Abstract

In a recent essay Robert Adams attempted to define a form of divine command ethics that would meet the typical philosophical criticisms of such an ethics. More recently, responding to new criticisms of the theory of meaning assumed in this essay and some details of the system he described there, Adams has redefined his position using the causal theory of meaning. The present essay examines Adam's fundamental position and the main lines of Jeffrey Stout's critique of it, then attempts to assess the success of Adams' latest redefinition of divine command ethics.