The divine command theory views something as either morally right or wrong based on what God laws. The source of God’s wills is the bible which Christian’s believe contains God’s commands. The old statement provides a list of animals that people should not eat. The swine is labeled as one of them and continuously appears in the Old Testament as meat that people should not consume. Therefore, an individual who subscribes to the Old Testament teachings can claim that eating pork is morally unacceptable based on these teachings. However, the New Testament provides teachings that tend to contradict some of the laws provided in the Old Testament. Jesus brought new laws that negated some of the old ones. An incident in the book of Acts has Peter getting a vision of unclean animals coming from heaven. Peter is told to kill and eat them but refuses saying they are unclean. However, a voice tells him that people cannot call what God has cleaned unclean. This implies that eating pork according to the New Testament is morally right. This is where the dilemma arises because they are those who subscribe to the teachings of the Old Testament and believe the law as provided in the book of exodus should be followed. On the other hand, those who belief Jesus was sent to liberate people. The statement that eating pork is morally unacceptable is debatable and provides a huge challenge to people who agree with the divine command theory. The bible provides two statements that contradict each other. This implies that an individual can follow any of them and justify his views as morally right because they are based on God’s will.
The divine command theory tries to determine whether eating pork is morally acceptable. It is trying to determine what is good and what is not before the eyes of God. It is focused on determining whether an act is right or wrong based on God’s will. This acknowledges that God is the sole determinant of what is right or wrong and only His command should be followed. This creates a huge challenge when dealing with a complex issue such as eating pork. The morality of some issues is not clearly articulated in the bible. This leaves them to the interpretation of human beings. The fact that the Holy Scriptures must provide the guidelines implies that philosophers can only rely on these teachings. In cases where the information provided is not conclusive, then they have to face a dilemma, which they are not allowed to solve using their own philosophical understanding. Eating something can be judged whether it is right or wrong based on its effects on the consumer. Food products that have no side effects on the consumer are classified as right while those that cause diseases are forbidden. This contradicts the teachings of the divine command theory, which superficially relies on the will of God. Therefore, something such as pork is classified as healthy while some sections of the bible classify it is forbidden and unclean. Some other sections of the bible allow human beings to eat everything since the creator says so. Therefore, a philosopher does not rely know what to do because they are bound by the teachings of the divine command theory. The theory makes solving some issues very easy since they are clear in the divine books while others are extremely complex.