Moral autonomy and the rejection of divine command ethics are possible within the framework of a religious worldview.
Kant’s position on moral autonomy does not fundamentally differ from that of Thomas Paine, but he put it far less bluntly than Paine did.
Religious ethics is similar to the attitude of a child. It is too concerned with rules that are experienced as sacrosanct.
Divine command ethics has the reputation of being a stable basis for morality. Even among unbelievers this reputation is seldom contested.
The fact that Abraham could have made a different choice from the one he actually made does not exculpate the tradition itself.
In an age of international religious terrorism divine command morality poses considerable problems for the maintenance of the political order.
The story of Abraham obliges us to reconsider the relationship between faith and ethics. It also presents us with many theological questions.
The divine command theory lies at the heart of the three major religions. Atheists are so much hated because they are supposed to be immoral.
The ultimate goal in the process of trying to understand what people believe is to make fruitful communication possible.
The critic must be able to place himself or herself over against the religious tradition. That presupposes what may be called moral autonomy.