�0��+��l����,��Ii+�oq��0���L�0��%��2�{����[@X�a �+���*T�G�.Z�����_>�x}>W>����jM)Q�֢Uo8].e-Zp-`�#թ���?|��������纲7l�ݽ ��:8 This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access. << /Length 5 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode >> In the first place a moral sceptic may well deny that any act is either right or wrong. Here I assume that there is a finite sum to the numerical values. The theory asserts that what is moral is determined by what God commands, and that for a person to be moral is to follow his commands. by C.F. © 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. A Divine Command Theory of Ethics is sometimes rejected on the grounds that such a theory is incompatible with human moral autonomy. endstream %PDF-1.3 Divine command theory (also known as theological voluntarism) is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action’s status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. Divine command theory. Google Scholar. For a discussion of Kant's concept of an imperfect duty see Marion Baron, ‘Kantian Ethics and Supererogation’,The Journal of Philosophy, 84 (1987), 237–262. 2. But it seems natural enough to suppose that the authority of the Decalogue depends in some manner on the fact it is divinely commanded or the fact that the commands express God's will. R.M. They therefore have reasons for sympathy with a divine command conception of morality. The third is that I myself would takebeing right to be a property of properties of acts rather than a property. Thus we need to consider nested counterfactuals, of the form: ‘If God were not to exist, then if She/He were to exist, ...’. Of course there are all sorts of untenable theories consistent with all four premisses. For example, the theory that the Divine Command Theory holds except for the wrongness of inflicting pain for the fun of it, for which Utilitarianism holds. Use the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. These do not collapse to indicative conditionals. Many think that the idea of moral obligations, considered apart from the will of God, simply makes no sense. %��������� SOPH 28, 2–19 (1989). But I disagree. For a discussion of some of the objections see mySupervenience: The Grand-Property Hypothesis. Different benevolent people will manifest their human weakness in different ways. See George Schlesinger,Religion and Scientific Method, Reidel, 1977, for a discussion of the (epistemic) possibility that there is no best. So we would do well to have a label for this class of views that does not prejudge the issue of the relevant act of divine will. Delaney (Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, 1979) p. 117 See also Adams' “A Modified Divine Command Theory of Ethical Wrongness” and “Divine Command Metaethics as NecessaryA Posteriori” reprinted inDivine Commands of Morality, ed. Secondly, we usually reserve the judgement that an act is right for the situation in which all but some narrowly constrained class of acts is wrong. volume 28, pages2–19(1989)Cite this article. �)����vuY�m[�Ңgߺ��3ӛ�5œ]�. That is, the theory that to have value is to be approved of by God, to have disvalue is to be disapproved of by Her/Him. Learn more about Institutional subscriptions. It also follows that no act is right, if you take the Divine Command Theory as saying that an act's rightness is constituted by its being permitted by God. Philosophy Department, University of New England, Australia, You can also search for this author in Part of Springer Nature. One might, of course, understand these divine commands as merely God's endorsement of a moral code … Robert Adams, ‘Existence, Self Interest and the Problem of Evil’,Noûs 13 (1979), 53–65. xuO� The incompatibility between a Divine Command Ethic and moral … Both Exodus 20:1–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21, which recount the revelation of the Decalogue, portray God as instructing the Chosen People about what they are to do and not to do by commanding them. For to say an act is right seems to presuppose some other acts are wrong. I am grateful to Barry Miller, of the University of New England, and Dan Skubik of the Australian National University for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. For example, the theory that the Divine Command Theory holds except for the wrongness of inflicting pain for the fun of it, for which Utilitarianism holds. And Her/His choice may be due to other motives, such as aesthetic ones, or a sense of humour. stream Both Exodus 20:1–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21, which recount the revelation of the Decalogue, portray God as instructing the Chosen People about what they are to do and not to do by commanding them. (See my ‘Supervenience: The Grand-Property Hypothesis’,Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 66 (1986), 1–12.). Learn about our remote access options. << /ProcSet [ /PDF /Text ] /ColorSpace << /Cs1 7 0 R /Cs2 8 0 R >> /Font << Gene Outka and John P. Reeder, Jr., Anchor Books, 1973. But I am restricting my attention to otherwise tenable theories. If you do not receive an email within 10 minutes, your email address may not be registered, To love is, at least in part, to will what is intrinsically good for the beloved precisely because it is intrinsically good for the beloved. Divine command theory is an ethical view based on theism or the belief that God exists. This may not be obvious. This is possible only if these consequences arecomparable to each other in value. That is because there are variousuntenable alternatives to the Divine Command Theory which satisfy all four premisses. Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.