Richard Joyce's new objections to the divine command theory

Journal of Religious Ethics 38 (1):189-196 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX


In a 2002 paper for this journal, Richard Joyce presents three new arguments against the Divine Command Theory. In this comment, I attempt to show that each of these arguments is either unpersuasive or uninteresting. Two of Joyce’s arguments are unpersuasive because they rely on an implausible principle or an implausible claim about what counts as a platitude governing use of the term “wrong.” Joyce’s other argument is uninteresting because it is persuasive only if Joyce’s formulation of the Euthyphro Problem is persuasive. However, Joyce argues that the Euthyphro Problem is not persuasive. Therefore, if Joyce is correct about this, then his own objection to the Divine Command Theory is not persuasive either



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 86,377

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

Divine Command Morality and the Autonomy of Ethics.Robert Audi - 2007 - Faith and Philosophy 24 (2):121-143.
Errors upon errors: a reply to joyce.Stephen Finlay - 2011 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (3):535 - 547.
Joyce’s Argument for Probabilism.Patrick Maher - 2002 - Philosophy of Science 69 (1):73-81.
Question authority: in defense of moral naturalism without clout.Jon Tresan - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 150 (2):221 - 238.
Theistic Ethics and the Euthyphro Dilemma.Richard Joyce - 2002 - Journal of Religious Ethics 30 (1):49-75.


Added to PP

227 (#71,712)

6 months
6 (#160,349)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Scott Hill
University of Innsbruck

References found in this work

The moral problem.Michael Smith - 1994 - Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell.
Moral realism: a defence.Russ Shafer-Landau - 2003 - New York: Oxford University Press.
The Myth of Morality.Richard Joyce - 2001 - New York: Cambridge University Press.

View all 16 references / Add more references