Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:24:51.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What if God commanded something horrible? A pragmatics-based defence of divine command metaethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2020

PHILIPP KREMERS Open the ORCID record for PHILIPP KREMERS [Opens in a new window]
PHILIPP KREMERS*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Georgetown University, 37th and O Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20057, USA
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objection of horrible commands claims that divine command metaethics is doomed to failure because it is committed to the extremely counterintuitive assumption that torture of innocents, rape, and murder would be morally obligatory if God commanded these acts. Morriston, Wielenberg, and Sinnott-Armstrong have argued that formulating this objection in terms of counterpossibles is particularly forceful because it cannot be simply evaded by insisting on God's necessary perfect moral goodness. I show that divine command metaethics can be defended even against this counterpossible version of the objection of horrible commands because we can explain the truth-value intuitions about the disputed counterpossibles as the result of conversational implicatures. Furthermore, I show that this pragmatics-based defence of divine command metaethics has several advantages over Pruss's reductio counterargument against the counterpossible version of the objection of horrible commands.

Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 597 - 617
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, R. M. (1987) The Virtue of Faith (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Aristotle, (2004) Nicomachean Ethics, Crisp, Roger (tr.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Aquinas, Thomas (1947) The Summa Theologica, Fathers of the English Dominican Province (trs) (London: Burn Oates & Washburne).Google Scholar
Bergmann, Michael & Cover, J. A. (2006) ‘Divine responsibility without divine freedom’, Faith and Philosophy, 23, 381–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, Michael (2001) ‘Skeptical theism and Rowe's new evidential argument from evil’, Noûs, 35, 278–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berto, Francesco et al. (2018) ‘Williamson on counterpossibles’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 47, 693–713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birner, Betty J. (2013) Introduction to Pragmatics (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell).Google Scholar
Brogaard, Berit & Salerno, Joe (2013) ‘Remarks on counterpossibles’, Synthese, 190, 639–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, Brandon (2017) ‘The power to do the impossible’, Topoi, 4, 623–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuneo, Terence & Shafer-Landau, Russ (2014) ‘The moral fixed points: new directions for moral nonnaturalism’, Philosophical Studies, 171, 399–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Richard Brian & Franks, W. Paul (2015) ‘Counterpossibles and the “terrible” divine command deity’, Religious Studies, 51, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, Nina & Hill, Christopher S. (2017) ‘Impossible worlds and metaphysical explanation: comments on Kment's Modality and Explanatory Reasoning’, Analysis, 77, 134–148.Google Scholar
Enoch, David (2011) Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funkhouser, Eric (2006) ‘On privileging God's moral goodness’, Faith and Philosophy, 23, 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geach, P. T. (1973) ‘Omnipotence’, Philosophy, 48, 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillies, Anthony S. (2007) ‘Counterfactual scorekeeping’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 329–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul (1989) ‘Logic and conversation’, in Studies in the Way of Words (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Kment, Boris (2014) Modality and Explanatory Reasoning (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lampert, Fabio (2019) ‘Wierenga on theism and counterpossibles’, Philosophical Studies, 176, 693–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leftow, Brian (1989) ‘Necessary moral perfection’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 70, 240–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leftow, Brian (2017) ‘Two pictures of divine choice’, in McCann, Hugh J. (ed.) Free Will and Classical Theism: The Significance of Freedom in Perfect Being Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 152–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, Alan M. (1987) ‘Pretense and representation: the origins of “theory of mind”’, Psychological Review, 94, 412–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David (1973) Counterfactuals (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar
Maitzen, Stephen (2004) ‘A semantic attack on divine-command metaethics’, Sophia, 43, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mawson, T. J. (2002) ‘Omnipotence and necessary moral perfection are compatible: a reply to Morriston’, Religious Studies, 38, 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1993) Principia Ethica (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Morriston, Wes (2001) ‘Omnipotence and necessary moral perfection: are they compatible?’, Religious Studies, 37, 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morriston, Wes (2009) ‘What if God commanded something terrible? A worry for divine-command meta-ethics’, Religious Studies, 45, 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morriston, Wes (2015) ‘“Terrible” divine commands revisited: a response to Davis and Franks’, Religious Studies, 52, 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mugg, Joshua (2016) ‘The quietest challenge to the axiology of God: a cognitive approach to counterpossibles’, Faith and Philosophy, 33, 441–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Shaun & Stich, Stephen P. (2003) Mindreading: An Integrated Account of Pretence, Self-Awareness, and Understanding Other Minds (Oxford: Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, Daniel (1997) ‘Impossible worlds: a modest approach’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38, 535–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, Graham (2014) Describing Gods: An Investigation of Divine Attributes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, Derek (2011) On What Matters (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Pike, Nelson (1969) ‘Omnipotence and God's ability to sin’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 6, 208–216.Google Scholar
Pruss, Alexander R. (2009) ‘Another step in divine command dialectics’, Faith and Philosophy, 26, 432–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, William (2004) Can God be Free? (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Schnieder, Benjamin (2011) ‘A logic for “because”’, The Review for Symbolic Logic, 4, 445–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer-Landau, Russ (2003) Moral Realism: A Defence (Oxford: Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (2009) ‘Why traditional theism cannot provide an adequate foundation for morality’, in Garcia, Robert K. & King, Nathan L. (eds) Is Goodness without God Good Enough? A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics, (Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield), 101–116.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert (1968) ‘A theory of conditionals’, Rescher, Nicholas (ed.) Studies in Logical Theory (Oxford: Basil Blackwell), 98–112.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert (2002) ‘Common ground’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starr, William B. (2014) ‘A uniform theory of conditionals’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43, 1019–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (2004) The Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timpe, Kevin (2017) ‘The best thing in life is free: the compatibility of divine freedom and God's essential moral perfection’, in McCann, Hugh J. (ed.) Free Will and Classical Theism: The Significance of Freedom in Perfect Being Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai (2001) ‘Counterfactuals in a dynamic context’, in Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language (Cambridge MA: The MIT Press), 123–152.Google Scholar
Vetter, Barbara (2016) ‘Counterpossibles (not only) for dispositionalists’, Philosophical Studies, 173, 2681–2700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wielenberg, Erik J. (2005) Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Wielenberg, Erik J. (2009) ‘In defense of non-natural, non-theistic moral realism’, Faith and Philosophy, 26, 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierenga, Edward (1998) ‘Theism and counterpossibles’, Philosophical Studies, 89, 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willer, Malte (2015) ‘Simplifying counterfactuals’, in Brochhagen, Thomas, Roelofsen, Floris, & Theiler, Nadine (eds) Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium (Amsterdam: ILLC), 428–437.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy (2007) The Philosophy of Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy (2018) ‘Counterpossibles’, Topoi, 37, 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worsley, David (2018) ‘Our farmer Abraham: the binding of Isaac and willing what God wills’, The Journal of Analytic Theology, 6, 204–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wykstra, Stephen J. (1984) ‘The Humean obstacle to evidential arguments from suffering: on avoiding the evils of “appearance”’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 16, 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar