In California, marijuana is legal for recreational purposes, however in New York it is not. If morality was tied to legality (as it is in the Christian model) then you’d have to presuppose that anyone using marijuana for recreational purposes is inherently an immoral person IF they are in New York, but NOT if they are in California. And this model imposes a moral judgement on someone all the while ignoring “intent”, “behavior”, and “consequence”. Morality under this model is dependent on authority, by which something becomes moral because it is allowed by an authority, and it becomes immoral because it is disallowed by an authority. This is the problem with the Divine Command Theory of morality. It’s not a system of morality at all, as there is no means by which to “test” moral claims. They are simply based on laws and commandments.
Well-being (as in the well-being of humans and human societies) is a standard of morality derived from secular humanism, not religion. And while a religion can incorporate this metric of well-being as part of its divine command theory, that does not demonstrate that well-being is in fact the primary goal of the religion. If it were, then we wouldn’t need a god, or a Bible, or a Quran to tell us this. We wouldn’t need commandments or laws, or a “judge” since everyone would be capable of rendering a judgement based on this established standard. We also wouldn’t need “blessings”, or “promises of rewards”, or an “afterlife”, or “punishments”, or “divine retribution”, because none of that stuff is relevant to human well-being in this life. On the contrary, those are all things that de-value the importance of this life. If this life is the important one, then why would there be a second one to replace it? And if the second life is the important one, then what is the value of this one?
Homosexuality has no impact on human well-being, nor does practicing astrology, worshiping other gods, worshiping no gods, or eating shellfish! And yet these are all “laws” in the bible associated with punishment. These things are called “immoral” in the holy scriptures, while having nothing to do with well-being. Moreover, God punishes the innocent along with the guilty (visiting the inequities of the parents to the children to the 3rd or 4th generation). He killed all of the firstborn children of Egypt as a demonstration of his power, not because they were immoral. He ordered the destruction of the children of the Amalekites, not because they were immoral, but because their parents supposedly were (according to him). The bible says that God is a god of justice, and that only God is good. And yet this same god is described as a “jealous” god who executes “wrathful rebukes” and seeks “vengeance” (things that are deemed immoral for humans by the same agency). These are not the attributes of “goodness”, nor are they attributes of “justice”. They are attributes of a narcissistic HUMAN who has made up his own definition of “good” and who hasn’t yet learned the difference between morality and justice.
If morality was “objective” as is often claimed by the religious, and it was also based on “well-being” as is now claimed by the religious, then God now becomes subject to the same moral judgments based on the exact same standard he created. Morality couldn’t CHANGE based on God’s mood. God being a triggered snowflake wouldn’t invalidate the standard when it’s convenient for him, and then replace it to be used as an example for others. It would be consistent, otherwise it couldn’t ever be tested. If morality changed based on God’s mood and preferences and killing the innocent becomes okay sometimes, then it’s not only subjective, but also relative!
The reality is, well-being is NOT the priority (nor even the purpose) of morality under the Divine Command Theory as practiced in religious traditions such as Christianity and Islam. The purpose of what they are calling morality is to glorify God. “All things were created through him, by him, for him”. Humans are commanded to praise him, give all thanks to him, give all devotion to him, and give all credit for anything good to him. Conversely, we are to never question him, never test him, never worship gods other than him, and never blame him for anything bad. He supposedly created “free will”, but he gets to take credit for everything good that anyone does in accordance with that will, but never be held accountable for anything bad that anyone does with their will. Got that one wrapped up in a nice little bow - but that's not "moral system", (and if it were you'd have to call that "Trumpism". True moral systems enable us to determine what is moral under a set standard that doesn't change. And if we agree that the standard is well-being, then God could never be described as "all good" according to that standard.
(The Failure of Divine Command Theory)
In California, marijuana is legal for recreational purposes, however in New York it is not. If morality was tied to legality (as it is in the Christian model) then you’d have to presuppose that anyone using marijuana for recreational purposes is inherently an immoral person IF they are in New York, but NOT if they are in California. And this model imposes a moral judgement on someone all the while ignoring “intent”, “behavior”, and “consequence”. Morality under this model is dependent on authority, by which something becomes moral because it is allowed by an authority, and it becomes immoral because it is disallowed by an authority. This is the problem with the Divine Command Theory of morality. It’s not a system of morality at all, as there is no means by which to “test” moral claims. They are simply based on laws and commandments.
Well-being (as in the well-being of humans and human societies) is a standard of morality derived from secular humanism, not religion. And while a religion can incorporate this metric of well-being as part of its divine command theory, that does not demonstrate that well-being is in fact the primary goal of the religion. If it were, then we wouldn’t need a god, or a Bible, or a Quran to tell us this. We wouldn’t need commandments or laws, or a “judge” since everyone would be capable of rendering a judgement based on this established standard. We also wouldn’t need “blessings”, or “promises of rewards”, or an “afterlife”, or “punishments”, or “divine retribution”, because none of that stuff is relevant to human well-being in this life. On the contrary, those are all things that de-value the importance of this life. If this life is the important one, then why would there be a second one to replace it? And if the second life is the important one, then what is the value of this one?
Homosexuality has no impact on human well-being, nor does practicing astrology, worshiping other gods, worshiping no gods, or eating shellfish! And yet these are all “laws” in the bible associated with punishment. These things are called “immoral” in the holy scriptures, while having nothing to do with well-being. Moreover, God punishes the innocent along with the guilty (visiting the inequities of the parents to the children to the 3rd or 4th generation). He killed all of the firstborn children of Egypt as a demonstration of his power, not because they were immoral. He ordered the destruction of the children of the Amalekites, not because they were immoral, but because their parents supposedly were (according to him). The bible says that God is a god of justice, and that only God is good. And yet this same god is described as a “jealous” god who executes “wrathful rebukes” and seeks “vengeance” (things that are deemed immoral for humans by the same agency). These are not the attributes of “goodness”, nor are they attributes of “justice”. They are attributes of a narcissistic HUMAN who has made up his own definition of “good” and who hasn’t yet learned the difference between morality and justice.
If morality was “objective” as is often claimed by the religious, and it was also based on “well-being” as is now claimed by the religious, then God now becomes subject to the same moral judgments based on the exact same standard he created. Morality couldn’t CHANGE based on God’s mood. God being a triggered snowflake wouldn’t invalidate the standard when it’s convenient for him, and then replace it to be used as an example for others. It would be consistent, otherwise it couldn’t ever be tested. If morality changed based on God’s mood and preferences and killing the innocent becomes okay sometimes, then it’s not only subjective, but also relative!
The reality is, well-being is NOT the priority (nor even the purpose) of morality under the Divine Command Theory as practiced in religious traditions such as Christianity and Islam. The purpose of what they are calling morality is to glorify God. “All things were created through him, by him, for him”. Humans are commanded to praise him, give all thanks to him, give all devotion to him, and give all credit for anything good to him. Conversely, we are to never question him, never test him, never worship gods other than him, and never blame him for anything bad. He supposedly created “free will”, but he gets to take credit for everything good that anyone does in accordance with that will, but never be held accountable for anything bad that anyone does with their will. Got that one wrapped up in a nice little bow - but that's not "moral system", (and if it were you'd have to call that "Trumpism". True moral systems enable us to determine what is moral under a set standard that doesn't change. And if we agree that the standard is well-being, then God could never be described as "all good" according to that standard.