Criticism of Classical Divine Command Ethics: A comparative study between Wainwright's objections and the objections of Muslim rationalist theologians.

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسنده

استاد، گروه فلسفه اخلاق، دانشگاه قم

چکیده

This article first explains the classical version of the Divine command ethics in both Christian and Islamic traditions, and then by pointing out its coherency, at least in appearance, with Divine sovereignty and absolute power, it tries to show why this idea is not accepted by a significant number of the Christian and Muslim theologians. William Wainwright answers this question by using Ralph Cudworth’s objections to Divine command ethics. In total, he considers seven objections and criticisms as the main reasons for Christian theologians’ turning away from the theory. By presenting these seven objections, which are mainly taken from Ralph Cudworth’s book, we try to find similar examples in the Islamic tradition and compare them with Wainwrights’ arguments. Some of these objections can be seen in both Christian and Islamic traditions of moral rationalism. But some of them, despite the similarity in content, have different formulations. Also, some objections are specific to Christian or Islamic theology. Last but not least, there are intra-religious objections based on revelations in Islam and Christianity against the theory of Divine command, which is not the subject of my discussion in this article.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Criticism of the classical Divine Command Ethics : A comparative study of Wainwright's objection with the objections of Muslim rationalist theologians

نویسنده [English]

  • Mohsen Javadi
Professor, Philosophy of Ethics Department,, university of Qom
چکیده [English]

This article first explains the classical version of the Divine command ethics in both Christian and Islamic traditions, and then by pointing out its coherency, at least in appearance, with Divine sovereignty and absolute power, it tries to show why this idea is not accepted by a significant number of the Christian and Muslim theologians. William Wainwright answers this question by using Ralph Cudworth’s objections to Divine command ethics. In total, he considers seven objections and criticisms as the main reasons for Christian theologians’ turning away from the theory. By presenting these seven objections, which are mainly taken from Ralph Cudworth’s book, we try to find similar examples in the Islamic tradition and compare them with Wainwrights’ arguments. Some of these objections can be seen in both Christian and Islamic traditions of moral rationalism. But some of them, despite the similarity in content, have different formulations. Also, some objections are specific to Christian or Islamic theology. Last but not least, there are intra-religious objections based on revelations in Islam and Christianity against the theory of Divine command, which is not the subject of my discussion in this article.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • William Wainwright
  • Divine command ethics
  • Ralph Cudworth
  • moral rationalism
  • Muslim rationalist theologians

مراجع

Ashari, A. H. (1995). Al-Luma‘ fi-al-radd -ʿala ahl al-zaygh wa al-bida‘. Corrected by Hammouda Gharaba. Cairo: Matbaʿa Misr, Sherkat-i Mosaheme Misriya.
Cudworth, R. (1731). A Treatise concerning eternal and immutable morality. London: J. & J. Knapton. (Reprint, New York: Garland, 1976.)
Eiji, E. A. (Azad-al-din). (n.d.). al-Mawaqef fi ʿIlm al-kalam. Beirut: ʿAlam al-Kotub
Hilli, H. (Allamah Hilli). (1407 AH). Nahj al-haq wa kashf al-sidq. Foreword by R. Sadr. Qom: Muʾassasat Dar al-Hijra.
Al-Hilli, N. D. (1413 AH). Kashf al-Murad fi sharh tajrid al-iʿtiqad. (H. Hasanzade Amuli, Ed.). Qom: Muʾassasat Nahr al-Islami.
Al-Sayuri al-Hilli, M. (1378 SH). Al-Anwar al-jalaliyya fi shark al-fusul
al-Nasiriyya. Research by A. Hajiabadi & A. Jamalinia. Muʾassasat al-Bayʿ wa al-Nashr al-Tabiʿa li-l-ustan al-Radawiyya al-muqaddasa. 2nd ed.
Nobakhti, A. S. (1413 AH). Al-Yaqut fi ʿIlm al-kalam. Research by A. A. Diyaie. Qom: Ayatollah Marashi Najafi Library.
Stratton-Lake, Ph. (2013). Rational Intuitionism, in R. Crisp (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Ethics. London: Oxford University Press.
Taleghani, A., & Rafiei, H. (1398 SH), A critical assessment of epistemological and mutual-reverse arguments for intellectual moral good and bad. Falsafe va Kalam-e Eslami (Iranian Journal for the Philosophy & Kalam), 52(2), 271-287. doi: 10.22059/JITP.2019.274447.523085
Taleghani, S.A. & Rafiei, H. (2019). Critical evaluation of the argument of intifah on intellectual goodness and ugliness, Philosophy of Religion Research, 17(33), 87-110.
Tufi, N. (2005). Daraʾ-al-qobh al-qabih bi-al-tahsin wa al-taqbih, Tashih Imen Shahada. Riyaz: Markaz-i al-Malek Faysal li l-bohuth wa al-darasat al-Islamia
Tusi, N. D., & Hilli, H. (1993). Kashf al-fawaʾid fi sharh qawaʿid al-ʿaqaid. Research by H. Makki al-Ameli. Beirut: Dar al-Safwa.
Wainwright, W. (2012). Religion and morality, in Y. Tzvi Langermann (ed.). Monotheism & Ethics: Historical and Contemporary Intersections among Judaism, Christianity and Islam (45-58). Leiden (Netherland): Brill.
Wainwright, W. (2011). Morality and Religion, in Ch. Miller (ed.). The Continuum Companion to Ethics (119-142). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Wainwright, W. (2005). Religion and Morality. U.K.: Ashgate.
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله
CAPTCHA Image
پژوهش‌های فلسفی -کلامی
دوره 24، شماره 3 - شماره پیاپی 93
ویژه نامه « الهیات، فلسفه و اخلاق: یادبود ویلیام ج. وین رایت»
مهر 1401
صفحه 77-92

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار