Lawrence Krauss on Divine command theory
Krauss rejects divine command theory, arguing that grounding morality in God produces obedience rather than genuine ethical reasoning.
Lawrence Krauss has been critical of divine command theory in both its philosophical form and its practical effects. He argues that grounding morality in God's commands produces a culture of obedience rather than genuine moral reasoning — people follow rules not because they understand why those rules promote human welfare, but because they fear punishment or hope for reward. This, in Krauss's view, is not morality at all but compliance.
Krauss invokes the Euthyphro dilemma directly: if something is good because God commands it, then morality is arbitrary (God could have commanded torture). If God commands it because it is good, then goodness is independent of God and divine commands are unnecessary. Either way, the divine command theorist is in trouble.
In practical terms, Krauss points to the moral progress of secular societies as evidence that morality does not require divine authority. The abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women, the recognition of LGBTQ rights — all of these advances were achieved against religious opposition, not because of it. The trajectory of moral progress, Krauss argues, runs away from divine command, not toward it.
“If the only reason you're moral is because God told you to be, then you're not moral — you're obedient. There's a difference.”