Maitzen’s Objection from God’s Goodness

Abstract

Stephen Maitzen argues that divine command metaethics must be mistaken because it is committed to the implausible assumption that the sentence 'God is (morally) good' is a tautology. In this article, I show that a charitable interpretation of R. M. Adams' version of divine command metaethics is not committed to accepting this assumption. I conclude that Maitzen's objection merely manages to refute a strawman version of divine command metaethics.