An unjustified orthodoxy: Why theists need not be (so) metaethically constrained

Abstract In this paper we discuss the popular claim that theists must endorse some combination of theological voluntarism and theistic platonism. We argue that this claim is usually held because of a commitment to divine sovereignty/aseity. Yet the inference from sovereignty to the claim that theists must be so metaethically constrained relies on the assumption that sovereignty requires that divine facts immediately ground all non-divine facts. We argue that this assumption is mistaken, and we propose a distinct understanding of divine sovereignty, which allows a much broader metaethical landscape to theists committed to divine sovereignty.