Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

Abstract Details

2018, Master of Arts (MA), Ohio University, Philosophy (Arts and Sciences).
In this thesis, William Alston’s influential defense of divine command theory is critically evaluated. It is argued that Alston, in positing evaluative particularism, undermines his defense because moral particularism, a rival theory of moral obligation, follows from evaluative particularism. Furthermore, the moral particularist need not deny that God has moral obligations. Even if evaluative particularism did not entail moral particularism, it fails to makes God’s commands non-arbitrary, contrary to Alston’s claims. On divine command theory, God does not make commands for moral reasons, which is a fundamental principle of moral agency, necessary for any moral action to be non-arbitrary. Also, the divine nature does not uniquely pick out particular good actions to be obligatory. It is also objected that Alston’s evaluative particularism posits a God which is either conceptually incoherent or non-existent, demonstrated by an evidential argument from evil given in the paper.
James Petrik, Dr. (Committee Chair)
Alyssa Bernstein, Dr. (Committee Member)
Alfred Lent, Dr. (Committee Member)
53 p.

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Elmore, B. A. (2018). What Socrates Should Have Said [Master's thesis, Ohio University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ohiou1524687031178966

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Elmore, Benjamin. What Socrates Should Have Said. 2018. Ohio University, Master's thesis. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ohiou1524687031178966.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Elmore, Benjamin. "What Socrates Should Have Said." Master's thesis, Ohio University, 2018. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ohiou1524687031178966

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)