Richard Dawkins on Divine command theory
Dawkins argues that tying morality to God's commands makes ethics arbitrary and that believers already use independent moral judgment to evaluate scripture.
Dawkins addresses divine command theory primarily through the lens of the Euthyphro dilemma, which he presents as decisive. If God commands things because they are good, then goodness exists independently of God and we do not need God to access it. If things are good simply because God commands them, then morality is arbitrary — God could command torture, and it would be moral by definition. Neither horn supports the claim that we need God for ethics.
His more practical objection is that no one actually derives their morals from divine commands. Believers routinely ignore or reinterpret biblical commands they find morally repugnant — stoning adulterers, executing homosexuals, enslaving neighbouring peoples. This selectivity demonstrates that they are applying a moral standard independent of scripture. Divine command theory is the stated theory, but empathy and social convention are the actual practice.
Dawkins finds divine command theory not merely philosophically untenable but morally dangerous. When people genuinely believe that God has commanded something — the subjugation of women, the killing of apostates, the prohibition of contraception — they resist the evidence-based moral reasoning that could correct these positions. Divine command theory, in his view, is a mechanism for insulating harmful moral beliefs from rational scrutiny.
“If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would commit robbery, rape, and murder, you reveal yourself as an immoral person, and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you.”