How the Trinitarian God of Christianity Provides the Best Explanation for Objective Morality

Comparing the Metaethical Theories of James Sterba and Adam Lloyd Johnson

Dados Bibliográficos

ID20249663
AutoresAdam Lloyd Johnson (University of Nebraska–Lincoln, autor correspondente)
Ano2025
Volume17
Fascículo1
Páginas47
Data de publicação2025-12-31
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoReligions (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 2077-1444 • E-ISSN: 2077-1444
EditoraMDPI AG (PUBLISHER • IT)
DOI10.3390/rel17010047
OpenAlexW7117773304
IdiomaEN
Referências citadas32

James Sterba recently presented arguments against theories which ground morality in God and attempted “to provide an account of the norms on which an ethics without God can be appropriately grounded ....” In particular, Sterba noted that “Robert Adams is best known for his attempt to ground morality in God’s nature” and “[r]ecently, Adam Johnson significantly developed Adams’s view ....” In 2024, Sterba and I had a public debate concerning this issue at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in which I argued that the trinitarian God of Christianity provides the best explanation for objective morality whereas Sterba argued that morality can be objective without God and proposed a nontheistic account. In this paper, I argue that my theistic theory, which I call Divine Love Theory, is a better explanation of objective morality than Sterba’s nontheistic theory. First, I provide a summary of both my theory and Sterba’s. Second, I respond to Sterba’s arguments against theories which ground morality in God. Third, I provide reasons to conclude my Divine Love Theory is a better explanation for objective morality than Sterba’s theory

Christian ethics · Christianity · Morality · Public morality · Theism · Karl Barth and Christian Theology · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Theology and Philosophy of Evil

Ferramentas

Abrir DOIOpen Access