Divine moral goodness, supererogation and The Euthyphro Dilemma

How can we make sense of God's moral goodness if God cannot be subject to moral obligations? This question is troubling for divine command theorists, as if we cannot make sense of God's moral goodness then it seems hard to see how God's commands could be morally good. Alston (Divine n...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Archer, Alfred (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Springer Nature B. V 2016
In: International journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2016, Volume: 79, Issue: 2, Pages: 147-160
Further subjects:B Goodness
B philosophy of religion
B Divine Command Theory
B Religion Philosophy
B Duty
B The Euthyphro Dilemma
B Divine commands (Ethics)
B God
B Moral Obligation
B Supererogation
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Description
Summary:How can we make sense of God's moral goodness if God cannot be subject to moral obligations? This question is troubling for divine command theorists, as if we cannot make sense of God's moral goodness then it seems hard to see how God's commands could be morally good. Alston (Divine nature and human language, ) argues that the concept of supererogation solves this problem. If we accept the existence of acts that are morally good but not morally required then we should accept that there is no need for an act to fulfill a moral obligation in order for it to be morally good (, p. 261). This view has been criticized by both Stump (Philosophical Perspectives 6:475-491, ) and Lombardi (American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 79(2):313-326, ), who claim that it is impossible for an agent who has no obligations to perform acts of supererogation. Young (International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 73:83-95, ) attempts to defend Alston's solution by offering a new analysis of supererogation. In this paper I will argue first that Young fails to provide an adequate response to Lombardi's objection. I will then provide my own defence of Alston's proposal.
ISSN:1572-8684
Contains:Enthalten in: International journal for philosophy of religion
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1007/s11153-015-9510-9