A reevaluation of the concept of moral obligations

Oct 13, 2025 by wbrum.org 38 views

Introduction

In the realm of moral philosophy, various theories have been proposed to guide human behavior and decision-making. However, not all of these theories are without their criticisms. One such critique is the no-rest objection, which targets a specific moral theory. In this article, we will explore the no-rest objection and identify the moral theory it critiques.

Understanding the No-Rest Objection

The no-rest objection is a philosophical critique that argues against a particular moral theory. It suggests that this theory leads to an infinite regress of moral obligations, where one action or decision is justified only by another action or decision, and so on. This creates a never-ending cycle of moral justification, with no ultimate resting point.

Moral Theories and the No-Rest Objection

To determine which moral theory the no-rest objection critiques, let's examine each of the options:

A. Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that aims to maximize overall happiness or well-being. It suggests that actions are right if they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. While utilitarianism has its strengths, it is not typically associated with the no-rest objection.

B. Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism is a moral theory that argues that moral judgments are relative to the cultural context in which they are made. It suggests that what is considered right or wrong varies across cultures and that there is no universal moral truth. Cultural relativism is not typically associated with the no-rest objection.

C. Divine Command Theory

Divine command theory is a moral theory that argues that moral obligations are based on the commands of a divine being. It suggests that what is right or wrong is determined by the will of God. The no-rest objection can be applied to divine command theory, as it raises questions about the source of moral obligations and the nature of divine commands.

D. Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is a moral theory that focuses on the development of character traits or virtues. It suggests that individuals should strive to become good people by cultivating virtues such as compassion, honesty, and fairness. Virtue ethics is not typically associated with the no-rest objection.

The No-Rest Objection and Divine Command Theory

The no-rest objection is most closely associated with divine command theory. This is because divine command theory relies on the idea that moral obligations are based on the commands of a divine being. However, this raises questions about the source of moral obligations and the nature of divine commands. If moral obligations are based on divine commands, then what is the source of those commands? Is it the will of God, or is it something else?

The no-rest objection argues that divine command theory leads to an infinite regress of moral obligations. For example, if a divine being commands us to do something, then we must ask why that being commanded us to do so. If the answer is that the being is good, then we must ask why that being is good. If the answer is that the being is good because it is commanded by another being, then we must ask why that being is good, and so on. This creates a never-ending cycle of moral justification, with no ultimate resting point.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the no-rest objection is a philosophical critique that targets divine command theory. It argues that this theory leads to an infinite regress of moral obligations, creating a never-ending cycle of moral justification. While divine command theory has its strengths, the no-rest objection raises important questions about the source of moral obligations and the nature of divine commands.

References

The Oxford Handbook of the History of Ethics by Roger Crisp
The Cambridge Companion to Virtue Ethics by Daniel C. Russell
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Edward N. Zalta

Glossary

Divine Command Theory: A moral theory that argues that moral obligations are based on the commands of a divine being.
No-Rest Objection: A philosophical critique that argues against divine command theory, suggesting that it leads to an infinite regress of moral obligations.
Utilitarianism: A moral theory that aims to maximize overall happiness or well-being.
Cultural Relativism: A moral theory that argues that moral judgments are relative to the cultural context in which they are made.
Virtue Ethics: A moral theory that focuses on the development of character traits or virtues.
The No-Rest Objection: A Q&A Article =====================================

Introduction

In our previous article, we explored the no-rest objection and its critique of divine command theory. The no-rest objection argues that divine command theory leads to an infinite regress of moral obligations, creating a never-ending cycle of moral justification. In this article, we will answer some frequently asked questions about the no-rest objection and its implications for moral philosophy.

Q&A

Q: What is the no-rest objection?

A: The no-rest objection is a philosophical critique that argues against divine command theory. It suggests that this theory leads to an infinite regress of moral obligations, creating a never-ending cycle of moral justification.

Q: Why is the no-rest objection a problem for divine command theory?

A: The no-rest objection is a problem for divine command theory because it raises questions about the source of moral obligations and the nature of divine commands. If moral obligations are based on divine commands, then what is the source of those commands? Is it the will of God, or is it something else?

Q: How does the no-rest objection relate to the concept of moral absolutism?

A: The no-rest objection is related to the concept of moral absolutism, which holds that certain actions are always right or always wrong, regardless of the circumstances. The no-rest objection argues that moral absolutism is problematic because it leads to an infinite regress of moral obligations.

Q: Can the no-rest objection be applied to other moral theories?

A: While the no-rest objection is most closely associated with divine command theory, it can be applied to other moral theories that rely on a similar concept of moral obligations. For example, some forms of virtue ethics may be subject to the no-rest objection if they rely on a similar concept of moral obligations.

Q: What are some potential responses to the no-rest objection?

A: There are several potential responses to the no-rest objection, including:

The circularity response: This response argues that the no-rest objection is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of divine commands. According to this view, divine commands are not based on a prior moral obligation, but rather are the source of moral obligations.
The hierarchical response: This response argues that the no-rest objection is based on a misunderstanding of the hierarchical structure of moral obligations. According to this view, moral obligations are not based on a linear chain of commands, but rather are part of a hierarchical structure.
The revisionist response: This response argues that the no-rest objection is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of moral obligations. According to this view, moral obligations are not based on divine commands, but rather are based on human values and principles.

Q: What are some implications of the no-rest objection for moral philosophy?

A: The no-rest objection has several implications for moral philosophy, including:

A reevaluation of the concept of moral obligations: The no-rest objection suggests that moral obligations are not as clear-cut as they may seem. Instead, they may be based on a complex web of commands and justifications.
A reevaluation of the concept of divine commands: The no-rest objection suggests that divine commands may not be the source of moral obligations. Instead, they may be part of a larger system of moral obligations.
A reevaluation of the concept of moral absolutism: The no-rest objection suggests that moral absolutism may not be as clear-cut as it may seem. Instead, it may be based on a complex web of moral obligations and justifications.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the no-rest objection is a philosophical critique that argues against divine command theory. It suggests that this theory leads to an infinite regress of moral obligations, creating a never-ending cycle of moral justification. While the no-rest objection is most closely associated with divine command theory, it can be applied to other moral theories that rely on a similar concept of moral obligations. By understanding the no-rest objection and its implications for moral philosophy, we can gain a deeper understanding of the nature of moral obligations and the concept of divine commands.

References

The Oxford Handbook of the History of Ethics by Roger Crisp
The Cambridge Companion to Virtue Ethics by Daniel C. Russell
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Edward N. Zalta

Glossary

Divine Command Theory: A moral theory that argues that moral obligations are based on the commands of a divine being.
No-Rest Objection: A philosophical critique that argues against divine command theory, suggesting that it leads to an infinite regress of moral obligations.
Utilitarianism: A moral theory that aims to maximize overall happiness or well-being.
Cultural Relativism: A moral theory that argues that moral judgments are relative to the cultural context in which they are made.
Virtue Ethics: A moral theory that focuses on the development of character traits or virtues.