According to the Divine Command Theory, God is the ultimate source of morality; an action is obligatory if God commands it, permitted if it does not go against any of God's commands and wrong if it is inconsistent with that which God commands. God has infinite freedom and omnipotence to do whatever He wishes however and this, some would say, could prove to be potentially problematic.
[...] With the obvious cases, such as torturing an innocent child for amusement, moral intuition is directly in line with true moral status so there is really no issue, other than one of semantics. It is only questioned when one looks into the more difficult cases, such as first-trimester abortion or even something a little less serious such as cheating on a spouse. Both of these things are legal in our society but does that make them moral? Many would argue that no, it does not. [...]
[...] argument and its subsequent objection I automatically thought of atheists. Although there does exist the belief that all atheists are immoral beings because they are not guided by God's will and therefore have no one to answer to, this is easily proven to be incorrect. Many atheists are subject to their own internal moral compass and act than some theists. Yes, the term in itself is objectionable because there is always the question of who decides what behavior is the correct behavior. [...]
[...] The Divine Command Theory applies to actions, not to thoughts and thus an intuition of what one should do is independent, in this case, of the actions they ultimately carry out, granted that they are usually one in the same. It can also be argued that there is somewhat of an evolution of human morality. Only when moral intuition is precisely the same as true moral status will we temporarily reach the end of moral evolution. I say temporarily because not all actions improve with time. [...]
using our reader.