1. Consider any of Rachels three objections to the theory of divine command. Do you think he is onto something here? Are there implications for either the divine or moral law if Rachels is right in his objection?

Objection: "morality is a matter of reason and conscience, not religious faith"

No, I don't think Rachels is onto something. Reason and conscience are lousy guides for morality because they are subjective rather than objective. If I use reason and conscience I could conceivable lie one day and it would be moral and I could tell the same lie tomorrow and it would be immoral based on my reasoning and conscience on each of the two days. The implication for divine and moral law is that there are no absolutes. If a type of activity is wrong sometimes and right at other times then I become God because I determine, by using my reason and conscience, if in this circumstance it is an immoral or moral action. If each person is God, determining right and wrong then what happens when you get a number of these God's together? Either some of them have to admit that they are not autonomous or you get anarchy.