As mentioned in an earlier post, Objectivism is the “main squeeze” among Ethicists:”The Backbone of Ethics”:http://www.hundiejo.com/philosophy/index.php/b/2005/06/14/the_backbone_of_ethics_part_1. This does not mean there is much agreement among them about out the “rules” work. There are many variations among the different sets of possible rules and where the various rule sets get their authority.

This is perhaps the easiest to understand of the flavors. In the Divine Command Theory, the objective set of rules that make up ethics are the commands of a specific deity or set of deities. This view set is most commonly found in religious circles. For example, the laws that Allah sets forth in the Qu’ran are the absolute laws of right and wrong. The authority comes from the power of the deity itself. Although the different religions will vary, the general idea is that “he who makes the place, sets the rules.” Or, God created us, so He gets to set the rules.

Given that there is a God and that the rules that one attributes to Him are in fact the rules that He has set forth, Divine Command Theory is quite a valid ethical theory. For the Christians, all you need to prove is that the Bible is true and that its version of God also really exists. Same thing with the Hebrews and the Talmud.

However, getting to the givens is the hard part. It takes an enormous amount of work to prove there is a God and then for a mere human to comprehensively demonstrate that the text is what the proved God wishes for moral law is an equally hard task. For each demonstration of existence there is a counter-demonstration of non-existence. This is most famously examined in Kant’s (in)famous antinomies:”Kant’s Antinomies”:http://academics.vmi.edu/psy_dr/Kant’s%20antinomies.htm.

Due to this hardship, even religious Ethicists have relied on the other theories to prove their Ethic Set, such as Consequentialism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics.