# Talk:Divine command theory

This article mentions a philosopher called William Wainwright. I have just looked up William Wainwright on Wikipedia and found that there are several people with this name who have articles in Wikipedia, but none of them are philosophers. Vorbee (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

How come this is a good article and there are no mentions of Abraham, perhaps the first example of the divine command theory? The Blue Rider  17:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
god in the form of Korean 41.121.98.46 (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The concept of vertical morality has recently achieved a kind of virality. As such, I have redirected it to this page per Rachel Klinger Cain, who is partly responsible for popularizing the term. It should probably be mentioned in this article at some point.  They are the same ideas. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Under objections, we can discuss the recent debate about the difference between vertical and horizontal morality and how they can work together or clash. It’s actually quite interesting. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Added Bakker & Montesano Montessori (2016) below who cite Kunneman. Jonathan Haidt touches upon the subject in The Righteous Mind, but I'm really not a fan of his work so I didn't cite it, but others can. Viriditas (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm thinking I will add a 200-400 word section on vertical morality and then split it out to a new article. This is because while vertical morality is indeed a synonym for divine command theory, I think two things differentiate it from this topic: 1) my reading of the sources is that divine command theory is a type of vertical morality, and while it is the best known, it is not necessarily accurate to refer to it as a primary synonym. This is because other hierarchies exist.  2) Secular and atheist-adjacent discourse primarily uses vertical morality to refer to divine command theory.  Therefore the summary style section should be written as a response, reaction, or commentary in the context of divine command theory, but in relation to their preference for horizontal morality or, in the case of secular humanists, in combination with vertical morality, which most atheists would disagree with.  The practicing Christian secular humanists, unlike the atheists, see vertical and horizontal morality working together as multi-directional. This is an interesting development that I don't think has been written about that much until recently, although I suspect it was a popular topic in some areas in the 20th century.
Sources
"Kunneman (2013), in this sense, speaks about a contemporary shift from a vertical morality to a horizontal morality. A vertical morality indicates an institutional claim on universal knowledge concerning what is right and what is wrong, say for instance on the part of the Church. It requires a difference between higher powers and their representatives who maintain this universal truth, and lower classes who have to live accordingly. Moral rules are considered universal, eternal and absolute...Modernity has changed this perspective due to its emphasis on one-sided rationality and empirical research as a basis for establishing what is false and what is true. The multicultural society has adopted perspectives on multiple truth systems that can co-exist within the frame of, for instance, the rule of law. However, modernity has shaped its own hierarchies between men and women, modern and primitive, rational and emotional. Poststructuralists marked the end of grand narratives and with that the end of closed systems of truth such as, indeed, Christianity, or fascism or liberalism. This has led to a relative view on truth and morality. Kunneman identifies this transition as the emergence of a horizontal morality, which indicates a balance between the personal perspective and its relation to bigger sources; an outlook that he names 'the moral horizon'. A second feature is that the difference between higher moral values and their primitive or aggressive or undesirable counterparts is no longer repressed from above, but is considered in terms of a productive struggle from which we can learn and which can be resolved. A third feature is that different groups with different moralities can learn from each other; enabling them to enrich their 'moral vocabulary' accordingly."
Bakker, Cok; Montesano Montessori, Nicolina. (2016). "Developing a Better Understanding of Complexity in Education: An Introduction to the Various Research Projects". In Bakker, Cok; Montesano Montessori, Nicolina. Complexity in Education: From Horror to Passion. pp. 31–51. Sense Publishers. ISBN 978-94-6300-764-1.
"Theology ceases to be the foster parent of morality, and philosophy takes over. Where a Judeo-Christian reading implies a vertical logic—from the low of human beings to the high of values —the Christian atheist hypothesis proposes a horizontal layout: nothing outside what can be rationally deduced, no design on any terrain but that of the real, tangible world. God does not exist, virtues do not flow from a revelation: they do not descend from heaven but proceed from a utilitarian and pragmatic viewpoint. Men give themselves laws and have no need to call on an extraterrestrial power to provide them."
Onfray, Michel (2011)[2005]. Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Arcade Publishing. p. 56. ISBN 9781611450088. OCLC 679921129.