Kierkegaard and divine-command theory: Replies to Quinn and Evans: R. Zachary Manis

Religious Studies 45 (3):289-307 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

One of the most important recent developments in the discussion of Kierkegaard's ethics is an interpretation defended, in different forms, by Philip Quinn and Stephen Evans. Both argue that a divine-command theory of moral obligation is to be found in Works of Love . Against this view, I argue that, despite significant overlap between DCT and the view of moral obligation found in Works of Love , there is at least one essential difference between the two: the former, but not the latter, is committed to the claim that, necessarily, p is morally obligatory only if God commands that p

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,991

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-05

Downloads
32 (#515,569)

6 months
9 (#356,105)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

R. Zachary Manis
The Stony Brook School

Citations of this work

Do I ever have a place in the sun? A critical perspective on Kierkegaard’s Works of Love.Rob Compaijen - 2014 - International Journal of Philosophy and Theology 75 (4):347-364.
Kierkegaard and Evans on the problem of Abraham.R. Zachary Manis - 2011 - Journal of Religious Ethics 39 (3):474-492.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references