Advertisement

Divine Commands as the Basis for Moral Obligations

  • C. Stephen EvansEmail author
Chapter
Part of the New Approaches to the Scientific Study of Religion book series (NASR, volume 5)

Abstract

This paper explains and defends a divine command account of moral obligations. A divine command account of moral obligations is distinguished from a general theological voluntarism which grounds all moral truth in the divine will. God’s commands ground moral duties, but truths about the good are grounded in the nature of God and God’s creation. Such an account does not see a divine command account as a rival to a natural law view of the good or as a rival to virtue ethics. The three types of account are complementary. A divine command account of moral obligation is attractive for both theological and philosophical reasons, and those strengths are made clear. In conclusion the paper considers and responds to a number of objections often raised against such an account, including the so-called Euthyphro objection—an objection that stems from Cudworth, and an objection that hinges on the way God’s commands are promulgated.

Keywords

Divine commands Moral obligations Euthyphro objection Cudworth objection Promulgation problem 

References

  1. Adams, Robert. 1999. Finite and infinite goods: A framework for ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anscombe, G.E.M. 1981. Modern moral philosophy. Reprinted in The collected papers of G. E. M. Anscombe, vol. iii, Ethics, religion, and politics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Calvin, John. 1845. Institutes of the Christian religion, Trans. Henry Beveridge. www.CCEL.org/calvin/institutes.
  4. Cudworth, Ralph. 1976. A treatise concerning true and immutable morality. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  5. Dumsday, Travis. 2010. Divine hiddenness and the responsibility argument. Philosophia Christi 12 (2): 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans, C. Stephen. 2004. Kierkegaard’s ethic of love: Divine commands and moral obligations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. 2010. Natural signs and knowledge of God: A new look at theistic arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2013. God and moral obligation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans, C. Stephen and Robert C. Roberts. 2013. Kierkegaard’s contributions to ethics. In The Oxford companion of Kierkegaard. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hare, John. 2002. Why bother being good: The place of God in the moral life. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Henry, Douglas. 2001. Does reasonable nonbelief exist? Faith and Philosophy 18 (1): 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kant, Immanuel. 1965. Critique of pure reason. Trans. Norman Kemp Smith. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  13. Manis, R. Zachary. 2006. Virtues, divine commands, and the debt of creation: Towards a Kierkegaardian Christian ethic. Ph.D. dissertation, Baylor University.Google Scholar
  14. Morriston, Wes. 2009. The moral obligations of reasonable non-believers. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 65 (1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mouw, Richard. 1991. The God who commands: A study in divine command ethics. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  16. Pelser, Adam. 2011. Emotion, evaluative perception, and epistemic goods. Ph.D. dissertation, Baylor University.Google Scholar
  17. Scotus, John Duns. 1986. The Decalogue and the Law of nature. In Duns Scotus on the will and morality. Selected and translated with an introduction by Allan B. Wolter, OFM. Washington, DC: Catholic University of American Press.Google Scholar
  18. Wainwright, William. 2005. Religion and morality. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Wielenberg, Erik J. 2005. Value and virtue in a Godless universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBaylor UniversityWacoUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Religion and Critical InquiryAustralian Catholic UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations