Affiliation:
1. Department of Biblical and Theological Studies, Palm Beach Atlantic University, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, USA
Abstract
According to many, human autonomy is necessary for moral action and yet incompatible with being morally accountable to God’s divine commands. By issuing commands that ground normative facts, God demands our accountability without understanding our normative reasons for moral action, which crushes human autonomy. Call this the Autonomy Objection to Theism (AOT). There is an unexplored connection between models of normative reason and AOT. I argue that any plausible AOT must be stated in terms of an adequate model of normative reason. There are two broad metaethical categories for models of normative reason: anti-realist or realist views. I defend the thesis that both anti-realism and realism about normative reasons fail to support AOT by means of a dilemma. If the AOT defender adopts anti-realism about normative reasons (subjectivism and constructivism), AOT loses its force. However, if the AOT defender adopts moral realism, they face the same problem as the theist, as normative fact constrains autonomy. Consequently, AOT is a problem for all moral realists, including non-theists, such as Russ Shafer-Landau, David Enoch, and Erik Wielenberg, among others.
Reference57 articles.
1. Adams, Robert (1987). The Virtue of Faith and Other Essays in Philosophical Theology, Oxford University Press.
2. Adams, Robert (1999). Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics, Oxford University Press.
3. Arnold, Matthew (1902). Essays in Criticism, Clarendon Press. First published 1865.
4. Arpaly, Nomy (2003). Unprincipled Virtue: An Inquiry into Moral Agency, Oxford University Press.
5. Klemke, Elmer Daniel, and Cahn, Steven M. (2008). The Meaning of Life, Oxford University Press. First published 1957.