Matt Dillahunty on Divine command theory
Dillahunty rejects divine command theory as a system that makes morality arbitrary and renders independent moral reasoning impossible.
Dillahunty's rejection of divine command theory is rooted in the Euthyphro dilemma, which he considers decisive. If an action is good because God commands it, then morality is arbitrary — God could have commanded cruelty and it would have been good. If God commands it because it is good, then goodness is independent of God and we do not need him for morality.
Craig's modified divine command theory — that God's commands flow from his essentially good nature — does not satisfy Dillahunty. He argues that calling God's nature 'good' is either circular (good means whatever God's nature is) or appeals to an external standard of goodness (in which case God is not the foundation).
Dillahunty also presses the practical objection: divine command theory has been used throughout history to justify atrocities. If moral authority comes from God, and humans claim to speak for God, the result is theocracy — and the historical record of theocracy is catastrophic.
“Divine command theory is the moral philosophy of the playground bully: 'It's right because I said so.' The only difference is the bully claims to be omnipotent.”