text moved from article has been making extensive changes to the article some of them changed clear and precise to less clear and precise language such as implies that to leads to the view that some changed one stylistic approach to another and some turned u k in to u s english but the main section is this the second horn of the dilemma known as divine command theory runs into five main problems first it implies that the moral status of things is wildly contingent if he had wanted to god could have made rape murder and torture morally right secondly it threatens the normative force of the claim that god is good it turns into the mere claim that god is consistent or that god approves of himself thirdly it commits the naturalistic fallacy to analyze evaluative claims e g that murder is wrong in terms of what god has or hasn't said is to reduce evaluative claims to mere descriptions of god's activity fourthly it seems to make morality subjective with moral truths determined by the mere attitudes of an individual fifthly it threatens the conception of god as a rational being for supposing god had a reason for forbidding rape this reason should also be the reason that rape is wrong otherwise god's decision would have been based on the wrong reason but if the reason rape is wrong is that god has forbidden it then it can't be god's reason for forbidding it on pains of circularity so god's moral decisions were based either on the wrong reason or on no reason at all some of this can usefully added but some isn't really acceptable is wildly contingent is not only unencyclop dic style but is less clear than is arbitrary based merely upon god's whim it also introduces technical terms where they're not needed as does normative force which in addition surely misses the target it's not the normativity of god is good that's at issue but its status as a meaningful evaluation his or her fourth point isn't very commonly raised and is surely implicit in the other points the final point contains material that could be made use of but is in fact a discussion of the article's first point