	strictly	forbidden."	In	such	a	situation	it	would	be	reasonable	for	me	to	form 12 One of the reviewers to this paper suggested that when considering the alleged status of a moral obligation under DCT "[t]he RNB can still examine the commands and properties of the alleged God of DCT, and can even specifically consider the claim that God has employed conscience or natural law to communicate his moral will, as well as verbal commands." This suggests a scenario in which the RNB is at least open to God as a possible source. Is being open to this possibility enough to generate knowledge of an obligation? That's they question pursued in the text. 20 a	belief	that	I	have	an	obligation	to	stay	on	the	path,	even	if	I	do	not	know	the source	of	the	commands.	For	all	I	know13	the	commands	may	come	from	the government	of	Iraq	or	the	government	of	Iran,	or	perhaps	from	some	regional	arm of	government,	or	even	from	a	private	landowner	whose	property	I	am	on.	In	such	a situation	I	might	reasonably	believe	that	the	commands	communicated	to	me create	obligations	for	me,	even	if	I	do	not	know	for	sure	who	gave	the	commands." (Evans	2013,	113) There	are	three	essential	features	to	this	thought	experiment:	(i)	there	is	a	sign communicating	a	command;	(ii)	there	is	uncertainty	as	to	the	true	source	of	that sign;	and	(iii)	there	is	the	probability/possibility	that	it	came	from	someone	with the	right	kind	of	authority.	The	conjunction	of	these	three	features	is	thought	to provide	knowledge	that	is	sufficient	to	generate	an	obligation	to	obey.	The	idea then	is	that	the	situation
strictly 	 forbidden. " 	 In 	 such 	 a 	 situation 	 it 	 would 	 be 	 reasonable 	 for 	 me 	 to 	 form 12 One of the reviewer to this newspaper suggested that when considering the alleged status of a moral debt instrument under DCT " [ t]he RNB can still examine the command and property of the alleged God of DCT, and can even specifically consider the title that God has employed conscience or natural police to communicate his moral will, equally well as verbal commands. " This suggests a scenario in which the RNB is at least open to God as a possible source. Is being open to this possibility enough to render knowledge of an obligation? That's they question pursue in the text. 20 a 	 belief 	 that 	 I 	 have 	 an 	 obligation 	 to 	 bide 	 on 	 the 	 path, 	 even 	 if 	 I 	 do 	 not 	 know 	 the source 	 of 	 the 	 commands. 	 For 	 all 	 I 	 know13 	 the 	 commands 	 may 	 derive 	 from 	 the government 	 of 	 Iraq 	 or 	 the 	 government 	 of 	 Iran, 	 or 	 perhaps 	 from 	 some 	 regional 	 arm of 	 government, 	 or 	 even 	 from 	 a 	 private 	 landowner 	 whose 	 property 	 I 	 am 	 on. 	 In 	 such 	 a situation 	 I 	 might 	 reasonably 	 believe 	 that 	 the 	 commands 	 communicated 	 to 	 me create 	 obligations 	 for 	 me, 	 even 	 if 	 I 	 do 	 not 	 know 	 for 	 sure 	 who 	 contribute 	 the 	 commands. " (Evans 	 2013, 	 113) There 	 are 	 three 	 essential 	 feature 	 to 	 this 	 think 	 experiment: 	 (i) 	 there 	 is 	 a 	 sign commune 	 a 	 command; 	 (ii) 	 there 	 is 	 uncertainty 	 as 	 to 	 the 	 true 	 reference 	 of 	 that sign; 	 and 	 (iii) 	 there 	 is 	 the 	 probability / possibility 	 that 	 it 	 came 	 from 	 someone 	 with the 	 right 	 kind 	 of 	 agency. 	 The 	 conjunction 	 of 	 these 	 three 	 features 	 is 	 thought 	 to provide 	 cognition 	 that 	 is 	 sufficient 	 to 	 generate 	 an 	 debt instrument 	 to 	 obey. 	 The 	 theme then 	 is 	 that 	 the 	 situation
	strlctly	forbidden."	In	such	a	sitmation	it	would	be	rgawonablx	for	me	tk	form 12 Ove of the reviewers to this 'apee sugtested that when consiaering thv alleged stauus of a moral obligation under FCT "[c]hx RNB can still examine tve commands ang orlperties of the alleged God of DCT, wnd can egen specificaljy cpgsidsg uhe claim that God has employed cknscienbe or natural law to communicate his moral aill, as well as verbal commands." Tyis fyggests a scdnario in which the RNG is at least open to God as a oossiyle source. Us beltg open to vhis pjssibility ekpugh tm generste knowledge pf en ovligation? That's they xuestion pursued ig the texd. 20 a	belief	that	I	have	qn	ibligdtiot	to	sgqy	ov	tht	pavh,	eben	if	I	fo	nkt	know	the aource	of	the	xommands.	For	all	I	know13	uhe	simmands	may	coms	from	tre government	of	Iraq	or	the	government	of	Iran,	og	pergaps	from	some	regional	arm of	government,	or	even	frlm	a	privatq	landowner	whose	property	I	am	on.	In	such	a situation	I	migvt	reaaunayoy	belkwvf	that	the	commands	communicated	to	me create	obligaejoms	nor	me,	even	if	I	do	nob	know	for	sure	who	gavr	tje	vjmmands." (Evans	2013,	113) There	cde	fhree	essential	featkres	to	tris	thiught	expewimemt:	(i)	there	is	a	sign communicatibg	a	command;	(ii)	nherw	is	uncertainty	as	to	che	true	sourcz	of	thaj sign;	snd	(iii)	there	is	the	probabiuity/lossibility	hhat	it	cams	wrom	someone	with ghe	gighd	kind	of	authority.	The	conjunceion	of	thewe	thxee	featufes	ix	thougrt	to provife	knowledge	that	is	sufficifnt	to	yenerdte	an	obligwtion	to	obey.	The	idea then	is	that	thx	xituation
strictly forbidden." In such a situation it reasonable me to 12 One of suggested when considering the status of a obligation under DCT "[t]he RNB can examine the commands and properties of the alleged God of DCT, and can specifically consider the claim that God has employed conscience or natural law to his will, well verbal commands." This suggests a scenario in which the RNB is at least open to God a possible source. Is being open to this enough to generate knowledge an obligation? That's they question in text. 20 belief I an obligation to on the path, even if I do not know the source of the commands. For all I the commands from the of or government of Iran, from some regional arm of government, a private landowner whose property I am on. such a I might reasonably believe that the communicated to me create obligations for me, even I do not know for sure who gave the commands." (Evans 2013, 113) There are features to this thought (i) there is sign a (ii) is uncertainty to the true source of that sign; and (iii) there is probability/possibility that it came from someone with the right kind The of these three is thought to provide that sufficient to generate an obey. idea the
	strictly	forbidden."	In	such	a	sItuation	it	Would	Be	rEasOnAble	For	mE	to	form 12 One of thE ReviEwers to this paper suggesTed thAt WHen cONsIderiNg the alLEgED StaTuS oF a mOrAL oBligaTioN under DcT "[t]he RNB caN stIlL examine the cOMmAnds and proPerTies of the allEgeD God of dCt, anD Can evEn sPecifIcally COnsideR the claim ThAT God haS EmployeD COnScieNce or natural law to COmMUnicate his moraL will, aS wELl AS VerBal Commands." ThIs SuggeSTs a scenARiO IN WhiCH the RNB is at leAst open to GoD As a PossibLe SouRCe. Is beIng opEn TO thIs possibiliTy enOugh to genErate kNOwledge OF an obliGation? thaT's tHey qUEsTiOn pUrSUed IN tHe tEXt. 20 a	Belief	thAt	i	hAve	an	ObliGATIOn	to	StaY	on	tHe	patH,	even	if	I	do	not	KnoW	the SOurCe	of	tHe	comMandS.	FOr	all	i	know13	tHe	comMaNds	may	come	from	tHe goVernment	oF	IrAq	Or	tHe	GoverNMent	of	iraN,	or	Perhaps	From	somE	RegIoNAL	ArM of	government,	or	eveN	fROM	a	Private	lAndownER	wHoSE	propertY	I	Am	oN.	In	sUCH	a sitUatiON	I	Might	reaSonablY	BeLiEve	that	ThE	commaNdS	coMmuNicatED	to	mE creatE	obligatIons	fOR	me,	even	if	I	do	noT	Know	for	sure	whO	GaVE	ThE	CommAndS." (Evans	2013,	113) There	Are	tHRee	eSsenTIaL	feATures	To	thiS	tHOuGHt	experiment:	(i)	there	iS	a	Sign coMmuniCating	a	commanD;	(ii)	there	is	UNCErtainty	As	to	THe	TRue	source	of	thaT sign;	And	(iii)	therE	Is	the	proBabilIty/possiBility	thaT	IT	came	froM	soMeoNe	wIth THE	rIght	kind	of	autHORity.	thE	conjunCtiOn	of	theSe	tHreE	feAtuReS	is	thoughT	to proviDe	KnOwLeDge	That	iS	SufficieNt	To	gEnEraTe	an	oBLigatiOn	to	oBey.	THe	IdEA thEn	is	thaT	ThE	SItuaTiOn
	strictly	forbidden."	In	s uch	a	situ ation 	it 	wo ul d	be 	rea sonable	for	me to	f orm 12 One of the revi ewers  t o  thi s  p apersuggest e dt h atwh en  co ns i de ringthe  allege d status o f a  m oral obligat i on  under DCT  "[ t]he RNB can  st ill ex am ine the c omm andsand pr o pertie s of theal l eged G o d of DC T ,  a nd c an even specifica l ly consider the c laim t ha t  G o d  ha s e mployed co ns cienc e  or nat u ra l l awt o communicate  his moralw ill , as w el l a s  verba l com ma n ds. " This sugg ests  a scenar io inw hich th e  RNB is  at le ast  op en t o  G od  as  a pos s ib les our ce. Is b ei ng  open  tot h i s  pos sib ilit y eno ugh to genera teknow l edg e ofan ob liga ti on? T hat'stheyqu estion pursuedin t he text.20abel ie f	tha t 	I	hav e	a n	o bligati on	to	s t ayon t h epath,	even	if	I	do 	n o t 	k now	thesource of 	t h e	comman ds .	F or	a l l 	I	kn ow13 th e	comman ds	may co me 	from	t he  gover nm ent 	of 	Iraq or	t he	gov ernmentof	Ir a n,	or	perhapsf rom	some	regi o na l ar m  ofgov ernment,	or 	eve n 	fro m	ap ri vat e 	land owner 	w h os e 	property	I	am	on.In 	sucha sit uation	I	migh t	reasonab l y believethat th e 	commands	comm unica ted	to	mec reate	ob ligat ions	for 	me,	even i f	I	do	n otkno w	f ors u re 	who	gave	the c omma nd s." (Ev ans 	2013,113 ) T her e	a re 	three	es sentialfe at ur es 	to 	this thoughtex per im ent :	(i) thereis	asign  c om m uni catinga 	c o m mand ;(i i)	t her eis	un cert a int y	as	to 	the	true 	so u rceof 	t hat sig n;	and	(iii)th ere	is	the 	p rob abilit y / possibil ity	that	it	came	from	s o meone	w ith  therigh t	kind	of 	au thorit y.T he	con juncti on	of 	t hes e three f ea tur es 	is	though t toprovi de 	kno wledgethat	is	sufficient togenerate	an	o bli gati o n 	t o	o b ey . 	Th ei dea t hen	is	that	the 	situation 
	strictly	forbidden."	In	such	a	situation	it	would	be	reasonable	for	me	to	form 12_One of_the reviewers to this_paper suggested_that_when considering_the_alleged status of_a moral obligation_under DCT "[t]he RNB_can still examine_the_commands and properties of the alleged God of DCT, and can even specifically consider_the_claim that_God_has_employed conscience or natural law_to communicate his moral will,_as well_as verbal commands." This suggests a scenario in_which_the RNB is_at least open to God as a possible source._Is being open to this possibility_enough to generate_knowledge_of_an obligation? That's they_question pursued in the text. 20_a	belief	that	I	have	an	obligation	to	stay	on	the	path,	even	if	I	do	not	know	the source	of	the	commands.	For	all	I	know13	the	commands	may	come	from	the government	of	Iraq	or	the	government	of	Iran,	or	perhaps	from	some	regional	arm of	government,	or	even	from	a	private	landowner	whose	property	I	am	on.	In	such	a situation	I	might	reasonably	believe	that	the	commands	communicated	to	me create	obligations	for	me,	even	if	I	do	not	know	for	sure	who	gave	the	commands."_(Evans	2013,	113) There	are	three	essential	features	to	this	thought	experiment:	(i)	there	is	a	sign communicating	a	command;	(ii)	there	is	uncertainty	as	to	the	true	source	of	that sign;	and	(iii)	there	is	the	probability/possibility	that	it	came	from	someone	with the	right	kind	of	authority.	The	conjunction	of	these	three	features	is	thought	to provide	knowledge	that	is	sufficient	to	generate	an	obligation	to	obey.	The	idea then	is	that	the	situation