Divine Command Ethics is a deontological ethical theory in which its proponents argue that the right thing to do in a given moral dilemma is that which is commanded by God.
While a number of Theologians have advocated Divine Command Ethics, it seems that the foremost advocate in the origination of the theory is Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard was a Danish existentialist theologian-philosopher. For Kierkegaard "ethics" had more than one meaning. It entailed a "social" and a "religious" dimension.
In one sense ethics denoted a limited existential social sphere, which represents a more primitive understanding of what it means to be moral than that of the religious sphere. For Kierkegaard "ethics' represents the prevailing social norms and he also argued that social norms are the highest court of appeal for judging human affairs.
According to Kierkegaard nothing outranks the social norms for ethicist of this domain. He even goes so far as to contend that in the context of social norm human sacrifice may be justified in terms of how it serves the community.
In his "Fear and Trembling" Kierkegaard argued that when Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter Iphigenia, he is regarded as a tragic hero since the sacrifice is required for the success of the Greek expedition to Troy.
However, according to Kierkegaard there is a higher level of "ethics", which is the level of the religious. This level is retained in the context of the religious life of the individual. In this sense Kierkegaard recognized a duty to a power higher than social norms.
He cites Abraham's "almost" sacrifice of Isaac as an example of obedience not to social norm but to the command of God. In fact, it will be noticed that Kierkegaard's second level of "ethics" may even required an ethic that is contrary to social norm as seen in Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac. In this event Kierkegaard emphasized that Abraham recognized a duty to something higher than a social duty not to kill an innocent person.
Objections;
1) For Kierkegaard it is possible that God suspended that which is ethics in the sense of social prescribed norms. Isn't this dangerous in that it allowed for the possibility of delusional behavior such as that expressed in the statement, "God told me to do it?"
2) In the event of Divine Fiat or Command we have no recourse to public reason. In fact the dependence upon such a command may even be irrational as previously cited in the previous criticism. We cannot use reason to decide whether a person is legitimately obeying God's command or whether he is a deluded sociopath.
3) Since the legitimacy of ethical behavior based on Divine Fiat cannot be determined by public rationality, the legitimacy must be established based on religious faith. Doesn't this relegate religiously based behavior or ethical decisions to a dangerous subjectivism.?
