Divine Duty Impossibilism: Kant on Why God Cannot Have Moral Obligations and Its Influence in Contemporary Divine Command Theory

It is arguable whether Kant is a divine command theorist. It is less controversial whether Kant holds Divine Duty Impossibilism [DDI - the view that God cannot have moral obligations]. Not only does Kant endorse DDI but he offers subtle arguments for it that are intimately connected to his moral theory. My contention is that Kant’s philosophy permeates the literature on Divine Command Theory (DCT) both in its recent past and current iterations: the notion of self-commanding and the claim that God cannot be obligated because he cannot deviate from doing what is good are deeply Kantian. I further contend that if we read Kant’s philosophy closely, we will find it enlightening to the current discussion about DDI and its relation to DCT. In this chapter I will defend both contentions. Here is how I will proceed. In Section ‘Kant on moral obligation and DDI’, I show that Kant’s moral theory implies DDI. In Section ‘Being bound by the law vs. being under the law’, I argue that Kant’s moral theory suggests that there is a distinction between being under the moral law and being bound by the moral law. In Section ‘Quinn and Resto Quiñones on God’s obligations’, I show how Kant’s moral theory deflates Quinn’s argument for DDI but also deflates Resto Quiñones’s argument against DDI. Lastly, in Section ‘Alston’s Kantian argument for DDI and Stump’s reply’, I show how Kant’s moral theory and nuanced distinction discussed in Sections ‘Kant on moral obligation and DDI’ and ‘Being bound by the law vs. being under the law’ can be used to improve Alston’s argument for DDI and refute Stump’s criticism thereof. In general, Sections ‘Kant on moral obligation and DDI’ and ‘Being bound by the law vs. being under the law’ are a discussion of Kant’s moral theory and endorsement of DDI, while Sections ‘Quinn and Resto Quiñones on God’s obligations’ and ‘Alston’s Kantian argument for DDI and Stump’s reply’ are a discussion of how Kant’s views (as explained in Sections ‘Kant on moral obligation and DDI’ and ‘Being bound by the law vs. being under the law’) can be applied to the current DDI and DCT debate. With this I hope to show that Kant has had a great influence in the contemporary DCT and DDI debate.