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 Therefore, the divine command theorist cannot escape Cudworth's 1731 charge: moral knowledge grounds theological knowledge, not the reverse.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Cudworth conflates epistemological grounding (how we know) with metaphysical grounding (what makes something true).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Divine command theorists can affirm both that moral knowledge and theological knowledge co-depend without one grounding the other.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Our modal access to moral truths may reflect God's eternal nature rather than proving moral facts exist independently of divinity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
We recognize moral truths (torturing children is wrong) prior to and independently of any theological commitments.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Divine command theory requires pre-existing moral knowledge to identify which commands are genuinely divine versus demonic.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If God's commands defined morality, we could not coherently ask whether God's commands are morally good, yet we do.
?
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.