Divine Commands and Moral Obligation

Philo 13 (2):151 - 166 (2010)
Abstract
A popular proof for the existence of God assumes that there are objective moral duties, arguing that this can only be explained by there being a supreme law-giver, namely God. The upshot is either a Divine command theory (DCT) -- or something similar -- or a natural-law theory. I discuss two prominent theories, Robert Adams’s DCT and Stephen Evans’s hybrid DCT/natural-law theory. I argue that they suffer from fatal difficulties. Natural-law theories are plausible, if God exists, but can’t be used to prove His existence; and are less plausible, on the evidence, than a naturalistic natural-law theory, which has the best prospects for providing an objective foundation for morality
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,357
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA

    No citations found.

    Similar books and articles
    Wes Morriston (2009). The Moral Obligations of Reasonable Non-Believers. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 65 (1):1 - 10.
    Paul Rooney (1995). Divine Commands and Arbitrariness. Religious Studies 31 (2):149 - 165.
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2012-06-17

    Total downloads

    7 ( #149,772 of 1,088,784 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #69,666 of 1,088,784 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.