God's Love is Irrelevant to the Euthyphro Problem
One prominent response, based on the work of Robert Adams, Edward Wierenga, and others, to the Euthyphro objection to the divine command theory is to point out that God is essentially omnibenevolent. The commands of an essentially loving being will not be arbitrary since they are grounded in his nat...
| 1. VerfasserIn: | |
|---|---|
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Veröffentlicht: |
[2019]
|
| In: |
Sophia
Jahr: 2019, Band: 58, Heft: 3, Seiten: 437-453 |
| RelBib Classification: | AB Religionsphilosophie; Religionskritik; Atheismus NBC Gotteslehre NCA Ethik |
| weitere Schlagwörter: | B
Divine Command Theory
B Euthyphro dilemma B Theistic ethics |
| Online-Zugang: |
Volltext (Resolving-System) |
| Zusammenfassung: | One prominent response, based on the work of Robert Adams, Edward Wierenga, and others, to the Euthyphro objection to the divine command theory is to point out that God is essentially omnibenevolent. The commands of an essentially loving being will not be arbitrary since they are grounded in his nature, nor is it possible for a loving God to issue horrendous commands such as the gratuitous torture of infants. This paper argues that this response is inadequate. The divine command theory attributes to God the power to make an action morally obligatory. Given the reasonable assumption that any omnipotent being has the same powers as God, contemplating the commands of a malevolent deity is enough to cast doubt on the claim that any being, loving or otherwise, has the power to make an action morally obligatory just by commanding it. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1873-930X |
| Enthält: | Enthalten in: Sophia
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s11841-017-0615-8 |
