Therefore, it is imperative that a proposed solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma is able to explain sufficiently moral ontology, moral epistemology, and moral obligation. While this is not an illicit distinction, it is a distinction that weakens the apologetic force of the argument. Contemporary formulations of divine command theories of ethics make a distinction between moral values and moral obligations and duties. In addition, an examination of the philosophical landscape that surrounds the relationship between the Euthyphro Dilemma and Divine Command Theory is needed. Second, the Euthyphro Dilemma is meant to challenge the belief that God is the explanatory ultimate for objective moral values and duties. Therefore, the response one gives, and the method used, is vital to the apologetic enterprise. First, the Euthyphro Dilemma is still offered by contemporary non-theists as a critique of the Christian faith. The topic relates to apologetics in two primary ways. The topic relates to theology, since one’s response to the Euthyphro Dilemma can implicitly or explicitly speak to God’s moral sovereignty. To accomplish this task, it is important to understand how the Euthyphro Dilemma relates to theology and apologetics in general, and the contemporary attempts to ground objective moral values and duties in particular. It offers a critical evaluation of contemporary evangelical divine command theories to demonstrate the inherent ambiguity as they relate to Divine Command Theory, and their lack of apologetic force for answering the Euthyphro dilemma. This dissertation presents an alternative response to the Euthyphro dilemma that will be referred to as the Non-Voluntarist Theory.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |