (to avoid any critical analyses of the actual issue-at-hand).

The present treatment is, indeed, precisely what the Judeo-Christian (and then Islamic) creed was originally based upon; and continues to be based upon by the most zealous adherents.  Any modifications NOW are, well, just that: modifications.  A diluted version of X that is more preferable does not magically exempt X from evaluation.

In any case: One can commune with the divine without any of the doctrinal accoutrements–nay: without ANY religious trappings whatsoever.  But that is communing with the divine in the non-anthropomorphic–and thus: non-ABRAHAMIC–sense.  This is something that Freethinkers often do; so religiosity is clearly not the pivotal factor when it comes to spirituality (or, for that matter, with experiencing the divine).

The fact remains: When probity is defined strictly in terms of compliance / conformity, we can be quite certain that an ersatz morality is at play.  The “comply / conform or be doomed” routine is indicative of a morally dubious schema.  How can we be so sure? Typically, well-intentioned authorities do not use FEAR as a means of persuasion…let alone of coercion. The use of fear to control people is, of course, as old as time; as intimidation is the most direct way to get people to SUBMIT.

Psychologically speaking, fear is the primary gateway to subservience.  (It’s a small step from cowering to groveling.)

In the Hebrew Bible, the symbiosis of FEAR OF and FEALTY TO god is first articulated in Genesis 22:12.  Psalm 9:10 even states that the fear of god is the basis for “wisdom”.  (Here, “wisdom” is effectively just a euphemism for fidelity to Mosaic law–as with the early Semitic notion of “[c]hokhmah ila’ah”: wisdom of god.)  This makes sense, as submission is rarely done out of love.  (The relation of love to things like supplication and piety is more complicated.  Needless to say, groveling / simpering is not a sign of “agape”.)

Throughout Christendom, “god-fearing” came to be an idiom for piety.  It referred to an existential orientation characterized by conformity / compliance, not by rectitude.

The theme of obeisance through FEAR is not unfamiliar.  The precedent continued into Islam.  Take, for example, the admonishments in Surah 26 of the Koran, in which five different prophets say: “Fear god and obey me” (Noah in verse 108, Hud in verse 126, Saleh in verse 144, Lot in verse 163, and Shu’ayb in verse 179).  The theme is best illustrated by the concept, “taqwa”, which conflates piety with fear of god.  Here we find a kind of theological Stockholm Syndrome: gushing adoration for one’s subjugator.

Motivation-through-fear involves what psychologists call “fear appeal”, whereby one is inclined to revere what one is most intimidated by.

Moreover, well-intentioned authorities don’t demand unconditional surrender; and they don’t define morality primarily in terms of obedience.  When those in power are confident that they are in the right, they encourage critical deliberation: “You are more than welcome to openly question everything I say / do.”  Anything less is an indication that something fishy is afoot.

Leaving aside the dubious character of the godhead in Abrahamic lore, the onus is on proponents of Judeo-Christian dogmas to demonstrate that the myriad strictures of Mosaic law or Pauline Christianity or the Sunnah–or of ANY sacred doctrine–are vital to the maintenance of civil society.  It should go without saying that no moral system that emphasizes a prohibition on mixing meat with dairy can be taken seriously.  For, at the end of the day, there are more important tenets to uphold than, say, strictures on ham and cheese sandwiches.