Obligation, divine commands and Abraham's dilemma

Abstract

This paper is devoted to a critical examination of the divine command account of obligation offered by Robert M. Adams in his Finite and Infinite Goods. First it considers questions about the way Adams formulates his account and criticizes his arguments for preferring a divine command theory of obligation to rival divine will theories. Then it discusses the inconsistency apparently created by the divine command to Abraham to kill his innocent son. Its main argument is that Adams has not shown that the Kantian resolution he favors, according to which there really is no such command, is superior to the Kierkegaard solution, according to which it is not wrong for Abraham to kill his son.