Divine Command Theory vs. Ethical Relativism Explained
This paper examines two central topics in moral philosophy. First, it analyzes Divine Command Theory as a nonconsequentialist ethical system, identifying its key advantage—the simplicity of codifying actions as right or wrong—while exposing serious weaknesses, including the problem of competing scriptures, interpretive uncertainty, and the moral danger illustrated by the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac. Second, it distinguishes among ethical absolutism, ethical relativism, and cultural relativism, arguing that while cultural relativism is an empirical fact supported by sociology and anthropology, ethical relativism is a more contested normative claim that faces significant epistemological challenges in determining what any given society's morality actually permits.
- Introduction to Divine Command Theory: Defines DCT as nonconsequentialist and notes its simplicity
- Problems with Divine Command Theory: Abraham story reveals moral dangers of divine justification
- Ethical Absolutism Defined: One universal ethical standard by which all others are judged
- Cultural Relativism vs. Ethical Relativism: Distinguishes empirical cultural fact from normative moral claim
- Challenges of Ethical Relativism: Epistemological difficulty of defining any society's morality
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses a well-known biblical narrative (Abraham and Isaac) as a concrete illustration of an abstract philosophical problem, making the argument accessible and memorable.
- Maintains careful conceptual distinctions, especially between cultural relativism (an empirical claim) and ethical relativism (a normative claim), demonstrating precision in philosophical terminology.
- Builds each critique logically, moving from one problem (scriptural authority and translation) to a deeper moral problem (justification of apparently immoral acts).
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the philosophical technique of presenting a theory's apparent strength before systematically dismantling it through counterexample. In both sections, the author acknowledges what a given view gets right—Divine Command Theory's simplicity, cultural relativism's empirical grounding—before introducing layered objections that reveal deeper structural weaknesses.
Structure breakdown
The paper divides into two discrete responses. The first addresses Divine Command Theory, opening with a definition, acknowledging one benefit, then presenting two compounding criticisms culminating in the Abraham and Isaac case. The second response defines and distinguishes three related concepts—ethical absolutism, cultural relativism, and ethical relativism—before turning to an epistemological critique of ethical relativism using the examples of abortion and euthanasia.
Introduction to Divine Command Theory
Divine Command Theory is classified as a nonconsequentialist theory of morality because it is not grounded in the consequences or outcomes of specific actions. Instead, it holds that all actions possess an intrinsic rightness or wrongness determined by whether they conform to the dictates of God. While this approach offers certain advantages—most notably the simplicity of categorizing actions into a clear dichotomy of permitted and forbidden—it also carries several severe disadvantages that make it difficult to sustain as a workable ethical system.
One of the central difficulties concerns the source of the divine command. If divine moral commands are derived from scripture, how can one be certain that the scripture is being followed exactly? How can one be certain that it has been interpreted correctly—or, in many cases, translated correctly? Furthermore, given that numerous religious scriptures all claim to represent the actual and revealed word of God, how can one be certain of following the correct scripture? This problem is compounded by the conflicting moral imperatives that often appear within a single text, as well as the contradictions between different religious traditions.
Problems with Divine Command Theory
A second, and perhaps more serious, difficulty with Divine Command Theory is the possibility that acting according to the dictates of a divine entity—rather than in adherence to any abstract moral principle—may lead one to violate fundamental moral rules. Consider the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac. In this story, God commands Abraham to take his child into the wilderness and sacrifice him. Despite the fact that Isaac was his most beloved son, Abraham obeys and prepares to carry out the act, only to be stopped at the last possible moment when God intervenes and provides a ram for the ritual sacrifice instead.
What this story illustrates is that if Divine Command Theory forms the basis of an ethical system, then an action may be classified as "inherently good" simply because it conforms to the will of God—even when that action is, by almost any other standard, a moral evil. Abraham may demonstrate loyalty to God, but he does so at the near cost of his child's life. An ethical system that cannot rule out such acts—however divinely sanctioned they may be—seems very difficult to condone or practice in good conscience.
Combined with the problem of competing scriptures and uncertain interpretation, the Abraham and Isaac case reveals that Divine Command Theory, despite its surface simplicity, possesses severe structural weaknesses. While the theory does succeed in creating a clear black-and-white codification of right and wrong, it simultaneously opens the door to divine justifications of acts that are, by almost any ordinary moral standard, deeply immoral.
Ethical Absolutism Defined
There is a fairly clear and easily established distinction between the positions known as ethical absolutism and ethical relativism. Ethical absolutism is the philosophical position that there exists one singular ethical system against which all other ethical systems can be judged. Importantly, this does not require the absolutist to personally hold that one true ethical system—only to maintain that such a universal standard exists. In ethical absolutism, a person contends that the moral systems of other countries and cultures can be evaluated using the standards defined in this universal moral framework. There is, in short, an absolute morality and an absolute moral standard by which other standards may be measured.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.