Where's lecterfan when you need him?.
I've stayed out of this one, much more enjoyable as a voyeur.
Were I to weigh in: divine command theory, like any dogmatic 'moral/ethical' (the terms 'ethics' and 'morals' are synonymous in this space) provides a rigid prescriptive 'ought'. Divine command theory is particularly problematic because it offers no logical or intuitive reasoning behind what is considered right or wrong; it is simply 'following the law' (insert argument about the possibility of 'true' altruism here - doing the right thing is a prescription to entering heaven, getting virgins, etc etc etc...arguably even the pious self-satisfying feeling that Kant alludes to in the Critique of Practical Reason can be seen as a type of 'reward', thus the very notion of altruism seems paradoxical - not that paradox is a major problem in some systems of thought, but it is in this one as we are working with binaries...yaaaawn... also think about other arguments that have boiled down to 'following orders' from the lawgiver).
Forgetting the difference in content between the new and old testament, the format is the same; it is 'right/just/ethical/moral' to do X because God/Jeebus/Noodle Monster said so. This removes all element of context, the stakeholder(s), the volition of the person doing the deed (as they are simply following orders), and so on. It also provides a narrative for people to follow to make sense of their life, as Bum has alluded to. As I gesture towards in my final statements, I don't think this can be
universally considered good or bad, not when there is such radical global disequilibrium in a number of areas.
So to reframe the argument - are 'good' outcomes being achieved? If so, according to what principle(s)? If not, why? At what point/threshold does the 'good' deed become undone or tainted by the very fact that it is entirely conditional? Is it
entirely conditional? (of course yes; the state of 'conditional' is categorical...the conditions may be greater or lesser, but either there are conditions or there aren't).
As with all real-world political issues, there is simply no cut and dried answer - but that doesn't mean there is no answer.
My
personal
opinion (for 'tis only an opinion) certainly errs on the side of the secular humanist (technically my politics are secular anti-humanist humanist), but then I am interested in dissensus on the grand scale as being generative and productive, and I believe that politically that is the ethical condition to strive for, as consensus must only be local, immanent and plural - not rule based, not culturally relative, but based on the articulable discourses of the parties involved. Problematic? Yes, intentionally so. Any genuinely ethical act/decision must be ultimately undecidable - the outcome can never be judged as a binary, and any 'condition' placed on an act of charity immediately eradicates the possibility of it being considered a truly ethical act (placing it more in the realm of bureaucracy)...is this
necessarily (in the logical sense) a good or a bad thing? Again, the answer cannot be thought of in traditional analytic binaries.
In my context (white, middle class, employable) I side with Nietzsche in regards to Christianity (a historically-derived slave morality), but having worked for many years with Somali, Sudanese and Togalese refugees, I didn't/don't begrudge them their Christianity as it was a
necessary condition of their very existence (both nutritionally and existentially).
How's that for a fence-sitting Cunticle answer? :lol:
edit: just discovered I have a minor kitchen fire. The joys of philosophy. All under control.
