Gurmat (Sikhi), Robert Adams and divine command theory

Robert Adams, The British Academy

Takeaways

• Religions usually have a list of divine ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ that determines their ethical position — in other words, what they say is right or wrong
• Gurmat does not have a list of ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ but does have the concept of hukam, an Arabic term deriving from the Hebrew meaning ‘will’ so Sikhs do believe there is a divine will
• Adams modified traditional Christian divine command theory reinterpreting it in a way that brings it closer to Gurmat with its focus on 1Grace expressing it as ‘prem’ or love. Gurbani teaches that, “only those who love know the Lord.”

For many religious people what is right or wrong is determined by God or the gods. However, there is a problem here which Plato expressed. A character named Euthyphro says that good is whatever pleases the gods. Socrates is unconvinced. Is something right simply because it is commanded by a divine power? Or is it commanded by a divine power because it is right?

Let us investigate the first critique. If we agree that everything commanded by God is right then what do we make of rules that seem cruel. For example, the Old Testament orders that, “Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31: 17–18). The promotion of genocide and rape seems wrong, rather than right.

We should observe that the Gurus did not hesitate to break religious rules. For example, the communal pools and langar (the free vegetarian food cooked and served by the congregation) breaks Hindu rules on caste purity and Guru Nanak’s playing of music in Baghdad and Guru Hargobind’s order that Sikh ride horses and bear arms broke Islamic law or shariah. Therefore, it would seem wrong to suggest that the Gurus promoted the idea that ethics is a matter of divine command. One problem of divine command is that of change. How could one ever argue that the command was wrong and therefore should be changed? The traditionalists who argue for original interpretations and applications are surely more rational in their arguments for to argue for change suggests that the divine power was unclear in the first instance and that co-religionists were…