Magistrates of Morality: How the Euthyphro Dilemma Cripples Divine Command Theory

“One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs” (17). The concept of having faith in a higher power or a set religious belief is meaningless to some Christians. Many people view religion, and Christianity in particular, as unsupported and unaccommodating. Christianity is not only more reasonable than all other belief systems, but it is also more logical than unbelief itself according to authors Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. Geisler and Turek guide the readers through some of the traditional, more well-known arguments for the existence of God our creator. They move into an investigation of the source of morality and how reliable the New Testament is in regard to the accounts of Jesus.

The divine command theory is put forth for people who believe in God. The theory implies that good actions are morally worthy as a result of their being commanded by God. God, for these individuals, include people from the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faith. Individuals, because of these propositions, believe that it is their moral obligation to abide to God 's commands; which is, what is morally right is what God desires. This theory states the idea of objectivity between what’s right and wrong. If God makes

The conflict between the Divine Command Theory and the Euthyphro objection come with questions about who sets the rules of morality, and how it can be assumed that these rules are justifiable. On one hand, the Divine Command Theory defends the idea that an act is morally right because God commands it and wrong because He commands against it. This sets God’s will as the foundation of ethics, making morally good actions those that comply with His commandments. This religion-based concept becomes problematic when it runs into the Euthyphro dilemma, founded from Plato’s Euthyphro dating back to 395 BC. The argument centralizes on why it is that God commands rightful actions, bringing in the question of, “Are moral acts commanded by God because they are morally good, or does God command things to be right because He has good reasons for them?” The Euthyphro argument creates its foundation on the idea that either God has reasons for His commands, or that He lacks reasons for them. This divides up the Divine Command Theory in two ways, either making the theory wrong or portraying God as an imperfect being. If God does have reasons for His commands, then these reasons are what would make the actions right or wrong. God’s reasons would stand as the basis of morality, instead of God’s commandment itself. God having reasons would insinuate that goodness existed before any direction from God because otherwise, there wouldn’t be any commandment. Morality would have to stand independent

The first two theses of the Euthyphro dilemma are, “Things are good because God loves them” and “God loves things because they are good.” I think these are two completely different things. Someone, who is religious, might think that things are good because God loves them and because God loves something or someone, it is good. Basically, things are the way they are because God loves them. The other theses makes more sense to me. It makes sense that God loves a thing or someone because it is good or they are good/do good things. It means that the thing or person is already good and because so, they are being loved by God. I myself am not a religious person, but the second thesis of the two makes more sense. It reminds me of karma in a way.

The discussion really came full circle as Euthyphro admits that what is pious is pleasing (Dear) to gods. As such, the discussion makes a loop which refutes the idea that all the gods agree on the same things which are dear to them. Socrates says “You surely remember that earlier the pious and the god-loved were shown not to be the same but different from each other” (Grube 15c). Euthyphro did not learn anything from the discussion and avoided further discussion and truth seeking, stating that he had no

The Euthyphro dilemma is the impasse that Euthyphro finds himself at the end of a discussion with Socrates. The discussion revolves around Socrates asking Euthyphro what is the nature of piety and impiety, or right and wrong. By the end of the discussion, Euthyphro could not come to a decision that suited Socrates because all of Euthyphro’s answers were logically incorrect. In order to better understand Euthyphro’s stance on piety, Socrates asks Euthyphro a series of questions and it is the result of these questions that causes the dilemma for Euthyphro. Socrates asks Euthyphro to tell him if the holy are loved by the gods because they are holy or are they holy because they are loved by the gods. Another way of interpreting Socrates question is does God love good action because it is good or is an action good because God loves it. The problem arises because if Euthyphro chooses either answer, then he will be in conflict with his belief system. He will essentially be deciding whether or not morality is or is not based on God.

The book Euthyphro by Plato demonstrates one of the many complex ideas on ethics by the Greek philosopher, using his teacher Socrates and the theologian Euthyphro. The two intellectuals meet at the Porch of the King Archon, where both are involved in legal suits. The discussion between the two begins with Socrates informing Euthyphro of an accusation by another individual, Meletus, calling the philosopher “a poet or maker of gods” (pp. 2). After introducing the idea of piety, or holiness, Euthyphro reveals to Socrates that he is prosecuting his own father for murder. This confuses Socrates, due to the fact that Euthyphro is prosecuting his father over a murderous slave, and perceives it as impious. The philosopher praises Euthyphro as a great

this form is that it removes God from goodness, it makes him a messenger rather than the almighty. With the weak theory God is communicating that one act or another is good independent from God rather than pronouncing an act good because it was said so by God.

How exactly can we know God’s will? In divine command theory, God’s will is the only thing that determines morality. Theists will first point to the religious scriptures...but which one? A Christian might think it is obviously the Bible, but an objective viewer will have to choose between the Bible, Quran, Vedas etc. You can not say look at which one has the better moral arguments, since you’re trying to derive morality from the book! Another common source for morality is through people who have spoke to God. But many people claim this, so how do we know who is right? Someone might say that God told him to destroy a village; does this mean he is right? The final option is that God gave us reason and knowledge, and so morality is instilled in our very nature. But then, what is the point of believing in certain religions if people are going to act the same anyway? And people don’t act the same, so does that mean God is responsible for

The divine command theory is an ethical theory in which God defines morality. This is largely ascertained by interpreting religious texts. Divine command theory varies from religion to religion as well as within different sects or schools of thought within the religion. (Austin) This ethical theory aligns to my way of thinking because, like Augustine of Hippo, I have found that I gain the most happiness by following God’s commands.

The first moral system I choose to analyze this situation with is the divine command theory. The divine command theory is the theory that relies heavily on religion and might even be one of the oldest documented moral systems out there. The morality relies on if it was commanded by the divine. It’s a relatively easy system to follow because if you need to figure out what to do, all you need to do is check the rule book or the teachings of the divine to find your answer. In the divine command theory, when referring to Christianity, it is said that humans should dominate nature. They think of nature as below them, which includes animals, plants, and other natural resources. This value is demonstrated a lot in the U.S. because most of the population is considered to be religious.

While the basic grounds of the Divine Command Theory are straightforward, things become convoluted when one contemplates why God’s commands are good. The sounder version of the divine command theory asserts that virtue and morality is an establishment of God 's will. According to this perspective, benevolence is good because God has willed

The divine command theory correlates religion and ethics to create the idea that an action is morally right if it is commanded by God. To understand the divine command theory, one must understand what ethics is. Ethics is a theory or system of moral values. It is the study of right and wrong. But, what does that mean? Ethics sets the standard for what is right and wrong. It also discusses the development of a person’s moral standards. There are multiple things that can lead someone away from what is really ethical. A great example of this would be feelings. Ethics provides grounds for people to not murder, steal, or other serious crimes. “Right is Right because God, or a Rshi or a Prophet, commands it, and Right rests on the Will of a Lawgiver,

Multiple cultures that hold strong beliefs towards a specific God(s) may view all commands as morally right due to God’s holy goodness but, does being morally right necessarily make the command ethically right. Without a belief in God(s), it is plausible for an individual to be ethically right, therefore, not be punished without the guidance of a God(s). Divine Command Theory demands dependent reasoning to obey God and all his commands. Traditionally, this objective would be seen a justifiable but in regards to legitimacy, an authority can only be achieved to a certain extent before authority is breached. Authority over society can only be attained if there is an independent reason in place otherwise, commands of a superior are impractical

However, Plato’s dilemma is more applicable for the Christian, since we believe that God must be the ultimate source of the good, so a standard that is higher than God is problematic; and we are forced to deal with the apparent arbitrariness of a God who makes things good by commanding them. What if God commanded that we torture babies? That would imply that torturing babies was good, which is strongly counter-intuitive.3 A possible answer to this objection is that what is good is grounded in God’s character, and his commands flow from his character. While this is true, it does not really solve the dilemma – it only pushes the criticism back another step. What if God liked torturing babies? That would still imply that torturing babies was good, and it would still be strongly counter-intuitive.