DOI

10.17077/etd.da3alj87

Document Type

Dissertation

Date of Degree

Summer 2018

Degree Name

PhD (Doctor of Philosophy)

Degree In

Philosophy

First Advisor

Jeske, Diane

Second Advisor

Fales, Evan

First Committee Member

Fumerton, Richard

Second Committee Member

Hasan, Ali

Third Committee Member

Landini, Gregory

Abstract

I argue that, if God exists, moral facts ontologically depend on him. After distinguishing a variety of ways in which moral facts might ontologically depend on God, I focus my attention on the most prominent and most well-developed account of the relationship between God and morality viz., the account developed by Robert Adams in his Finite and Infinite Goods. Adams’ account consists of two parts—an account of deontic moral properties and an account of axiological moral properties. Adams’ account of deontic moral properties is a version of divine command theory according to which the property of being morally right (obligatory) and the property of being morally wrong are identical to the property of being commanded by God and the property of being forbidden by God, respectively. I argue that although Adams’ divine command theory is not vulnerable to many prominent objections that afflict other versions of divine command theory, his view is, nevertheless, both unmotivated and implausible.

Next, I explain Adams’ account of axiological properties, which is a particular version of what I call “theistic valuational particularism.” According to Adams’ theistic valuational particularism, the property of being intrinsically good or excellent is identical to the property of faithfully and holistically resembling God. I argue that because Adams’ conception of excellence is so broad, there are some things that have the property of being excellent but fail to resemble God. I argue that the same problem afflicts other, modified versions of theistic valuational particularism, including one that is defended by Scott Hill and another that is championed by Mark Murphy. Nevertheless, I argue that this problem does not afflict what I call “theistic moral valuational particularism,” the view that moral goodness is identical to the property of resembling God in certain, specified ways. Furthermore, I argue that, if God exists, theistic moral valuational particularism is not only well motivated theologically, but it can withstand the two most prominent objections that have been lodged against it, viz., the arbitrariness objection and the divine ascription problem.

Keywords

Dependence, Ethics, God, Goodness, Obligation, Soverignty

Pages

viii, 161 pages

Bibliography

Includes bibliographical references (pages 152-161).

Copyright

Copyright © 2018 David James Redmond

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS