Republic of the Philippines

Bicol University
COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & PHILOSOPHY
Philosophy Department
Daraga, Albay
ISO 9001:2015
TUV Rheinland ID 910863351

DIVINE COMMAND THEORY AND

NATURAL LAW THEORY

PREPARED BY

MARK M. GATUS, LPT

MARCK ZALDY O. CAMBA, LPT
 Page |2

Introduction

As we have finished learning the fundamental concepts and issues in the study of
ethics and the moral agent, we will now proceed in studying the dominant ethical theories
which can serve as a guide, justification or foundation to our moral beliefs, decisions and
judgments. Note that that there are three dominant ethical theories namely: Consequentialism,
Deontology and Virtue Ethics. In this lesson we will highlight two variants of deontological
theory that places the moral basis of an act on its conformity to duty and not on its results,
Divine Command Theory and Natural Law Theory.

What Will You Learn?

After completing the module, you will be able to:

1. Explain the Natural Law Theory and Divine Command Theory

2. Apply the precepts of the natural law and divine command theory to contemporary
moral concerns

Ethical Frameworks
What is the ultimate good or moral value? What is the fundamental moral principle? What, in general,
determines that an individual/action is moral? What, in particular, determines that an action is moral? What,
in particular, determines that an individual is moral? What purpose does ethics serve? Why should human
beings be moral? These are just some of the questions Normative Ethical Theories systematically address.
In a nutshell, Normative Ethical Theories serves to provide what justifiable and reliable principles to
determine what is moral and immoral actions, thus, arriving at moral standards that regulate right and
wrong conduct. It also systematically describes and explain moral phenomena. The key assumption in
normative ethics is that there is only one ultimate criterion of moral conduct, whether it is a single rule or a
set of principles (Fieser, 2020). Below are the salient points of the three dominant normative ethical
theories sourced from Ethics: Theories and Applications by Evangelista & Mabaquiao Jr., 2020:

Deontological Consequentialism Virtue Ethics

• An act is deemed right or • An act is deemed to be right or • “The character of agents is

wrong independent of the wrong on the basis of the the fundamental morally

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 Page |3

consequences, and is consequences/outcome of doing relevant consideration in

done because one has as
duty to do it.
• “The consequences of actions
• “The rules that actions
follow are the
fundamental morally
relevant consideration in
making moral judgments.
Therefore, an action is
morally good if it is done
in conformity with a good
rule, while it is bad if done
in conformity with a bad
rule”.
it.
are the fundamental morally
relevant consideration in making
moral judgments. Therefore, an
action is morally good if it results
in good or desirable
consequences, while it is morally
bad if it results in bad or
undesirable consequences”.
making moral judgments.
Therefore, an action is
morally good if it is done by a
virtuous person (a person
with good character traits)
while it is morally bad when
done by a vicious person (a
person with bad character
traits)”.

Let’s Read!

THE NATURAL LAW THEORY

“We are definitely at our most peaceful state when we are adhere to natural law”
-Jeremy R. Poland

What is the Natural Law?

“The Theory of Natural Law rests on a particular view of the world. On this view, the
world has a rational order, with values and purposes built into its very nature. This conception
derives from the Greeks, whose way of understanding the world dominated Western thinking
for over 1,700 years. The Greeks believed that everything in nature has a purpose” (Rachels,
2010, 54). With this regard, purpose and function plays a vital role on establishing the basis
of what is morally right.

The most important questions we can ask about things relate to their purposes.
Aristotle believed that each thing has a purpose or function. What is the purpose of a fish? If
we examine it carefully, we might say that its purpose is to swim. The purpose of the bird is to
fly. What, though, is humanity’s purpose? Aristotle argued that because humans are the only
creatures or beings with the ability to think, their purpose is to use this ability. Thus, we achieve
our true purpose when we think, and we go against this end when we do not think or when we
do not think intelligently.

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 Page |4

According to Aristotle, design and order are present in the universe, for things happen
in an orderly way. An acorn becomes an oak tree and not a coconut tree. A kitten becomes a
cat and not a dog. The universe can be understood in studying it in terms of purposes. Thus,
whatever happens can be explained according to purpose: The acorn follows its destiny and
the kitten follows its destiny. With regards to human persons, we already have seen that our
purpose is to think, but we admit that we can refuse to think or we can think poorly, or by
otherwise subverting thinking. Aristotle believed that we can refuse to think and therefore go
against the design of the universe and the reason for our creation; hence humans have free
will. When humans go against this purpose, however, they suffer the consequences of
erroneous ideas, poor health and an unhappy life. “The world, therefore, is an orderly, rational
system, with each thing having its own proper place and serving its own special purpose”
(Rachels, 2010, 55).

Morality is part of the natural order of things. Actions are right by nature, apart from the
opinions or practices of humans. Reason can discover valid moral principles by looking at the
nature of humanity and society. If something is “unnatural,” it is also immoral. Even the law
sometimes makes reference to “unnatural acts” with the obvious intent of condemning them
as wrong. Hence, the words “unnatural” and “immoral” are quite connected, while on the other
hand, the word “natural” is associated with what is good and what is right. Moreover, older
versions of the theory share similarities with Divine Command Theory (which will be discussed
after this) in that they point to God as the source of the natural law. Modern and recent
versions, however, claim that natural law is inherent in the universe and in humanity, and
hence does not need a supernatural force (Evangelista & Mabaquiao Jr., 2020). However,
understanding the NLT is not easy as it seems. Clarifications must be given of what the theory
means by “naturally right” and what is meant by “nature".

Moreover, major proponents of NLT are the Stoics and St. Thomas Aquinas. The
Stoics were one of the first thinkers who conceived of the idea of natural law as the basis of
morality. They believe that God is immanent in or even identical with nature (pantheism).
Nature, for the Stoics, refers to the natural order as a whole,” cosmic nature.” To live a good
life, humans have to align themselves to a kind of “cosmic” nature. Fundamental cosmic
principles govern and unify everything in the world. Natural order is thus rational. To reason
and act rationally is to be in harmony with nature. Thus, rationality is a key to pursing a moral
life. Subsequently, violence and vice are consequences of irrationality and not being in
harmony with nature’s universal laws.

On the other hand, one of the greatest proponent of the NLT is St. Thomas Aquinas
(1224- 1274). He synthesized the Stoics’ sense of cosmic natural law with Aristotle’s view that
human beings have a specific nature, purpose, and function. Following Aristotle’s view,
Aquinas asserts that humanity’s function is to exhibit rationality in all its forms: contemplation,
deliberation, and action. Consequently, the fundamental precept of the natural law: good is to
be done and evil avoided. What is the good or evil? Accordingly, all those things to which man
has a natural inclination are naturally apprehended by reason as good, and consequently as
objects of pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance (Evangelista &
Mabaquiao Jr., 2020). Here it is worth noting that Aquinas holds a natural law theory of
morality: what is good and evil is derived from the rational nature of human beings. Good and
evil are thus both objective and universal (Himma, 2020).

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 Page |5

For further discussion, please read the following:

• Chapter 4: Does Morality Depend on Religion? in Rachels, James. (2013). The

Elements of Moral Philosophy. 7th Edition. New York: McGraw Hill.

• “Natural Law” by Kenneth Einar Himma in The Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Available online: https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/
(Note: Do not limit yourself to the suggested readings I gave, you can browse the internet for other
readings/credible sources about the topic)

Let’s Watch! To further supplement your understanding about the topic, please watch the
online video lecture:

• Natural Law Theory by Crash Course Philosophy. Available online:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRHBwxC8b8I&t=2s

Let’s Read!
(Text is from the book Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics edited by George Matthews)

THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY OF MORALITY

by Jeffrey Morgan

The Divine Command Theory of Morality (DCT) is a relatively simple theory of moral
obligation that equates our moral duties to the commandments of God:

• X is morally obligatory if and only if God has commanded X.

• Y is morally prohibited if and only if God has forbidden Y.

Moreover, the DCT holds that God’s commands are the source of morality. Consider,
for example, the seventh commandment, “thou shall not commit adultery.” Assuming that God
exists and has indeed issued this command, then, according to the DCT, it is morally wrong
to commit adultery. If God does not exist or has not issued the command, then adultery is
morally permissible.

The motivation behind this theory is obvious: with its universal rules, the DCT at once
solves challenges of relativism and of why one ought to be moral. Furthermore, the DCT
emphasizes the idea that moral commands are overriding, in the sense that they trump other
motivations such as convenience or self-interest. Other theories seem deficient in these
respects. For example, one might attempt to support a rule prohibiting adultery on
consequentialist grounds, pointing out the likelihood that adultery leads to suffering. However,
such reasons will be open to exceptions, what about situations in which suffering does not

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 Page |6

ensue? Perhaps one could reject adultery on deontological grounds, using Kantian reasons
about the violation of vows and the lying that typically occurs in adultery, but these
considerations might allow adultery in the case of open marriages. Another possibility is that
we reject adultery on cultural grounds, seeing it as not what “we” do. The DCT, however,
makes it clear that if God prohibits adultery, then it is absolutely wrong whether or not it leads
to suffering, violates a cultural norm, or violates the categorical imperative. Furthermore, the
DCT suggests a strong reason to act morally: morality is essentially submission to the authority
of the creator, who may punish transgressors.

The DCT is interesting in that, in contrast with most other theories of ethical action, it
emphasizes obedience or submission as a central virtue not obedience in general, of course,
but to God and perhaps to God’s representatives. The idea of moral autonomy, of determining
the right course of action using one’s reason, is not emphasized. One does need to use
reason, perhaps to determine whether an action falls under the scope of a particular
commandment, but the principal virtue for the DCT is obedience to the will of God. This may
for some people be attractive as it offers an escape from the weighty demands of moral
judgment; one essentially transfers responsibility to a third party. One major religion reflects
this idea in its very name: in Arabic, “Islam” means submission, and a “Muslim” is one who
submits (to Allah).

Some theists (people who believe that God exists) might think of the DCT as consistent
with their overall worldview. It may seem that if God has created the world and everything that
exists, then God must have created morality too. Furthermore, if God is omnipotent, then it
would seem that God could choose any morality, we are just fortunate that God chose a
morality that facilitates human flourishing. However, as we dig a little deeper, some serious
problems appear.

Some problems arise from the application of the theory to practical decision making.
How do we know what God has commanded? One of the virtues of the DCT is supposed to
be its moral clarity, but the DCT is not so unequivocal as it appears. First, the DCT
presupposes that we have the right religion, and also that we interpret that religion correctly.
Clearly, this is going to make it very challenging to apply the DCT to issues that demand
agreement with those of diverse or no faith. Second, how can we resolve issues that arise
from applying ancient commands to contemporary moral problems, including problems arising
from human cloning, pornography, assisted suicide, or nuclear weapons? Minimally, we will
need to use our judgment to determine what the commands suggest God would have
commanded, but this will render obedience less clear. Third, to make matters worse, God has
issued multiple commands, sometimes leading to dilemmas in which we are commanded to
do two incompatible actions. What if the only way to “honor thy parents” is to “bear false
witness,” or if keeping the Sabbath holy will require violating the duty to honor thy parents?
Supporters of the DCT can develop responses to these problems of application, but the cost
will be that the theory will lose its simplicity, one of its chief attractions. However, even if we
put these challenges aside and agree that we know that God has, for example, forbidden
adultery, there remains a still more fundamental challenge to the DCT. The challenge is
sometimes called the “Euthyphro dilemma,” as it is expressed in Plato’s Dialogue Euthyphro.
To understand the challenge, suppose that God exists and has forbidden adultery. Then,
adultery is immoral, according to the DCT. However, is adultery immoral because God forbids
it? Or does God forbid adultery because it is immoral? Whatever our response, puzzles arise.

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 Page |7

For further discussion, please read the following:

• Chapter 2: Can We Have Ethics Without Religion? On Divine Command Theory

and Natural Law Theory by Jeffrey Morgan in Matthews, G. (2020). Introduction to
Philosophy: Ethics. Available online: https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-
ethics/

• “Divine Command Theory” by Michael W. Austin in The Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Available online: https://iep.utm.edu/divine-c/
(Note: Do not limit yourself to the suggested readings I gave, you can browse the internet for other
readings/credible sources about the topic)

Let’s Watch! To further supplement your understanding about the topic, please watch the
online video lecture:

• Divine Command Theory by Crash Course Philosophy. Available online:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRHBwxC8b8I&t=2s

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 Page |8

LEARNING OUTPUT (05)

To find out how much you have learned from this lesson, try and answer the question below.
Write your answer on the space provided.
Note: (1) Please accomplish this with your assigned group. Evaluate and brainstorm insights
that may be drawn from it from the question below. You can use platforms such as Google
Meet or Facebook Messenger to facilitate your discussion. (2) Each member should submit
the same group answer/paper individually. Please follow this format:

a. Group Members:
i. GM1: Full name, Course & Block
ii. GM2: Full name, Course & Block
iii. GM3: Full name, Course & Block

[Question]
[Answer]

1. Summarize and explain the salient points, as well as the strengths and weakness of
the Natural Law Theory and Divine Command Theory. Use the table below for your
answers.

Salient points of the Theory Strengths and Weakness

Natural Law
Theory

Divine
Command
Theory

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 Page |9

2. Choose between The Natural Law Theory and Divine Command Theory. Using the
chosen ethical framework, evaluate the given moral issues below and provide the best
and plausible moral decision.

Case #1:
Gretchen is a preacher in their church. She teaches children the bible and there include
the Ten Commandments. It is said that killing a person is absolutely wrong. One day she found
out that she has an ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy is a type of pregnancy that occurs
outside the uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tubes, which is not normal for a fetus to
develop. If this happens, the development of the fetus will definitely endanger the mother.
Thus, if Gretchen continues with her pregnancy, then there is a big possibility that she will die.
According to experts, the best way to save Gretchen’s life is to abort the fetus, which
necessarily implies killing the fetus. If she will not abort the fetus, then Gretchen as well as the
fetus will die. Will she abort the child or will she take the risk of the pregnancy together with
child and later on face its consequence?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

References
Evangelista, F., and N. Mabaquiao (2020). Ethics: Theories and Applications. Anvil
Publishing Inc.

Matthews, G. (2020). Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics. Available online:

https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-ethics/

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 P a g e | 10

Rachels, James. (2013). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 7th Edition. New York: McGraw
Hill.

Suggested Readings:
Austin, M. (2020). Divine Command Theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Available online: https://iep.utm.edu/divine-c/
Himma, K. (2020) Natural Law. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available online:
https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/
Matthews, G. (2020). Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics. Available online:
https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-ethics/
Rachels, James. (2013). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 7th Edition. New York: McGraw
Hill.

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department