SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kutadgubilig: Felsefe Bilim Araştırmaları / 2016 / Sayı: 29

THEOLOGICAL VOLUNTARISM IN ETHICS AND SOME CRITICISIMS

AHLÂK FELSEFESİNDE TEOLOJİK İRADECİLİK VE BAZI ELEŞTİRİLER

FERHAT YÖNEY
Pages
111–132
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition to that, by taking into consideration responses to these critics, reaches to conclusion about the content of a defensible theological voluntarism

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The relationship between God and morality is one of the much-discussed issues throughout the history of philosophy especially in Medieval Islamic and Christian philosophy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Theological voluntarism, by setting a positive relationship between God and morality, attributes ontology of moral properties directly to divine actions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition to that, by taking into consideration responses to these critics, reaches to conclusion about the content of a defensible theological voluntarism
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The relationship between God and morality is one of the much-discussed issues throughout the history of philosophy especially in Medieval Islamic and Christian philosophy. Theological voluntarism, by setting a positive relationship between God and morality, attributes ontology of moral properties directly to divine actions. This article, through examining four most important criticisms to theological voluntarism, aims to show that theological voluntarism as a metaethical position, is at least defensible. In addition to that, by taking into consideration responses to these critics, reaches to conclusion about the content of a defensible theological voluntarism

Özet

Tanrı ile ahlâk arasında nasıl bir ilişki kurulabileceği başta Ortaçağ İslam ve Hıristiyan felsefesi olmak üzere felsefe tarihi boyunca çokça tartışılan konulardan biri olmuştur. Teolojik iradecilik, Tanrı ile ahlâk arasında olumlu bir ilişki kurarak, ahlâki özelliklerin varlığını doğrudan tanrısal eylemlere dayandırmaktadır. Bu makale, teolojik iradeciliğe getirilen en önemli dört eleştiriyi ele alarak, teolojik iradeciliğin meta etik bir görüş olarak en azından savunulabilir bir konumda olduğunu göstermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Buna ek olarak, teolojik iradeciliğe getirilen bu eleştirilere verilen yanıtlar göz önünde bulundurularak, savunulabilir bir teolojik iradeciliğin kapsamı hakkında da sonuçlara ulaşmaktadır

🔖

Cite This Article

YÖNEY, F. (2016). THEOLOGICAL VOLUNTARISM IN ETHICS AND SOME CRITICISIMS. Kutadgubilig: Felsefe Bilim Araştırmaları, Sayı: 29, 111–132. https://ajindex.com/articles/344673

References (14)

  1. Adams, Robert Merrihew; “A Modified Divine Command Conception of Ethical Wrongness”, Philosophy of Religion An Anthology, ed. Charles Taliaferro, Paul J. Griffiths, Malden, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003, s. 462-476. ––––; “Divine Command Metaethics Modified Again”, The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 7, No: 1, Bahar 1979, s. 66-79. ––––; Finite and Infinite Goods A Framework for Ethics, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
  2. Almeida, Michael J.; “Supervenience and Property-Identical Divine-Command Theory”, Religious Studies, Vol. 40, No. 3, Eylül 2004, s. 323-333.
  3. Alston, William P.; “Some Suggestions for Divine Command Theorists”, Christian theism and the problems of philosophy, ed. Michael Beaty, University of Notre Dame Press, 1990, s. 303-326.
  4. Baggett, David, Walls Jerry L.; Good God Theistic Foundations of Morality, New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
  5. Burch, Robert; “Objective Values and the Divine Command Theory of Morality”, The New Scholasticism, Vol. 54, No. 3, Yaz 1980, s. 279-304.
  6. Chandler, John; “Clark on God`s Law and Morality”, The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 138, Ocak 1985, s. 87-90. ––––; “Divine Command Theories and the Appeal to Love”, American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3, Temmuz 1985, s. 231-239.
  7. Evans, C. Stephen; God&Moral Obligation, Croydon, Oxford University Press, 2013.
  8. Jordan, Matthew Carey; “Theistic Ethics: Not as Bad as You Think”, Philo, Vol. 12, No. 1, İlkbahar-Yaz 2009, s. 31-45.
  9. Kazanç, Fethi Kerim; Gazzali Öncesi Ehl-i Sünnet Kelamında Ahlâk Düşüncesi, Ankara: Ankara Okulu Yayınları, 2007.
  10. Leibniz, Wilhelm; Theodicy, BiblioBazaar, çev. Huggard, E. M., 1710, 2007.
  11. Mann, William E.; “Modality, Morality and God”, Nous, Vol. 23, No. 1, Mart 1989, s. 83-99.
  12. McLaughlin Brian, Bennett Karen; “Supervenience”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Çevrimiçi), http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/supervenience/ (erişim: 10 Haziran 2014).
  13. Murphy, Mark C.; “Theological Voluntarism”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Çevrimiçi), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voluntarism-theological (erişim: 12 Ağustos 2012). ––––.; “A Trilemma for Divine Command Theory”, Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 19, No: 1, Ocak 2002, s. 22-31.
  14. Ockham, William of; “On the Four Books of The Sentences, Book II, Question 19, Is an evil angel always in a state of evil activity?”, Divine Command Morality: Historical and Contemporary Readings, ed. Janine Marie Idziak, New York: Edwin Mellen, 1979, s. 56. Platon, Euthyphron, Ç