Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A Divine Command Theory that does not ground God's commands in God's essential goodness faces the Euthyphro dilemma
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If God commands what is right because it is right, rightness is independent of God's commands and DCT is undermined
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If God does not command what is right because it is right, then God's commands appear arbitrary
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
2 perspectives
Reason against 1 of 2
?
1.
Robert Adams' modified DCT grounds moral obligations in commands of a essentially loving God, making arbitrary divine cruelty conceptually impossible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If God's essential nature just is the standard of goodness, then 'why is God good?' is a category error, not a genuine regress.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
This collapses the Euthyphro horns: rightness is neither independent of God nor arbitrary, but constituted by God's necessary nature.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason against 2 of 2
?
1.
Leibniz argued that God's goodness is not measured by an external standard but is itself the archetype from which goodness is derived.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A being whose nature is necessarily and essentially good cannot issue commands that are genuinely arbitrary, since arbitrariness requires contingency.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Therefore, DCT grounded in divine essential goodness avoids both horns without conceding that moral facts are ontologically prior to God.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.