




































A CRITIQUE OF THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY OF ETHICS FROM THE 

TEACHINGS OF THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS 

Abubakar Zaria IBRAHIM 

Abstract 

Divine command theory is a theory of ethics that grounds the nature of ethical demands in the 

fact that they represent the command of God. It posit that God‟s command is the ultimate 

source of moral obligation or that God‟s will is the basis of moral laws. This position was 

held by the medieval theologians and philosophers like Anselm, Abelard, Duns Scotus and 

William of Ockham. Endorsed by Locke and Berkeley, and in the modern age it has been 

especially elaborated by Kierkegaard and Barth, it was criticized by Aquinas, who 

emphasized God‟s intellect rather than His will. The divine command theory of ethics, 

however, faces a philosophical difficulty. Interestingly, is that in spite of some disagreeing 

debates within, the divine command theory is supported in all the Abrahamic religions 

(Judaism, Christianity and Islam). This article, therefore, aims to critique the arguments of 

some scholars for and against the theory. A hermeneutic framework is employed. The 

significance of all critique is that looking at morality within the religious tradition, solutions 

are provided to the moral problems within human conflicting societies. 

Keywords: Divine command, ethics, morality, religion, ontic. 

1. Introduction 

Divine command theory is a theory of ethics that grounds the nature of ethical demands in the 

fact that they represent the command of God (Blackburn, 2008:103). Also called theological 

voluntarism, divine command is a position which claims that God‟s command is the ultimate 

source of moral obligation or that God‟s will is the basis of moral laws. An action is said to 

be good because it conforms to divine commands. An action is said to be bad or evil because 

it is performed even though the agent knows that such an act breaches God‟s commands. This 

position was held by the medieval theologians and philosophers like Anselm, Abelard, Duns 

Scotus, and William of Ockham. It was endorsed by Locke and Berkeley, and in the modern 

age it has been especially elaborated by Kierkegaard and Barth. It was criticized by Aquinas, 

who emphasized God‟s intellect rather than his will (Bunnin and Yu, 2004). 

However, the social problem confronting the account is that in the period of declining 

religious belief, people fail to attach importance to such moral concern. More problematic is 

that the classical philosophical problem associated with such an account is the Euthyphro 

dilemma: “Does God command that a thing is good because it is good, or is a thing good 

because God commands it?” (Plato, 1961:169-185). If it is the former, God is not the 

authority and we should be able to determine our morality without reference to God; if it is 

the latter, we have a tautology: A thing is what God commands because it is what God 

commands. In neither case do we seem to have explained the nature of goodness. This theory 



has difficulty in explaining how God‟s command can have moral force. If a moral law is 

justified in terms of God‟s will, it is not clear how we can determine that God‟s will is good. 

According to this concept of tautology, therefore, if we have other grounds for finding out 

what is morally good, we might determine that God‟s will is good, but we do not need his 

commands to know our moral obligations. 

But Graber (1975) argues that divine command theory of ethics has more going for it than has 

been generally acknowledged. He identifies the factor responsible for obscuring the merits of 

a divine command theory as the heavy-handedness with which philosophers have been led to 

deal with it as a result of trying to handle too much at once. He shows that it is a mistake to 

expect any “inherent moral reason” for God‟s commands. The demand for independent 

validation of God‟s commands is based either on an assumption which can be shown to be 

question-begging, given the structure of systems of justification, or on a practical fear which, 

however much it is warranted with regard to human authorities, cannot be sustained in the 

case of divine authority, given God‟s benevolence and faithfulness. Hence, a divine command 

theory of ethics can be formulated in a way that is consistent and plausible. 

In whichever way we conceive it, we can always ask what the basis of morality itself is. 

There are two quite different explanations that are commonly offered. The first is that the 

basis of morality is social agreement, and the other, that morality is ultimately rooted in 

religion. Our concern, therefore, is to critique the divine command theory of morality devised 

form the perspectives of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). 

2. The critique 

2.1 Jewish scholars 

The divine command theory of ethics, faces a philosophical difficulty. The difficulty is found 

in the famous dilemma posed in Plato‟s Euthyphro: does God freely determine morality, or is 

morality independent of God? Attempts to trace the origins of divine command theory in the 

history of philosophy often begin with the scholastic philosophers John Duns Scotus and 

William of Ockham (Idziak, 1979). Ockham‟s moral theory, as noted by Marilyn Adams, is 

often taken as „the paradigm of “Divine Command Morality”‟ (1986:1-35). According to 

Idzik, in a passage in On the Four Books of the Sentences, Ockham writes: 

...the hatred of God, theft, adultery, and actions 

similar to these according to the common law . . . can 

even be performed meritoriously by an earthly 

pilgrim if they should come under a divine precept, 

just as now the opposite of these in fact fall under a 



divine command. And, with a divine command in 

effect for the contrary of these, it is not possible that 

anyone meritoriously or rightly engage in such acts, 

because these are not performed meritoriously unless 

they come under a divine command. And if they 

should be done by an earthly pilgrim meritoriously, 

then they would not be called or named „theft‟, 

„adultery‟, „hatred‟, etc... And therefore, as far as the 

total meaning or the definition of such names is 

concerned, they signify evil qualities…. (Idziak, 

1979:56–57) 

The overall import of this passage is that the moral status of an action depends solely upon 

God‟s command. Theft, adultery etc., are wrong at present only because „the opposite of 

these in fact fall[s] under a divine command‟, that is because God forbids these actions. If 

these actions were commanded by God, they would be „performed meritoriously‟, and, as the 

end of the quoted passage makes clear, they would not be called by names which are 

negatively morally charged. The forms of divine command theory Ockham accepts in this 

passage is explicitly stated, that the actions that he is discussing „are not performed 

meritoriously unless they come under a divine command‟, in other words God‟s command is 

a necessary condition of the moral rightness of an act. But Ockham also says that theft, 

adultery etc., „can even be performed meritoriously by a person if they should come under a 

divine precept‟, that is, God‟s command is a sufficient condition of the moral rightness of an 

act. This denotes that the moral status of an action is solely dependent upon the divine 

command. Ockham thus does not mean in this passage merely that God‟s command is a 

necessary and sufficient condition of the moral rightness of an action; that would yield only 

equivalence. 

But Ockham plainly intends, as well, that there is an asymmetrical relationship of dependence 

of the moral rightness of an action on God‟s command. And the dependence that he argues 

for in this passage is clearly ontic as opposed to epistemic or semantic. In another passage, 

Ockham writes: 

By the very fact that God wills something, it is right 

for it to be done . . . Hence if God were to cause 

hatred of himself in anyone‟s will, that is, if he were 

to be the total cause of the act (he is, as it is, its 

partial cause), neither would that man sin nor would 

God; for God is not under any obligation, while man 

is not (in the case) obliged, because the act would not 

be in his own power. (Urban, 1973:312) 



The beginning of this passage, „...by the very fact that God wills something, it is right for it to 

be done‟, asserts sufficient condition. In the remainder of the passage, Ockham claims that 

there are no moral constraints on God‟s actions. Thus, this extract also supports morality 

depends upon God, and He absolutely cannot be questioned, because He is not bounded by 

any moral obligation. Divine freedom from moral constraints is also asserted in Ockham‟s 

remark that „... obligation does not fall on God, since He is not under any obligation to do 

anything‟. However, it should be noted that contrasting interpretations of Ockham‟s stance 

are not uncommon. Thus even Copleston (1953), who seems to agree that, ultimately, 

Ockham supports divine command theory, believes that „we are faced with what amounts to 

two moral theories in Ockham‟s philosophy‟ because of Ockham‟s frequent employment of 

the scholastic concept of „right reason‟ which he sometimes portrays as the norm of morality 

(Coplestone, 1953:107). Oakley states that Ockham is “simply inconsistent” (1961:70). 

David Clark (1971:72-87) and others have all argued that Ockham‟s position is significantly 

more complex than a straightforward espousal of ontic divine command theory. 

What is interesting, however, is that in spite of some disagreeing debates within, the divine 

command theory is supported in all the Abrahamic religions. Some Jewish scholars, for 

examples, Immanuel Jakobovits, Isadore Twersky and Marvin Fox argue that Jewish tradition 

supports divine command theory, the notion that morality depends upon God‟s command. 

While others like Aharon Lichtenstein, Shubert Spero, Louis Jacobs and Avi Sagi object on 

the ground that tradition denies this view. But Harris, M.J. (2003) argues that the picture that 

emerges from Jewish texts is significantly more complex and nuanced than most Jewish 

philosophical literature is prepared to concede on this issue. He shows that the contemporary 

philosophical literature tends to recast Socrates‟s query, which is „the Euthyphro dilemma‟, in 

monotheistic and more modern terminology. The structures of the dilemma are refashioned in 

the following way: is it the case that; 

(1) An act is right because God commanded (or 

wanted or willed or approved) it, or alternatively, is it 

the case that 

(2) God commanded (or wanted or willed or 

approved) this act because it is right? (Sagi and 

Statman, 1995:11) 

According to the first structure (1), God, or more precisely His command or will, etc., 

determines morality; morality depends upon God. On the second structure (2), by contrast, 

morality is independent of God; He commands or wills certain things because of moral 

considerations that are not contingent upon Him. 



However, an intriguing response to the issue of divine interaction with morality in Jewish 

tradition is offered by Yeshayahu Leibowitz. According to Harris (2003), Leibowitz 

propounds a highly austere view of Jewish religious life in the following statement: 

The religious Jew is he who has accepted upon 

himself the yoke of Torah and the commandments . . 

. if we are talking about the religion of Israel, we 

cannot avoid seeing the fact that the original, 

historical Hebrew concept of religiosity is the 

acceptance of the yoke of Torah and the 

commandments. (Harris, 2003:37) 

For Leibowitz, Judaism, at least at the level of the individual religious life of the Jew who 

takes his or her faith seriously, is essentially co-extensive with the observance of Torah and 

the commandments of Judaism. Leibowitz admits that, on a more abstract plane, Torah study 

and observance of the practical commandments do not exhaust the entire content of Judaism. 

But so far as the individual‟s Jewish life is concerned, he remains adamant that observance of 

Torah and the commandments is the fundamental relevant characteristic. A corollary of this 

picture of what constitutes Jewish religious life is a claim which is highly germane to the 

Euthyphro‟s problem, and which Leibowitz (in Harris, 2003) repeatedly emphasises. It is that 

human needs, interests and values have no legitimate place whatsoever in Judaism, as 

characterised in the following statement; “Judaism is not a programme for the solution of the 

problems of humanity but [a programme for] the service of God.” (Harris, 2003:37). 

Against this background, Leibowitz‟s direct pronouncements about the relationship between 

Judaism and ethics come as no surprise, when he writes that: 

Judaism has not been embodied in ethics, and there is 

no meaning to the expression „the ethics of Judaism‟ 

. . . ethics cannot be Jewish or non-Jewish, religious 

or non-religious -ethics is ethics . . . ethics is an 

atheistic category, which cannot be reconciled with 

religious consciousness or religious feeling . . . 

Scripture does not recognise the good and the 

upright, rather „the good and the upright in the eyes 

of the Lord‟. (Harris, 2003:38) 

This way of de-ethicising Scripture is a technique which Leibowitz is fond of. In further 

attempt to reconcile his insistence that the Torah contains no moral directives with the 

Scriptural words held by Rabbi Akiva who attempts to constitute a great principle of Torah, 

Leibowitz points out that the relevant text, „You shall love your neighbour as yourself‟ is 

followed immediately by the words „I am the Lord‟  (Harris, 2003:38). This addition, argues 

Leibowitz, radically transforms the verse „from a humanistic-moral principle into a religious 



commandment‟ (Harris, 2003:37). Leibowitz sees ethics as „an atheistic category‟. 

Combining this contention with Leibowitz‟s treatment of Leviticus 19:18, we are again 

unsurprised by a statement which would otherwise have seemed unwarranted; Regarding 

„And you shall love your neighbour as yourself‟ . . . as an expression of „the morality of 

Judaism‟ is merely a heretical falsification of he Torah (Harris, 2003:37). 

Leibowitz knows that there exists a category of ethics within the matrix of human life. What 

he is implacably opposed to is the use of Judaism as a means towards achieving these human 

ethical goals. He is also passionately committed to a related but even more radical notion: the 

idea that Judaism even contains any human ethics is anathema to him. Judaism and ethics are 

utterly discrete categories, separate realms, and there cannot be any such thing as a „morality 

of Judaism‟. What this argument necessitates is that we cannot base human morality on 

religion. But this study aims to show that societies have done that and have achieved some 

level of utility in the values and virtues derived from such religious morality. 

In contrast to Leibowitz, Immanuel Jakobovits is an ardent advocate of Jewish divine 

command ethics. He writes: 

Every monotheistic religion embodies . . . a 

definition of moral values... In the Jewish view, the 

human conscience is meant to enforce laws, not to 

make them. Right and wrong, good and evil . . . defy 

definition by relation to human intuition . . . These 

values, Judaism teaches, derive their validity from 

the Divine revelation at Mount Sinai. (Jakobovits, 

1979:119) 

What is moral and what is not says Jakobovits, is, on the Jewish view, revealed to us by God. 

There is no place for the invention by human beings of their own moral laws. On the 

contrary: the task of humanity is simply to submit to the precepts of divinely revealed 

morality. Jakobovits does not consider the possibility of a non-man-made, objective morality 

that nevertheless does not depend upon God. He presents only two options, a morality 

contingent upon God and a subjective human morality, and claims that Jewish tradition 

unequivocally endorses the former. Jakobovits‟s remarks in the passage cited are brief, and 

appear in the context of a discussion whose primary focus is a topic other than the 

relationship between divine commands and morality. It is thus difficult precisely to determine 

his position, but it is at least clear that he takes morality to be dependent on God‟s explicit 

Torah commands, and it would appear that he construes this dependence as ontic in nature. In 

another work, Jakobovits, in a statement reminiscent of one of Leibowitz‟s observations 



writes; “...the duty to „love thy neighbour as thyself‟ is imperative only because „I am the 

Lord‟ - that is, „because I have commanded it” (1967:292) 

This statement is a definite expression of support for an ontic command form of divine 

command theory. In fact, the concise nature of Jakobovits‟s articulations of support for the 

idea that divine command theory is the view of Jewish tradition is worth remarking upon, 

particularly when his statements are contrasted with Leibowitz‟s remarks. 

Marvin Fox, another advocate of Jewish divine command ethics, makes several statements in 

support of the claim that Jewish tradition endorses various versions of divine command 

theory. In one of his celebrated articles he writes; “It is through God‟s revelation, mediated 

by the prophets that men are taught to know what is right and wrong” (1972:126). 

The implication here, certainly in context, is that God‟s revelation is the only way that human 

beings achieve moral knowledge. Fox thus supports that we would have no moral knowledge 

without God‟s revealed Torah commands. The implication becomes explicit in Fox‟s next 

paragraph: 

In ancient Hebrew thought there is only one source of 

the knowledge of good and evil - the commandments 

of God as they are revealed to man. (Harris, 2003:38) 

In another essay, Fox expresses unequivocal support for the idea that the Hebrew Bible 

supports both epistemic and ontic forms of divine command theory: 

The Bible knows only God as the source of all 

notions of right and wrong. There is no definition of 

the good except His teaching and His will . . . Within 

the biblical framework, He alone teaches us what is 

virtuous; there is no standard other than that which 

He has given us . . . Even in the moments of their 

greatest bitterness and despair, the biblical prophets 

did not question that God alone is the source of our 

knowledge of right and wrong . . . without the divine 

moral standard, there is no standard at all. (1990:202-

203) 

Fox, however, like most other contemporary Jewish writers who discuss the divine command 

theory, does not distinguish between different forms (e.g. ontic, epistemic, and semantic) of 

these theses. It is possible, therefore, that in this passage Fox is merely reiterating support for 

some version of ontic divine command theory. He might just mean to say that what God 

commands is ipso facto moral, and its morality is to be explained in terms of its being a 

divine command. And when he asserts that considering a law as both a divine commandment 

and immoral is a contradiction in terms, what he perhaps intends is the corollary of ontic 



divine command theory that, as we shall see below, is emphasised by Luther for the Christian 

perspective of the divine command theory: if God‟s command (ontically) determines 

morality, then logically there can be no conflict between divine commands and morality. 

2.2 Christian scholars 

The Christian perspective of the divine command 

theory is reflected in certain passages in the 

Reformation writings of Luther and Calvin. With 

their endorsement of divine command theory, these 

figures (among others) continued, after Ockham, a 

tradition of adherence to divine command theory in 

Christian thought. In reply to the question of why 

God permitted the fall of Adam and why He created 

all humanity God is He for Whose will no cause or 

ground may be laid down as its rule or standard; for 

nothing is on a level with it or above it, but it is itself 

the rule for all things. If any rule or standard, or 

cause or ground, existed for it, it could no longer be 

the will of God. What God wills is not right because 

He ought, or was bound, so to will; on the contrary, 

what takes place must be right, because He so wills 

it. Causes and grounds are laid down for the will of 

the creature, but not for the will of the Creator – 

unless you set another Creator over him! (Idziak, 

1979:95) 

Luther‟s language in the third sentence of this citation („What God wills‟, etc.) echoes that of 

the Euthyphro dilemma as originally formulated by Plato but provides (unlike Plato in 

Euthyphro) a response that favours divine command theory. Discussing the question of 

whether there is injustice on God‟s part, Luther states: 

For the fact is that there neither is nor can be any 

other reason for his righteousness than His will . . . 

Furthermore, since His will is the highest good, why 

are we not glad and willing and eager to see it be 

done, since it cannot possibly be evil? If the only 

reason for God‟s righteousness is His will, then 

God‟s will is both a necessary and a sufficient 

condition of morality. (Harris, 2003:97) 

Luther also conveys the „asymmetry‟ of divine command theory by making God‟s will 

explanatorily prior to His righteousness. Luther then makes explicit a very important 

corollary of divine command theory, which we have encountered above, though in a Jewish 

context:  

...if God‟s will (or command) determines morality, it 

follows logically that there can be no conflict 

between His will (or command) and morality- „it 



cannot possibly be evil‟. (Sagi and Statman, 

1995:117)  

The context of Calvin‟s passages is a discussion of the doctrine of predestination and it also 

clearly supports divine command theory thus; 

For if His [God‟s] will has any cause, there must be 

something antecedent to it, and to which it is 

annexed; this it were impious to imagine. The will of 

God is the supreme rule of righteousness, so that 

everything which he wills must be held to be 

righteous by the mere fact of his willing it. Therefore, 

when it is asked why the Lord did so, we must 

answer, because he pleased. But if you proceed 

farther to ask why he pleased, you ask for something 

greater and more sublime than the will of God, and 

nothing such can be found. 

... the will of God is not only free from all vice, but is 

the supreme standard of perfection, the law of all 

laws. But we deny that he is bound to give an 

account of his procedure; and we moreover deny that 

we are fit of our own ability to give judgment in such 

a case. (Idziak, 1979:102) 

Divine command theory is supported in these passages, certainly, at any rate, in the first and 

the third; but there are two further points of interest that make them particularly worth 

critiquing. First, proponents of divine command theory sometimes stress human obedience 

rather than human comprehension. The first passage, and even more so, the third, 

demonstrate the consanguinity that exists, for some advocates of divine command theory, 

between divine command theory and an emphasis on human obedience as opposed to human 

understanding. Second, the third passage in particular, makes plain Calvin‟s disapproval of 

human challenges to divine justice. We can understand the phrase „when justice clearly 

appears‟ to be a reference simply to the divine will that Calvin says is the supreme standard 

of justice, not a reference to instances where what God does seems just to us. Calvin‟s 

disapproval of human moral challenges to God is echoed in an article by James Rachels 

(1981), who takes such disapproval to be the appropriate religious stance. However, Jewish 

tradition, in Genesis Chapter 18, has tended not to find such challenges problematic. 

Other philosophers who advocate divine command theory in the history of philosophy 

include, among others, Descartes, Locke and Berkeley. Another supporter of the theory, 

though seldom mentioned as such in the literature, is John Austin, who writes: “the divine 

law is the measure or test of . . . morality . . . law and morality, in so far as they are what they 

ought to be, conform . . . to the law of God” (Austin, 1998:6). 



Austin holds that there are two kinds of divine commands: explicit (which he terms 

„revealed‟ or „express‟), and „tacit‟. Together, these types of commands give us (among other 

things) the content of morality. The way in which we find out what the „tacit‟ commands are, 

according to Austin, is „the principle of utility‟: whatever action (or, more precisely, class of 

actions, because Austin is a rule- rather than an act-utilitarian) brings about the greatest 

happiness of the greatest number is tacitly commanded. The class of actions that conforms to 

the principle of utility conforms also to God‟s command. In Austin‟s words: 

the Divine commands [are] the ultimate measure or 

test . . . the principle of utility, or the general 

happiness or good, [is] the proximate measure to 

which our conduct should conform, or the proximate 

test by which our conduct should be tried. (Austin, 

1998:104) 

The above shows that Austin takes divine commands or divine law as explanatorily prior to 

morality. He says further: “It [utility] is not in itself the source or spring of our highest or 

paramount obligations, but it guides us to the source whence these obligations flow” (Austin, 

1998:104). 

This passage clearly expresses divine commands, showing them as the source of our moral 

obligations. Austin‟s support, as articulated in the above appears to be for ontic divine 

command theory and plus some kind of explanatory priority of divine commands over 

morality. Ludwig Wittgenstein also endorses divine command theory, characterising as 

„shallow and rationalistic‟ the notion that God commands x because x is good (1965: 3–12). 

Divine command theory has also been advanced in various forms by, for example, Robert 

Adams, Philip Quinn, Stephen Clark, Robert Burch, Edward Wierenga and Paul Rooney. All 

these support the thesis that divine command theory can be employed to inspire morality of 

individuals in particular, groups and societies in general. 

2.3 Islamic scholars 

About the literature on Islamic divine command, Al-Attar argues that the vast majority of the 

books which deal with “Islamic ethics” or “Muslim ethics” do not cover philosophical ethical 

problems (2010:xix). Donaldson‟s Studies in Muslim Ethics (1953), as well as Majid 

Fakhry‟s Ethical Theories in Islam (1991), both provide the reader with a general knowledge 

of what is usually referred to as Islamic ethics. Yet, neither of them deals in depth with the 

philosophical ethical problems that are related to any society‟s socio-political interests. 



However, this is not true as this and similar works influenced by it represent only one trend of 

Islamic ethical thought, those intensely influenced by Greek philosophy. Such writers as 

Miskawayh, although outstanding in general philosophy, should not be regarded as 

representatives of the distinctive aspects of Islamic ethical thought. However, regardless of 

the misconceptions and errors that appeared in Donaldson‟s book, it was the first to be 

written on Islamic ethics by a Western scholar. Majid Fakhry surveyed major aspects of 

different ethical trends in Islam. 

George Hourani‟s Islamic Rationalism: The Ethics of ‛Abd al-Jabbar (1971) is a pioneering 

work in the study of Mu‛tazilite ethical thought. Hourani rightly points out that the writings 

usually described as ethics by philosophers such as Miskawayh and Tusi are mainly 

concerned with the classification and description of vices and virtues in the manner of 

Aristotle‟s treatment in the Nicomachean Ethics. He also noticed that theories of values and 

ethics could be reconstructed from the works of the leading philosophers, but that their bases 

were regularly Neo-Platonism, incorporating Aristotelian elements (1971:2). Such books, 

according to Hourani, “offer little of general philosophical interest that is new” (1971:21). 

Therefore, he considers the Mu‟tazila to be the first moralists of Islam. He reconstructed a 

“deontological” moral theory from the works of ‛Abd al-Jabbār, and provided the reader with 

valuable insights into Mu‟tazilite ethics. But his conclusion about the Mu‟tazila is erroneous, 

because as we shall discuss in the next chapter, many scholars, like Umaruddin (2003), are of 

the view that Muslim morality is as old as Islam. 

The first indigenous source in Islam is the Qur‟an, a scripture believed to be revealed by God 

to the Prophet of Islam. Ethics in Islam, therefore, takes its origin from the Qur‟an and is 

wholly based on it. The Qur‟an lays down the foundation of religious system on purely 

ethical principles that there is not much to distinguish between Islam and Islamic ethics.  

Umaruddin (2003:64) argues that the moral, civil, canonical and criminal laws of Islam are 

not rigidly separated from one another and cannot be identified as isolated systems. It was the 

Muslims‟ particular characteristic that “they took their stand on Qur‟an and founded and 

developed their sciences on original and independent lines” (Margoliouth, 1950:55). 

According to Umaruddin, the Qur‟an, through divine command, inspired in the Muslims the 

best and the noblest that is conceivable in life. He refers to some passages of the Qur‟an 

which he chooses at random thus: 

Shall the reward of good be aught but good Ch 4 Vs 60. 



And be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the 

orphans and the needy and the neighbour, and the 

companions in a journey and the wayfarer and the slave-

maids in your possession Ch 4 Vs 36. 

And they who, when they spend, are neither extravagant 

nor parsimonious, and (keep) between the just means Ch 30 

Vs 67. 

And who control their desires... But whoever indulge in 

their desire beyond this are transgressors Ch 70 Vs 31. 

And enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and be patient 

under whatever shall betide thee: for this is a burden duty 

Ch 31 Vs 17. 

And let not ill-will towards any induce you not to act 

uprightly. Act uprightly Ch 5 Vs 82. 

 (Umaruddin, 2003:65-66) 

The whole of  the Qur‟an is full of these kind of divine commands relating to kindness, 

forgiveness, piety, equity, just dealings, compassion, restrain of lust, nobility, modesty, and 

so on. In his book, Ihya’, al-Ghazzali is quoted to have said “the Prophet himself says, “I 

have been sent to perfect morals.” (Umaruddin, 2003:66). Hashi (2011:124) also writes that 

“...in the Qur‟an, belief in Allah, humility, better communications and continuation of good 

deeds are the foundations of good morals.”. He quotes the Qur‟anic statements about the best 

person being the person who upholds these moral foundations and invites others to practice 

these values. 

Who can be better in religion than one who submits his 

whole self to Allah, does good, and follows the way of 

Abraham the true in Faith? For Allah did take Abraham for 

a friend Ch 4: Vs 125. 

Who is better in speech than one who calls (men) to Allah, 

works righteousness, and says, I am of those who bow in 

Islam? Ch 41: Vs 33. 

(Hashi (2011:124) 

In Islam, therefore, while the Qur‟an lays the foundation of ethical concepts and standards, 

the Sunnah [way of life] of the Prophet contains the actual practices of such concepts. And 

the Qur‟an exhorts the Muslims to follow the guidance of the Prophet, thus, MacDonald 

writes that “It is the desire of every pious Muslim to model his life in every possible 

particular upon that of the prophet.” (1960:103). Margoliouth also writes that “Every Muslim 

endeavours to reach the unapproachable perfection of the Prophet‟s character.” (1950:239). 

He adds that “...the immediate followers of the Prophet who followed in his footsteps are also 

regarded as patterns of good conduct. In contrast to Hourani, therefore these immediate 

followers who are known as the companions of the Prophet were the first moralists after him. 



They possessed all the good qualities, e.g. knowledge, understanding, piety, patience, 

gratitude, etc.” (Margoliouth, 1950:239). 

Despite the fact that the fundamental principles of ethics were present in the Qur‟an, ethics 

existed in the form of aphoristic wisdom. It was not studied as a philosophical science until 

the influence of the Greek thought asserted itself on the Muslim mind (Umaruddin, 2003:68). 

And when the Muslims took to studying philosophy they mainly concentrated on 

metaphysics, logic and physical sciences. Like the Greeks, at that early stage they considered 

ethics as part of politics. It was Ibn Miskawayh who made an attempt to write a systematic 

treatise on ethics (Sharif, 1966:828).   

3. Conclusion 

This critique articulates the divine command theory of ethics, showing the theory as the 

source of moral obligations. In addition to the arguments presented by the Abrahamic 

religions, the discussion shows that Austin‟s support appears to be for ontic divine command 

theory adding some kind of explanatory priority of divine commands over philosophical 

morality. Ludwig Wittgenstein also endorses divine command theory, characterising as 

„shallow and rationalistic‟ the notion that God commands x because x is good. Divine 

command theory has also been advanced in various forms by, for example, Robert Adams, 

Philip Quinn, Stephen Clark, Robert Burch, Edward Wierenga and Paul Rooney. All these 

support the argument that divine command theory can be employed to inspire morality of 

individuals in particular, and groups and societies in general. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

Bibliography 

Plato, (19961). The Collected Dialogues of Plato including the Letters. Hamilton, E and 

     Cairns, H. (eds.), Princeton University Press, New Jersey. 

Plato, (1998 - 2013). Euthyphro, translated by Benjamin Jowett, Oxford University Press. 

Graber, G.C. (1975). In Defense of a Divine Command Theory of Ethics. Journal of the 

     American Academy of Religion, 43, (1), 62-69 Published by: Oxford University Press 

     Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1460735 

Idziak, J. M. (ed.) (1979). Divine Command Morality: Historical and Contemporary 

     Readings. The Edwin Mellen Press, New York. 

Urban, (1973). William of Ockham‟s Theological Ethics. Franciscan Studies 33, 310-350. 

Oakley, F. (1961). „Medieval Theories of Natural Law: William of Ockham and the 

     Significance of the Voluntarist Tradition‟. Natural Law Forum 6, 65–83. 

Clark, D. W. (1971). „Voluntarism and Rationalism in the Ethics of Ockham‟. Franciscan 

     Studies 31, 72–87. 

Jakobovits, I. (1979). Jewish Views on Abortion. in Rosner, F and David J.B. (eds.), Jewish 

     Bioethics. New York: Sanhedrin Press, 118–133. 

Harris, M.J. (2003). Divine Command Ethics: Jewish and Christian Perspectives, 

Routledge,  

     New York. 

Sagi and Statman (1995). Religion and Morality. Rodopi, Amsterdam-Atlanta. Jakobovits, I. 

     (1967). Jewish Medical Ethics: A Comparative and Historical Study of the Jewish 

     Religious Attitude to Medicine and its Practice, Bloch, New York. 

Rachels, J. (1981:325-337). God and Human Attitudes. in Divine Commands and Morality, 

     ed. Paul Helm, Oxford University Press, England. 

Austin, J. (1998). The Province of Jurisprudence Determined and The Uses of the Study of  

     Jurisprudence. Hackett, Indianapolis. 

Wittgenstein, L. (1953/1958). Philosophical Investigations [Philosophische 

     Untersuchungen]. 2nd ed. Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe and edited by G.E.M. 

     Anscombe and R. Rhees. Oxford: Blackwell. 

Fakhry, M. (1975). Justice in Islamic Philosophical Ethics: Miskawayh's Mediating 

     Contribution. The Journal of Religious Ethics, 3 (2), 243-254, Retrieved from 

     http://www.jstor.org/stable/40014897. 

Umaruddin, M. (2003). The Ethical Philosophy of Al-Ghazzali, A.S Noordeen Publishers,  

     Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40014897

