The Euthyphro Dilemma Essay

As Nietzsche points out, within society there is a tendency to conflate religious standards with morality. In fact, it is difficult to discuss morality at all without running into issues that appear to be religious by their nature, but which, upon reflection, do not need to be put under that blanket. According to Nietzsche, we tend to mix religion and morality together because that is how we developed morality from the beginning of humanity. In fact, “Nietzsche believes that all

Chapter 4 of “The Elements Of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels opens up by raising a question. Does morality hinge on religion and does religion then turn contingent to morality? In 1995, Judge Roy Moore was sued for having the Ten Commandments out in plain view on his desk. The American Civil liberties Union was called to act upon this infringement. The union stated that Judge Moore violated the first amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. Despite the controversy with the ACLU,

The Divine Command Theory is the assertion in ethics that an action is morally right if, and only if, it conforms to God’s will. This premise ties together morality and religion in a manner that seems expected, since it provides a solution to arguments about moral relativism and the objectivity of ethics. On the other hand, in Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates questions whether something is right because God commands it, or whether God commands it because it is right. The ethical implications of the Euthyphro problem suggest that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as straightforward as suggested by the Divine Command Theory.

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

Euthyphro's dilemma is presented during the conversation about the nature of piety between Socrates and Euthyphro which was composed by Plato, a student of Socrates. Socrates uses the Socratic method to push Euthyphro to keep coming up with definitions of what piety is. The conversation starts when Socrates asks Euthyphro why he is prosecuting his own father. Euthyphro answers this question by arguing that piety is,"prosecuting anyone who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of any other similar crime" (p.10). Euthyphro sees himself as an example of piety because he is punishing wrongdoers. However, Socrates is not satisfied with this definition because it is only one example of what piety is. This leads Socrates to keep questioning Euthyphro

The question that arises as Euthyphro encounters Socrates at the court of Athens is that of piety. Socrates questions Euthyphro by asking “Is it pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” (Euthyphro, 10a2). This question comes about through the discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro in regards to the prosecution of Euthyphro’s father due to a crime he committed. This discussion ultimately ends in the departure of Euthyphro due to not being able to come up with a definition that satisfied Socrates.

In the excerpts from Plato’s dialogue, Socrates asks Euthyphro “Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy? (Socrates, pg. 52)”. Socrates, seems to want to learn the nature of holiness but produces a contradiction of the question “what is holy” when Euthyphro responds with “what is pleasing to the gods is holy, and what is not pleasing to them is unholy (Euthyphro, pg. 52”. Socrates tells Euthyphro “ Come, now, and let us scrutinize what we are saying (Socrates, pg. 52)”. Socrates begins to asks Euthyphro for definitions, clarifications, and implications based on what has already been stated.

The Euthyphro dilemma is the question if Gods’ commands are moral because they are inherently good or because the commands are divinely commanded and are moral. (Cook 99) If people are following the commands of religion without the internal reflection of its rationality as it pertains to ethical and moral justice, then one could perform acts that defy “rational morality” because of their faith. (Cook 99) On the other side, one that rejects religious faith and goes fully off their own moral compass has the problem of that there is no baseline for them to align their moral compass. For example, on a ship, there are multiple compasses that can each check against each other to determine error and accuracy for corrections. When there is a single compass if it goes off course then the ship will also become off course. So the overall dilemma is determining the right amount of religion in ethics to prevent either extreme from happening.

In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro have a battle concerning the meaning of piety. Socrates interrogates Euthyphro on whether or not is possible to have an objective – definite – definition of a concept/object. This came to be known as Euthyphro’s Dilemma. This argument can be clarified as follows; “what is dear to the gods is pious, and what is not is impious”: if an object is God-love, than the object must be loved by all Gods; therefore, pious objects are those that are necessarily loved by all Gods. (10a). The dilemma emanates when one realizes it is God-loved if it is pious, and pious due to being God-loved; in this case, “piety” in itself would be considered irrational in

The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro written by Plato itself touches on the obvious, the Euthyphro Dilemma. The notion I’d like to analyze deeper is the conception that is reading between the lines and looking at how Plato wrote this dialogue and most importantly what he may have been saying within. The whole text is a way of Plato saying that there really is no definition of holiness and there is no ONE key to unlocking something that all holy deeds have in common. For as long as time will stand the battle on things that are holy in the eyes of the gods will not have one significant similarity. As when Euthyphro prosecutes his own father for murder in which his whole family disagrees in the process. Many may agree that turning in your

If anyone were capable of having complete protection and exclusion from the law or any other type of consequence, they would abuse their power, even if they perceived themselves to be the most just, reasonable, or trustworthy. Going back to the Socratic dialogue, The Euthyphro, it explains the conflict of moral relativism, concluding that this concept makes it unclear to ultimately agree to what distinguishes a person as being “good” anyway. The reason it is likely that a “just” person could potentially fall into the temptation of abusing their power is due to the certainty that what they may consider a reasonable act to commit, even under the influence of the Ring of Gyges, might oppose what another person may ruminate. In fact, it is hard to even name a historic individual as an example of a person who has had access to this type of power and has not used it for anything selfishly in any way.

The second question poses the thought that if god commands it, then it is good. But the issue here is that you run into the arbitrariness problem, which, is based on the whims of god. God’s commands can’t, be formed or sanctioned by morality. In other words there is nothing to justify Gods decisions making it a problem of divine arbitrariness. Any choice is arbitrary because essentially God could say murder and evil is morally good, but we know its not. However, with DCT we would have to agree with Gods command. People that may agree with the DCT might try to challenge Socrates dilemma by saying “but god is good” he would never agree to harm. But we return ask “but why is god good” you end up going in circles not really answering a definite reason. To defend the DCT by just saying God is good, he would never command a harmful act is not enough to prove that statement. We lack an understanding of moral goodness with this theory. And like any theory, there needs to be a fundamental argument with premises and a conclusion to support your

The Euthyphro's Dilemma is this question. Does God will something because it is good, or is it good because God willed it? The Euthyphro's Dilemma is a dilemma that means that your blessings that you receive is because God willed it for you. Or you were doing good in your life, and God is blessing you for it. Everyone has their own view on this. In my opinion, this dilemma relates to me. This happens to me, I do not question the blessings he has give to me. I am kind, and warm loving person, who helps anyone in need. I say that doing good things help me and the person in the long run.

The Euthyphro Dilemma proposes the question of whether something is good because God desires it, or God desires those things because they are good. This in turn challenges the Theism which believes that God is both morally virtuous and antecedent to good. In this essay, I will first examine the dilemma and argue that it is ultimately weak; that the two options presented are not exhaustive like the dilemma assumes. Thus, Theists do not have to make a decision between these choices. This leads to the discussion of other possible models which Theists could consider, concentrating on the one endorsed by Thomas Aquinas, namely that the belief that goodness is determined by God’s command, yet the nature of God is essentially good, thus God can never will anything other than what is good.

When we talk in absolutes we ignore possibilities that exist outside of our beliefs. There are many examples of individuals that believed in God who acted immorally, as well as examples of people who do not believe in God acting with good morals. Their beliefs do not determine their morality, their acts do. If we are to base morality solely on a belief in God then which believer do we follow? Do we follow the believer who commits crimes, or only the believer who is an upstanding member of society?