Adler said: “A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else.”
Human beings are superficially unequal, we differ in many ways, but we are all alike in one critical respect: We all have the same needs. Natural needs = natural right, and Morality and Justice are the means of assuring that our rights are secured, and determining how best to secure them. This is the only definition and view of morality and justice that has ever made sense to me.
In stark contrast, so called “divine command theory” holds a, somewhat ridiculous position.
That morality can ‘only’ be objective is there is some kind of “source” or “author” of what is or is not moral. You hear this all the time, the ol’ “If there’s a moral law, there must be a moral law “GIVER!” (Which is the equivalent of saying, “If you’re studying for the bar, there must be a bar “TENDER!”)
Natural laws are not prescriptions like judicial laws are, they are a consequence of the natural world.
The irony is that, by omitting any facts about human nature, divine command theorists present one of the least objective and arbitrary moral theory that I can imagine. What would it mean to say that “what god commands is objectively moral”? As if right behavior is the act of following prescription. Far from objective, one would choose to follow the dictates of God not because they’re objectively good, but because of WHO is prescribing them.
They admit this themselves when, in response to the question of why anything at all is moral, the only answer they can give is “because god said it was”. That’s not objective, that’s dogmatic.
In short, (and to quote Adler again) “Justice is a rational principle, even if there were no God, and man were a purely natural thing, there would still be principles of justice.”