Talk:Divine command theory/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 19:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review, comments to follow this weekend, hopefully. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, finished my read through, I'll try to get my thoughts written out in more detail over the next couple days. First of all, this is very interesting/thought provoking and was enjoyable to read/very informative. The first issue I want to mention is that some copyediting is needed. You might just want to read over the article again slowly. Some prose issues I spotted:
"The theory, and the importance of God's commands or will in establishing morality, has often accepted by followers of various monotheistic and polytheistic religions, both ancient and modern."
"Is also casts God as sovereign, because he remains the source of morality and is himself the moral law."
"Adams does not propose that it would be logically impossible for God to command cruelty, rather that it would be unthinkable for God to do so because of his nature. He emphasised the importance of faith in God, " (change in tense)
"and that right and wrong is tied to their belief in God;" I think this should be "are" instead of "is", there is a similar issue in the first sentence I quoted here.
"Austin content that commanding cruelty for its own sake is not illogical, so is not covered by Aquinas' defence"
"Hugh Storer Chandler has challenged the theory based on modal ideas of what might exist in different world."

Will post more detailed/less obvious issues later. My main concerns are about flow, some parts read fairly choppy, although I guess that's unavoidable to some extent. A few bits are hard to understand, but it should be possible to smooth them out a bit. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]