Philosophy: Socrates and The Divine Theory

The Euthyphro dilemma originates from the question Socrates asks Euthyphro in Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue. He asks “Is the pious loved by the god because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”, in simpler terms, ‘Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?’. This argument creates a huge dilemma for Divine Command theorists as their theory lies solely on the claim that morality is dependent on God’s will. However the question asked by Socrates in response to Divine command theory produces extreme difficulty for the theorists when attempting to answer the question. A main reason for this is the fact that Divine command theorists tend to adopt the second part of the question, ‘morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God’, but this would then create the possibility that acts such as murder or cruelty could be considered morally right if God willed it to be acceptable. However, if you were to choose the first part of the question, ‘morally good acts are willed by god because they are morally good’, then this would mean that the acts themselves have a property that makes then morally good independently of the gods, therefore, dismissing Divine command theory. This essay aims to explain and defend some of the main responses to the Euthyphro dilemma and look at how they manage to respond to both sides of the question introduced by Socrates.

The problem the unrestricted divine command theory runs into is dealing with two of the other characterizing tenets of God. These tenets are God’s divine rationality and God’s divine moral perfection. Divine rationality meaning God has a justification behind everything he does, and divine moral perfection meaning, God is fully perfect in every possible moral facet to the greatest order of magnitude. First, the belief that God possesses divine rationality comes into question when one accepts the unrestricted divine command theory. The sole reason actions are right or wrong are because God has commanded that certain actions are that way. Seeing that the morality of actions relies solely on the fact that God commanded certain actions are good and certain actions are bad leaves one with the ability to claim that God could have commanded anything to be good, and it would have to be that way. God did not have to base his commands on facts, nor did he have support his claims in any way because he created morality; however, this leaves one questioning God’s divine rationality. He had no justifications to the commands he made meaning he had no distinct rationale behind his commands. He simply stated what actions were right and wrong, and these orders were followed because God is the being that holds the power to create everything, including what is good and what is

The other view argues that Socrates is a preacher, one who attempts to persuade others to adopt a specific set of commitments. To take this side of the argument, we must reject Weiss’s interpretation that Socrates is a seeker. One evident from the Euthyphro that supports this view is 10d-10e. In this passage, Socrates is listening to Euthyphro’s explanation of how the gods determine their love for pious things. Euthyphro makes the case that the gods detect pious things and they love them. On the other hand. Socrates does not seem to agree with Euthyphro’s claim.

Simon Blackburn claims that the presence of evil in the world strongly suggests that an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God does not exist. I oppose this claim because I believe that God gave us the choice of free will and he continues to value it. Without free will we would lack autonomy and be considered God’s puppets or programmed Robots. In “God” Simon Blackburn offers two observations. The first observation is that if there were an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God there wouldn’t be any natural disasters.

The dialogue Euthyphro, written by Plato, has many functions. The rational discussion urges us to question the ultimate problems of the human existence; to examine human life. The conversation between Socrates and Euthyphro, begs the question: are we to follow what society tells us is right or “pious”? Can Euthyphro bring his father to justice for an evil deed without fear of he himself committing an impious deed? Can we show proper respect to the gods with pious acts because it is what the gods love? Socrates argues that independence, from both the gods and a society that conforms ethics to religion, is the right path. He also argues that a traditional life dedicated to the gods may eventually result in impious behavior. The dialogue is much like a parable or a fable; a simple story used to

Socrates’ cross examination of Euthyphro’s beliefs on what constitutes as pious and impious explicates the the argument, “is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”. In demonstrating how this aligns as a real dilemma for Euthyphro in that the gods are not the source of morality, and how it is a false dilemma for Socrates because he believes morality to be ambiguous, would be to further analyze the question in where morality stems from. In this paper, I will be analyzing the five points of piety that is exemplified and how these come into effect as the crux of the dilemma that is presented in the dialogue.

Socrates contrasts his position of authority drastically between his argument over piety in Euthyphro and his reasoning for staying in jail in Crito. At first, Socrates does not agree with the notion that pious actions can be easily determined by mortals and questions Euthyphro's knowledge of religion. However, Socrates begins to hold the law of Athens in such a devoted manner that he would be willing to not escape prison in order to obey. In Euthyphro, Socrates disproves Euthyphro's initial argument on the definition of piety as any concept that is agreeable to all the gods. Socrates asserts that this cannot be right since the gods have different opinions and argue all the time: “And do you really believe that the gods fought with one another,

Socrates creates a sort of dichotomy between theology, which is linked to the DCTM, and morality. This dichotomy servers the ties between any powers the divine has to determine morality. Since Socrates has determined that the Gods and morality have nothing to do with one another and has rejected the DCTM, he instead appeals to one’s rational intuition to reinforce his decision. Socrates furthers his argument by saying that certain things are naturally thought to be bad and thus no command from any divine power could convince us that they are made good simply because it was commanded. For example, most people would agree that inflicting harm on children for fun is morally wrong based on their rational intuition and wouldn’t agree that it would become morally good just because the gods commanded it. Socrates replacement for the DCTM is a secular route of determining morality based on rational intuition.

Euthyphro did not allow special affiliations to interfere with executing his responsibility; to which Socrates understood but did not agree with the answer that he had about piety. Euthyphro’s definition of piety merely presented a claim that a particular act is pious rather than a definition of what acts are pious. Socrates wanted to understand the form itself that made all pious actions pious. His assertion was that “everything that is to be impious presents us with one form or appearance insofar as it is impious”. Socrates analytically contradicted Euthyphro's suggestion that what makes right actions right is that the gods loves and approves of it. The problem that Socrates had with this suggestion was that since inquiries of right and wrong often created never-ending disputes, he felt that the gods were likely to cause problems among themselves about ethical matters just as often as we do, making some actions both right and

There are different standards for judging the morality of something. An action is considered holy, moral or good because God loves it. Therefore, we can assume that morality is dependent on God 's will or

To demonstrate this Socrates states that he feels as though most men assume that they were correct despite the lack of vital evidence to prove their case. That being said this argument cannot be seen in terms of morality. For an example, if one were to carry out this argument any further, an act of kindness is morally good in God’s eyes. The contradictions comes in to play when people question as to why God considers such acts as this good. This perspective of thinking has lead people to believe that morality is necessary to be arbitrarily assigned by God, than being good in itself therefore making it moral.

We can argue and take the first side that humans have a moral compass and possess the ability to differentiate what is right or wrong without religion governing them. It can be interpreted that we can be morally good, so therefore being morally good can be independent of God. God recognizes the deed as morally good and then approves

In addition to the logical limitations placed upon God, God’s omnipotence is also constrained by ethical limitations. To introduce this topic, Plato introduces the question of the piety in his Euthyphro. In this dialogue, Socrates asks Euthyrpho, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” Since that day, question has divided the theistic philosophical community into two factions: intellectualists and voluntarists. Intellectualists holds that morality exists outside of the mind and will of God, and that God’s commands are in accordance with his perfect reason, not his omnipotent will only. Likewise, voluntarists holds that an morality is moral by virtue that God has commanded

Meletus, the only accuser to speak during Socrates' defense accused him of both atheism and believing in demi gods. Socrates did believe in the idea of the gods but brought the catechism of their abilities into fruition. He later answers the charge that he has corrupted the young by arguing that deliberate corruption is an incoherent idea. Socrates wanted to know what goodness was, what morality was, what piety was, whether virtue could be taught and what knowledge was in society. The community took this thirst for knowledge as a threat, which is the negative counterbalance of

Omnibenevolent means to be all loving or infinitely good. It is usually used when talking about God (Omnibenevolent Dictionary Definition). If God is omnibenevolent, then why is there still evil in our world? Two very influential people that have attempted to answer this question are Alvin Plantinga and John Leslie Mackie. Alvin Plantinga is an American philosopher who is known for his research in the philosophy of religion, epistemology, metaphysics, and Christian apologetics (Alvin Plantinga). J. L. Mackie was an Australian philosopher and is best known for his view on meta-ethics (J.L. Mackie). In this paper I will describe and defend Plantinga’s free will defense for the co-existence of evil and God and refute Mackie’s argument against an omnibenevolent God.