Jeffrey Luk's Blog

Trivialization of the Binding of Isaac I have been thinking a long time about what God is trying to say in the Binding of Isaac.  The story goes as follows: God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. My immediate reaction is one of headache. One might try to avoid the dilemma by claiming that it was not God’s command, but a demon’s. Or that Abraham was hallucinating and hearing voices. But the narrative says none of these things: it is clear that the dilemma is placed in Abraham’s hands with the clear intention of challenging his faith.  God’s command raises all sorts of concerns. It is clear that murdering another is wrong. Is God’s nature not good? Does the ultimate contradict what is good? Do we have an absolute duty towards God?  Abraham is now faced with a choice. Either comply, and act unethically, or refuse, and deny God’s command. He can protest God, refusing to move. He can try to negotiate with God, with futility, as he did in Sodom and Gomorrah. He can re...

DCT holds that the moral law is whatever God commands. I think that this theory is problematic.  No Categorical Duties At some point, all explanations must come to an end. Just like the child who keeps on asking why, we must look for the final, most ultimate explanation that can adequately account for knowledge. For example, mathematics is built on a set of unprovable axioms. Axioms must be assumed in order to avoid vicious circularity.  In the moral realm, explanations must also come to an end. The divine command theorist will say that all moral duties are explained by God. The adaptationist will say that all moral duties are explained by evolution. And the egoist will explain moral duties in terms of pleasure and pain. All of these theories fail to adequately account for categorical duties -- or duties that have no further explanation. They are merely hypothetical duties, or duties in virtue of something else. Categorical duties are best illustrated by love: genuine, ideal l...