I think you are getting at something worth unpacking. And others around here would agree with similar reasoning and conclusions as yours.
I mean, sure, if someone is wondering all the time “do I kill this dude, or is it even ethical…. I need to think about murdering some more…” Probably not a candidate for ‘moral authority captain’, right? So I agree with that.
But you said “non-volitional”. I have to parse out where volition or non-volition fit in, with respect to the law, authority, command, and the actor not only choosing, but acting in exercise of volition, and accepting responsibility. Because I can agree with some points, but basically disagree with you here.
I agree that “a truly virtuous person does good out of cultivated character”. So yes.
But you said “as opposed to choice.”
This is where, if I take this to mean one thing, I still agree, but if I take it another way, I totally disagree.
You are contrasting cultivated character and choice.
I could see a contrast between cultivated character and divine command, or cultivated character and some other source of deliberation.
But “choice” fits in another way.
If you mean choosing your actions as opposed to being a slave to a command, then yes, the better way or ethical way is to freely choose your actions.
Choice, a choosing agent who takes responsibility and says “I did that!” - all that is at the heart of ethics. There is no way to leave those steps out of equation of ethics.
So if “divine command theory” means “charity isn’t a choice” then divine command theory isn’t even ethics to me.
But I position the moving parts like the below, and I think you have the role divine command wrong.
Instead of kicking puppies let’s go positive with the scenario:
- Some real world opportunity arises calling for action (some one needs some help, and I can help).
- I deliberate “ought I do anything?”
- In my deliberations I can consider my values, the community and it’s traditions that informed my values, my education, I can see what God has commanded (“love thy neighbor”), what would Aristotle do, what do I just want to do…. I can consider lots of things. I might already be of the character that doesn’t think about such things at all and just runs to help, but then I never had the dilemma ‘what ought I do’ and we aren’t doing the ethics anymore…….
4.(New step, done with discerning divine command, or other deliberation). Make my decision, based on my deliberation, and act. And further, claim responsibility for the results of my actions. “Yes, I was the helper, it was no big deal, please shut up about it…”
A moral authority is present (or not) during the deliberation when you are reflecting upon an action. A moral authority, be it divine command or Pennsylvania penal code, doesn’t take away your ability to deliberate, freely decide, and act with responsibility.
Reason and deliberate (2 and 3) choice of action (4) are all necessary ingredients to all ethical action.
The question of authority is one part of what you reason about when you deliberate, not part of who is responsible for the choice and the act.
—————
Authority is something you give to some third party source, of law or command or the good, or your value system, or your character. Saying “I am slave to divine command,” can simply mean “I freely choose to give divine command authority over me.”
You sound like you are saying a person who follows moral authority or divine command has a gun to his head. Even so, only the person who decides to act, and acts, can pull the trigger. Divine command doesn’t obviate moral choice, it informs it (or not).
We all have this same gun to our heads, stuck in an ethical relationship with all the people we meet, and our world. Now faced with dealing with ours and others’ good or bad choices, the question remains, how do we determine what ought we do?
—————
This just got me thinking, the question of authority is somewhat epistemological, it’s like the epistemological hook into ethics.
Authority is like justification.
The ethical law is like knowledge, the true is the good, belief is the moral decision/act.
So justified true belief is the basis for knowledge, as,
Authorized good action is the basis for the codifiable, ethical law (or just, ethics).
Or more basically, you have a knower, in the act of knowing, the good (the knowledge). The role of “authority” is like this: authority confirms this knowledge of the good in the knower, matches what is good in the world. It’s part of the justification for saying your knowledge is good, or the planned act is moral.
Weird analogy. Maybe helpful?