Defenders of divine command metaethics ethics (DCM) have argued that one advantage of such theories is their ability to vindicate the objectivity of moral judgments. Some critics of DCM have contested this; they argue that divine command theories are subjectivist theories and inherit the problems such theories have in accounting for apparently objectivist features of our moral thought. I will examine and critique three examples of this criticism. David Brink’s appeal to appraiser independence, Elizabeth Tropman’s appeal to stance independence and Michael Huemer’s idea of observer independence, I will argue that none of these criticisms succeeds.
Matthew Flannagan (Wed,) studied this question.