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...

Description complète

Enregistré dans:  
Détails bibliographiques
Auteur principal: Thibodeau, Jason (Auteur)
Type de support: Électronique Article
Langue:Anglais
Vérifier la disponibilité: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
En cours de chargement...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publié: Springer Netherlands [2019]
Dans: Sophia
Année: 2019, Volume: 58, Numéro: 3, Pages: 437-453
RelBib Classification:AB Philosophie de la religion
NBC Dieu
NCA Éthique
Sujets non-standardisés:B Divine Command Theory
B Euthyphro dilemma
B Theistic ethics
Accès en ligne: Volltext (Resolving-System)
Description
Résumé: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
Contient:Enthalten in: Sophia
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1007/s11841-017-0615-8