Commentary on Rachels

1 TI: WORSHIP AND MORAL AUTONOMY.
AU: LOMBARDI,-JOSEPH-L
SO: Religious-Studies. JE 88; 24: 101-119
IS: 0034-4125
AB: JAMES RACHELS PRESENTED AN ARGUMENT FOR THE NECESSARY NONEXISTENCE OF GOD WHICH WAS CRITICIZED BY PHILIP QUINN AND ROBERT OAKES. REASONS ARE OFFERED FOR THINKING THAT QUINN'S RECONSTRUCTION MISREPRESENTS RACHELS'S VIEWS. IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE ATTEMPTS OF QUINN AND OAKES TO EXCLUDE POSSIBLE INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN DIVINE OBEDIENCE AND MORAL AUTONOMY ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. FINALLY, A DIFFERENT REASON IS GIVEN FOR BELIEVING THAT RACHELS'S ARGUMENT IS UNSOUND. A BRIEF POSTSCRIPT DISCUSSES QUINN'S RECENT SUGGESTION THAT THE OBLIGATION ASSOCIATED WITH WORSHIP IS NOT A MORAL OBLIGATION BUT A "RELIGIOUS" ONE.
DE: AUTONOMY-; GOD-; RELIGION-; WORSHIP-
PS: QUINN,-P; RACHELS,-J
LA: ENGLISH
DT: Journal-Article
AN: 1163069
in The Philosopher's Index 1940-2007/06.

2 TI: KANTIAN AUTONOMY AND DIVINE COMMANDS.
AU: MURPHY,-JEFFRIE-G
SO: Faith-and-Philosophy. JL 87; 4: 276-281
IS: 0739-7046
AB: JAMES RACHELS HAS ARGUED THAT A MORALLY AUTONOMOUS PERSON (IN KANT'S SENSE) COULD NOT CONSISTENTLY ACCEPT THE AUTHORITY OF DIVINE COMMANDS. AGAINST RACHELS, THIS ESSAY ARGUES (A) THAT THE KANTIAN CONCEPT OF MORAL AUTONOMY IS TO BE ANALYZED IN TERMS OF AN AGENT'S RESPONSIVENESS TO THE BEST AVAILABLE MORAL REASONS AND (B) THAT IT IS SIMPLY QUESTION-BEGGING AGAINST DIVINE COMMAND THEORY TO ASSUME THAT SUCH COMMANDS COULD NOT COUNT AS THE BEST MORAL REASONS AVAILABLE TO AN AGENT.
DE: AUTONOMY-; COMMAND-; DIVINE-; ETHICS-; GOD-
PS: KANT,-IMMANUEL
LA: ENGLISH
DT: Journal-Article
AN: 1151390
in The Philosopher's Index 1940-2007/06.

3 TI: RELIGIOUS OBEDIENCE AND MORAL AUTONOMY.
AU: QUINN,-PHILIP-L
SO: Religious-Studies. S 75; 11: 265-281
IS: 0034-4125
AB: THE PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER IS TO EXPLORE THE RELATIONS BETWEEN MORAL AUTONOMY AND RELIGIOUS OBEDIENCE. AN ARGUMENT CONSTRUCTED BY JAMES RACHELS, WHICH PURPORTS TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE INCOMPATIBLE, IS PROVED TO BE UNSOUND. IT IS ARGUED THAT THERE ARE EPISTEMIC SITUATIONS IN WHICH IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT ONE HAD RECEIVED A DIVINE COMMAND, AND THE KANTIAN RESPONSE TO THE STORY OF ABRAHAM AND ISAAC IS CRITICIZED. TECHNICAL NOTIONS OF AUTONOMY AND OBEDIENCE, ACCORDING TO WHICH THEY ARE INCOMPATIBLE PROVIDED MORALITY DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE DIVINE WILL, ARE DEFINED, BUT IT IS SUGGESTED THAT AUTONOMY, SO DEFINED, IS NOT A SENSIBLE MORAL IDEAL.
DE: AUTONOMY-; GOD-; RELIGION-; WORSHIP-
PS: RACHELS,-J
LA: ENGLISH
DT: Journal-Article
AN: 1049540
in The Philosopher's Index 1940-2007/06.

4 TI: REPLY TO PROFESSOR RACHELS.
AU: OAKES,-ROBERT-A
SO: Religious-Studies. JE 72; 8: 165-167
IS: 0034-4125
AB: THIS PAPER CONSTITUTES A RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR JAMES RACHELS' "GOD AND HUMAN ATTITUDES" WHICH APPEARED IN THE DECEMBER 1971 ISSUE OF "RELIGIOUS STUDIES", PP. 325-337. I ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT RACHELS' PUTATIVE ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF OF GOD FAILS INSOFAR AS THERE IS NO LOGICAL INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE AXIOLOGICAL PERFECTION OF GOD AND HUMAN MORAL AGENCY.
DE: EXISTENCE-; GOD-; RELIGION-
PS: RACHELS,-J
LA: ENGLISH
DT: Journal-Article
AN: 1037781
in The Philosopher's Index 1940-2007/06.

5 TI: GOD AND HUMAN ATTITUDES.
AU: RACHELS,-JAMES
SO: Religious-Studies.; 7: 325-338
IS: 0034-4125
DE: AUTONOMY-; GOD-; RELIGION-; WORSHIP-
LA: ENGLISH
DT: Journal-Article
AN: 1077625
in The Philosopher's Index 1940-2007/06.