e.g Goodness = pleasure. You can see something and observe that it is good.

Moral terms can be defined in terms of observations of the natural world.

Natural science cannot explain moral judgements

e.g The moral propety of goodness is a unique and unreducible property. Good is just good. Only good is good.

Morality is seen as a separate, non-physical realm

We know through gut feeling, through our intuition what is right/wrong

Direct and immediate approach - no need for complex reasoning/justification

Flexible - our intuition naturally weighs up different moral considerations

Recognises people's intuition isn't necessarily correct, there can be disagreements

Believes there are real objective moral truths that exist independent of humans

If morality is objective, some cultures must be objectively wrong as different cultures will hold different beliefs and intuition

No systematic method for resolving moral dilemmas

Morality, what is right and wrong, is determined by the commands of God

Straightforward and unambiguous basis for morality - simply based in the absolute authority of God's commands

Encourages individuals to transcend their own desires and adhere to God's higher moral authority

If the first is true morality becomes arbitrary as it depends on God rather than the inherent goodness of actions

If the second is true, morality exists independent of God's commands so God's commands are not the source of authority at all (which is what DCT claims).

Either way, God's commands can not be a flawless representation of morals posing a challenge to DCT

Different translations etc - how can we truly be sure what God is thinking? There is still subjectivity