Moral Relativism (Pro) vs. Divine Command Theory (Con)

Thank you for the debate. (Please keep in mind that I am sometimes sarcastic and satirical. This is not to be rude or disrespectful). I will put forth my case then rebut in the next round. Now an observation, or two. 1) This debate is not about the existence of God, though that question will inevitably come up. Therefore, my opponent needs to show that moral relativism would be be a better option than divine command theory even in a theistic universe. 2) This debate is set up as one ethical theory against another. If Pro wins, then Cons loses and vice versa. There is no third option. In this particular discussion, it comes down to divine command theory or moral relativism. 3) As a Christian, I do not seek to defend some generic theistic ethical theory. I will be advocating ethical system that is a part of Christian theism. God: absolute tri-personality.1 Argument 1: The need for an objective standard. So, this debate has divine command theory (DCT from now on) and moral relativism (MR) in a boxing match going at it, fighting against each other. This is a one-on-one fight. MR, if true, cannot complain about anything that happens in the world. Rape, murder, theft, perjury, may make the moral relativist feel bad, but he must remember that morality is relative. There is no objective standard to point to. Indeed, a more fundamental observation is that the moral relativist cannot even have this debate if he wishes to be consistent. How are we to judge ethical theories without an objective ethical standard by which to judge them? If there are no objective standards, then this debate is pointless. By necessity, we need a standard if the voters are going to decide who wins this debate. Moreover, we need an objective standard if we want to stop someone from killing us! If MR is true, then all we can say is "to each his own." MR does not supply a rallying cry against the evil in the world. Therefore, if the relativist wants to live consistently with MR, he must sit back and watch the world burn while the rest of us put the fire out. Argument 2: I don't know what to call this one... DCT (specifically Christian) says that our moral sanctions come from a person. Without this Person to give us moral commands on what is right or wrong, we would have no obligation to do anything. That's because morality is primarily spoken of in terms of obligation to a person. We can be obligated to persons only. "Morality" based on chemical reactions, or repeated behavior based on a pleasant feeling we get is not morality at all. We are not obligated to chemicals, atoms, molecules, etc. For, obligation implies the ability to disobey. Indeed, if we are able to go against the grain, then we are going against some sort of obligation. That's because our moral choices are relative to some objective moral standard. Even within MR, we can ask "if morality is relative, what is morality relative to?" As soon as the relativist gives an answer, he has proven that there is some sort of standard that is objective. Argument 3: God is the standard. Building on the previous argument: the need for an objective standard of morality would need to be based on something that is in and of itself objective. And since God is the standard himself, we have what we need for morality: an absolute (or objective, personally find the difference semantics) and a person. God says "You shall be holy, for I am holy" (1 Pet. 1:16; Lev. 20:26). That is the summary of all of God's commands. Because of his moral character, we are to act in a certain way. His commands are not based on his divine fiat: he commands us to be as he is. God is not a father who tells his son to stop looking at porn and then goes to the strip club. He is not a father who tells his children not to steal and then cheats on his taxes. His own character is the basis for his commands. Therefore, the Euthyrphro dilemma is already dealt with. Goodness does not dwell outside of God. Conclusion: If we have an objective standard rooted in a person who issues forth commands to his creation, then we have a moral obligation to obey them. This mean that we can be obedient or disobedient to Him, but we can also make sense out of the evil in the world. MR does not make sense out of the evil in the world because it does not say that people are obliged to behave in a certain way. As a Christian divine command theorist, I can point to the evil and call for change and progress. Moreover, because I believe that these commands come from a God who himself is the basis of morality, who himself is morally perfect, then these commands must be in accord with his character. If God's commands line up with his moral perfection, then that means when he tells us to do something he is telling us to behave in moral perfection. For these reasons I urge a vote for Con: 1)DCT provides an objective standard for all moral behavior. 2)DCT is a social ethic, not an individual ethic. 3) DCT allows for the greatest chance at conformity to God's own good character. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Frame, John. "God's Lordship as a Unique Worldview.""Systematic Theology: An Introduction To Christian Belief. Phllipsburg: P&R, 2013. 1219. Print.