Divine moral goodness, supererogation and The Euthyphro Dilemma

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 79 (2):147-160 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

How can we make sense of God’s moral goodness if God cannot be subject to moral obligations? This question is troubling for divine command theorists, as if we cannot make sense of God’s moral goodness then it seems hard to see how God’s commands could be morally good. Alston argues that the concept of supererogation solves this problem. If we accept the existence of acts that are morally good but not morally required then we should accept that there is no need for an act to fulfill a moral obligation in order for it to be morally good. This view has been criticized by both Stump and Lombardi :313–326, 2005), who claim that it is impossible for an agent who has no obligations to perform acts of supererogation. Young attempts to defend Alston’s solution by offering a new analysis of supererogation. In this paper I will argue first that Young fails to provide an adequate response to Lombardi’s objection. I will then provide my own defence of Alston’s proposal

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 102,323

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

God’s moral goodness and supererogation.Elizabeth Drummond Young - 2013 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 73 (2):83-95.
Can God’s Goodness Save the Divine Command Theory from Euthyphro?Jeremy Koons - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 4 (1):177-195.
Against God’s Moral Goodness.Joseph L. Lombardi - 2005 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 79 (2):313-326.
Theistic Activism and the Euthyphro Dilemma.David James Baggett - 2002 - Dissertation, Wayne State University
An Adamsian Theory of Moral Obligations but without Divine Commands.Seyyed Abbas Kazemi Oskooei - 2023 - Journal of Philosophical Theological Research 25 (1):101-119.
Supererogation and the Limits of Moral Obligations. Guest Editor’s Preface.Simone Grigoletto - 2017 - Etica and Politica / Ethics and Politics 19 (1):221-224.
In defense of sporting supererogation: a reply to Borge.Alfred Archer & Xiner Tao - forthcoming - Journal of the Philosophy of Sport.
Kant, Morality, and Hell.James Edwin Mahon - 2015 - In Robert Arp & Benjamin McCraw (eds.), The Concept of Hell. Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 113-126.
Beyond Obligation: Reasons and Supererogation.Michael Ferry - 2015 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 77:49-65.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-01-25

Downloads
183 (#134,045)

6 months
9 (#467,959)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Alfred Archer
Tilburg University

Citations of this work

Al-ghazālī's divine command theory.Shoaib Ahmed Malik - 2021 - Journal of Religious Ethics 49 (3):546-576.
God and the grounding of morality.David James Redmond - 2018 - Dissertation, University of Iowa

Add more citations

References found in this work

The elements of moral philosophy.James Rachels & Stuart Rachels - 2019 - New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. Edited by James Rachels.
God and Moral Obligation.C. Stephen Evans - 2013 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Supererogation: its status in ethical theory.David Heyd - 1982 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Contractualism and the foundations of morality.Nicholas Southwood - 2010 - New York: Oxford University Press.

View all 23 references / Add more references