Beyond the Unmoved Mover: How a Relational God Can Redeem Divine Command Ethics

 

Beyond the Unmoved Mover: How a Relational God Can Redeem Divine Command Ethics

Adis Duderija 

The bedrock of many Abrahamic faiths lies in the conviction that morality is rooted in the will of God. This notion, often formalized as Divine Command Theory (DCT) and its ethical counterpart, Divine Command Ethics (DCE), posits that what is good is good because God commands it, and what is evil is evil because God forbids it. While seemingly straightforward, this framework within classical theism – with its emphasis on an immutable, omnipotent, and impassible deity – has long wrestled with profound philosophical and ethical dilemmas. Critics raise concerns about arbitrariness, the problem of evil, and the very nature of moral motivation. However, the process theology of Charles Hartshorne offers a compelling alternative conception of God, one that can potentially navigate these treacherous waters and provide a more robust foundation for divine command ethics, grounded not in sheer decree but in responsive love and shared value.

Classical theism typically portrays God as utterly transcendent, untouched and unaffected by the created world. God’s perfections, including immutability, suggest an inability to change in any respect. Omnipotence is often understood as the unilateral power to bring about any logically consistent state of affairs. Impassibility implies that God experiences no emotions and is not acted upon by anything external to the divine being. Omniscience, in this traditional view, includes knowing all temporal moments – past, present, and future – in a non-temporal, eternal way.

Within this theological landscape, DCT naturally arises. If God is the perfect, all-powerful creator, then divine commands become the ultimate source of moral authority. Actions are deemed right simply because God commands them. DCE follows suit, asserting that our ethical obligations stem directly from these divine directives. This framework offers a seemingly clear and objective basis for morality, anchoring ethical principles in the unshakeable will of the divine.

However, this classical formulation of DCT and DCE faces significant challenges. One persistent critique is the arbitrariness problem. If goodness is solely contingent on God’s commands, then could God have commanded actions that we intuitively consider morally reprehensible, such as cruelty or injustice, and would they then be considered good? This raises the specter of a capricious deity whose commands lack any inherent moral rationale beyond sheer will. As Donald Wayne Viney notes, Hartshorne believes that theological language should have positive content; a DCT that seems to hinge on potentially arbitrary commands risks undermining the positive attributes traditionally ascribed to God, such as goodness and love.

Furthermore, the problem of evil becomes particularly acute under a classical DCT framework. If God is all-powerful and his will is the source of all that is good, how can we account for the existence of suffering and evil in the world? Attributing evil directly to God’s command seems blasphemous, yet explaining it within a framework where God could unilaterally prevent it proves equally difficult. Hartshorne’s critique of unilateral divine power directly challenges this aspect of classical theism, suggesting that the existence of other beings with their own agency inherently introduces the possibility of actions contrary to divine love and wisdom.

Another concern revolves around moral motivation. If we are to obey God’s commands solely out of fear of punishment or hope of reward, does this constitute genuine moral behavior? Immanuel Kant’s distinction between “doing good in order to get a reward” and “doing good in order to be worthy of a reward” highlights this issue. Similarly, the Muslim mystic Rabiah’s prayer expresses a desire to love God for God’s own sake, transcending motivations of personal gain or fear. A DCT that solely relies on divine fiat risks reducing morality to mere obedience, potentially undermining the development of intrinsic moral values and a loving relationship with the divine.

Charles Hartshorne’s process theology, deeply influenced by Alfred North Whitehead, offers a radical departure from classical theism, providing a theological framework that can address these shortcomings of DCT and DCE. At the heart of Hartshorne’s vision is a God who is not an “unmoved mover” but a being intrinsically related to and affected by the world.

A key concept in Hartshorne’s theology is the distinction between God’s immutable essence and mutable actuality. God’s essence encompasses the divine character – supremely powerful, wise, and loving – and remains eternally consistent. However, God’s actuality, the particular states of the divine being, changes in response to the interactions with the dynamic universe and its creatures. This means that God is not aloof and unchanging but actively participates in and experiences the unfolding of creation, feeling, with unique adequacy, the joys and sorrows of the creatures. As Hartshorne quotes Whitehead, God is “the great companion—the fellow-sufferer who understands”.

Furthermore, Hartshorne reframes the concept of divine power as the ideal form of interaction, emphasizing divine relativity. God is supremely powerful, but this power is always exercised in relation to other beings who possess some degree of their own power and freedom. God cannot unilaterally bring about any state of affairs that involves the genuine agency of others. Instead, God acts as a co-creator with the creatures, influencing and responding to their actions. This view directly counters the classical notion of absolute, unilateral omnipotence that often leads to intractable problems regarding free will and the problem of evil.

Hartshorne also posits a temporal view of divine knowledge. God knows the past as actual, the present as the process of becoming, and the future as a structured array of possibilities, rather than as a fixed, predetermined sequence. This openness of the future allows for genuine creaturely freedom and responsibility, further mitigating the deterministic implications often associated with classical omniscience and DCT.

How does this relational and responsive conception of God impact divine command ethics?

Firstly, it addresses the arbitrariness problem. If God’s actuality is constantly shaped by the interactions and values within the world, and if God feels the weal and woe of the creatures, then divine commands are not arbitrary decrees from an isolated being. Instead, they can be understood as expressions of God’s inherently loving and wise nature in response to the needs and possibilities of each moment. God's essence – perfect in love, wisdom, and power – provides a consistent and non-arbitrary foundation for ethical principles. The very act of God loving the creatures implies a desire for their well-being and flourishing, providing a rational basis for divine commands that promote these ends.

Secondly, it offers a different perspective on the problem of evil. Within Hartshorne’s framework, God does not unilaterally cause or will evil. Evil arises, in part, from the genuine freedom of creatures and the inherent risks involved in a universe where beings interact and make choices. God suffers alongside creation in the face of evil and continuously works to bring good from even the most tragic circumstances. Divine commands, in this context, can be seen as guidelines that encourage actions aligned with God’s loving purposes and mitigate the potential for harm arising from creaturely freedom.

Thirdly, Hartshorne’s theology fosters a richer understanding of moral motivation. By emphasizing God’s passionate love and responsiveness, the ethical imperative shifts from mere obedience to participation in a loving relationship with a God who deeply cares about the world. We are called to act in ways that align with God’s loving nature and contribute to the well-being of ourselves and others, not simply out of fear or expectation of reward, but out of a desire to respond to and participate in the divine love that permeates the cosmos. The focus on God's positive qualities like love and beauty encourages a morality driven by appreciation and a desire to reflect these divine attributes in our own lives.

In the context of Abrahamic religions, Hartshorne’s approach can offer valuable insights. For instance, the emphasis on God’s suffering in response to human sin and suffering can deepen the understanding of divine compassion and justice. The fallibility of human interpretation of revelation, a point stressed by Hartshorne in his critique of fundamentalism, aligns with the historical diversity of ethical interpretations within these traditions. Instead of viewing divine commands as rigid, unchanging pronouncements handed down from an impassible deity, they can be understood as expressions of a continuously responsive and loving God, requiring ongoing human discernment and interpretation within the context of our evolving understanding of the world and our relationship with the divine.

Furthermore, Hartshorne’s concept of objective immortality, where our lives are eternally cherished in God’s memory, can provide a powerful motivation for ethical living. Knowing that our actions, with their inherent values and disvalues, are permanently held in the divine consciousness can inspire us to live lives worthy of that eternal remembrance, focused on love, justice, and the creation of value.

 Charles Hartshorne’s process theology, with its emphasis on a relational, responsive, and deeply loving God, offers a compelling and ethically richer alternative to the classical theistic framework that often underpins traditional Divine Command Theory and Ethics. By moving beyond the concept of an immutable, unilateral, and impassible deity, Hartshorne provides a foundation for understanding divine commands not as arbitrary decrees but as expressions of a divine love that is intimately involved in the world’s unfolding. This perspective can overcome the persistent philosophical challenges associated with classical DCT and DCE, fostering a more coherent, ethically grounded, and ultimately more meaningful understanding of the divine-human moral relationship within the Abrahamic traditions and beyond. The emphasis shifts from blind obedience to a conscious and loving participation in a cosmic dance of co-creation, guided by the enduring and responsive love of God.