There are those who believe that ethical dilemmas can occur within the divine command system of ethics. This is when we face situations in which two divine commands appear to demand contradictory responses. That is, in an ethical dilemma, one divine command appears to demand one response, but at the same time this response appears to be forbidden by another applicable divine command, and which demands a contradictory action. The question is, when two divine commands appear to contradict, which one should we obey?

This is what makes our discussion on divine command ethics relevant to our passage. Our case involves a conflict between divine and human authorities, with divine authority on the one side (Christ, Scripture, etc.), and a human authority functioning by divine authority on the other (human institutions). But before we address this, let us first consider a situation in which each side of the apparent conflict directly involves a divine command.

Here is a favorite test case, or mental experiment: Suppose a person comes up to you with a deadly weapon demanding you to disclose the location of another person, whom he intends to murder. It appears that two moral duties apply in such a situation. First, there is the duty to preserve the life of another. But if you lie to divert the man from his target, then it seems that you would be violating your duty to tell the truth. To put this negatively, on the one hand, you are forbidden to contribute to the unjust death of another person, and on the other hand, you are forbidden to lie.

A number of solutions and perspectives have been proposed. Among them, a favorite one is called "graded absolutism." It affirms that there is an absolute standard of ethics, and this standard is revealed to us in God's commandments. To transgress God's law is to commit sin; however, some moral duties are greater than others. Then, it proceeds to acknowledge that there are situations in which moral duties genuinely contradict one another. In these cases, a person must choose the "greater good," and when he does so, he is counted as righteous, and the fact that he violates the lesser commandment in order to fulfill the greater one does not count as sin.

When applied to our test case, according to graded absolutism, in order to fulfill the duty to preserve life, you would be morally obligated to lie. In fact, it would be a sin not to lie. Amazingly, many Christians consider this line of thinking a good solution to moral dilemmas. But there are several major problems with it.

Posted in Expositions | Permanent Link