What Is The Euthyphro Dilemma

In Plato’s Euthyphro, we read about how Socrates is asking Euthyphro of piety and about the situation he is in. Euthyphro must judge a murder, and to the surprise of the audience, the murder was his father. As the scene goes on, Socrates keeps asking what Euthyphro means by piety. In the end, Euthyphro finally answers that piety is what the God’s love or demand. In The Ethical Life, they modify the question asked by Socrates to “Is an action morally right because God commands it, or does God command an action because it is right?”. This question brings up many other questions.

Someone who would believe a statement such as this one would most likely be in agreement with the Divine Command Theory---the reason being that the main claim in this theory is, all that is morally right, is right because God commands it so. Therefore in order to believe in the Divine Command Theory, one would need to be a strong believer in God---and would truly believe that if there were no God, morality would be absent. With this in mind, if God is the creator of all that is morally right, and there turns out to be no god at all, then nothing is morally wrong or can be capable of being morally wrong---would be a statement that non-believers of the Divine Command Theory would believe, and believe that morality can exist on its own, with or without a God. In this paper I will focus on the Divine Command Theory in relation to the statement above, and those who would oppose this statement. In doing so, I will attempt to show why I believe that those opposing this statement have a more plausible view.

“In saying that things are not good by virtue of any rule of goodness but solely by virtue of the will of God, it seems to me that we unknowingly destroy all of God 's love and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing the exact contrary?”(1)Therefore there must be some moral standards independent of God that would be right or wrong regardless of his being. This conclusion creates another problem, it could mean that God has no freewill as he can not then act outside of the presupposed good morals and therefore can not make his own decisions. If there are moral standards independent of God and his will then that would limit God 's sovereignty. It binds God to something that makes him not independent. Instead of the good being established by him he is established by what is good and in essence a new “god” is created. This is used as a common argument for atheism, For if morality can exist without God there is no need to answer for the inherent sense of morale that humanity has in some context no matter what culture they are raised in.

Socrates helps Euthyphro to give meaning to the word ‘piety ', and this serves to bring a new meaning to the respect to the divine beings and help in the explanation of the whole context of the divinity in the society. In this manner, there is the need to create a clear definition and help Euthyphro in getting ideas that he can use to teach Socrates to answer the resulting question about the piety. This is to enable Socrates to have a string defense against the charge of impiety and help in tackling the challenges that he faces in the society. The story and the relationship between Socrates and Euthyphro arise when Socrates is called to court to answer to the charges of impiety by Meletus, (Plato et al, 1927). In the courts, Socrates meets Euthyphro, who comes to the courts to prosecute his father who is a murderer.

Most of us believe that if there is a God who has the power to nullify any evil characteristic. Wouldn’t He as the all-powerful God allow certain situations to occur in order for the good to arise from the sadistic or evil? If the world was solely good or morally virtuous, how would the Almighty God find a way to be glorified through things which man has done? To exemplify what has been asked, I would like to address the good that arise from the bad. Just like Professor Ed explained about his son’s dog, there is good that comes from the bad (loss of a pet), as there was plenty of good that occurred during the period of the life of the pet or human life if a human life was lost in an unrelated situation. The bad (death) can be turned into good simply by reflecting on the time they or we have had with that animal or person. To respond to the second question on how God can be glorified through the evil or bad, is He allows situations to occur in order for Him to be venerated. He created all life and He gave us the free will to act without restrictions, so that when we respond virtuously when evil comes our way, He is worshiped and esteemed as our

In this paper, I argue that, in Plato’s Euthyphro, Euthyphro’s defense of the view that his father is a murderer is not cogent enough to effectively prove his point. I will present the argument that Euthyphro spends more time talking about himself and his decision to prosecute his father than he does discussing the actual crime. I will then present the argument that Euthyphro does not use specific, factual evidence to bolster his judgement.

The consequences of accepting that the goodness of actions consists simply in the fact that God favours them are obviously disagreeable. However, the consequences of accepting the alternative also appear unfortunate. If it is maintained that God favours certain actions because they are objectively good, it seems that their goodness is independent of His will. But such a view appears to be inconsistent with the conception of God as the omnipotent creator and sustainer of all that is. It means that there is a realm of moral values which exist quite apart from God's creative will and to which His will must conform. Such a view must inevitably appear blasphemous to all those who believe in God, for it makes God out to be less than He is.

Socrates and Euthyphro cross paths one day at the courts of Athens. At the time, Euthyphro was there to prosecute his father for murder. Socrates takes the opportunity to ask Euthyphro what the meaning of piety is. In this paper, I exam the issue at hand, how Socrates uses his question to doubt Euthyphro’s thesis, and give an explanation as to what this question means for someone who maintains that God is the origin or foundation of morality.

Socrates is brought to trail before the citizens of Athens, accused of not recognizing the gods that are recognized by the state. Euthyphro is brought to prosecute his father for murder. Before the trails, they discuss the definition of piety and what the difference is to impiety. Instead of a straight forward answer Euthyphro explains his position on prosecuting his father. Although his father murdered a murderer that fact that Euthyphro knew what his father had done. It would have impious of him to sit back and pretend his father was innocent of such a thing. Euthyphro also discusses the relation to Zeus castrating Cronos for devouring his children. Providing a point that no matter who you are, he who is unjust must get punished. As Socrates finds it difficult to believe such stories his finds himself questioning wether to believe or not. Socrates is in search of a direction definition as to what exactly is piety.

Does morality stem from God? Or does it exist independently of his presence, not subject to arbitrary decisions? The first discussion over these questions appeared in Plato's Euthyphro, in which Plato chronicles the proceedings of a highly repetitive argument between Socrates and Euthyphro, a prophet and holy man, over the nature of piety and holiness. The questions produced in this dialogue have been expanded to remain relevant even in a modern religious context. It has achieved so much fame that the core question presented in this dialogue is now known as the Euthyphro Dilemma. In the dialogue, Socrates presents Euthyphro with a choice, "Is what is holy loved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is

Euthyphro is at the court to charge his father with manslaughter, because his father did have the right equipment to protect his workers from different elements. Socrates is astonished about Euthyphro that he's putting his dad to death. The words of Euthyphro : "It's ridiculous, Socrates for you to think it makes any difference whether the dead man's a stranger is a relative...You, see it's impious they say, for a son to prosecute his father for murder. Little they know Socrates about the god's position on the pious and the impious!" Euthyphro wants to teach Socrates what's impiety. If Socrates knows what impiety is, he can use it for his own trial. Socrates wants a universal translation of impiety. Euthyphro first definition of piety is what Euthyphro is doing right now, charging his father with manslaughter. Socrates discards

In The Euthyphro, by Plato, Socrates treats Euthyphro as if he is the teacher but it is in fact, Socrates who is doing the teaching. It shows how Socrates is trying to guide Euthyphro through his own reasoning and attempting to let Euthyphro sort things out for himself. In this, Socrates tries to show Euthyphro his ignorance. The central argument in The Euthyphro, is that Socrates wants to see if Euthyphro is as wise as he claims to be, for Socrates feels that the people in general do not understand piety and impiety. Another argument in this story is based on “The Divine Command Theory of Morality”, which is whether or not, Gods commands are morally right because it is actually right, or if it is right because God commanded it.

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

Socrates was a moral philosopher who was accused of impiety and was about to be tried for a crime, the nature of which no one seemed to understand. The trial and death of Socrates has four dialogs known as the Euthyphro, the Apology, the Crito, and the Phaedo which describes the process of Socrates’ controversial and insightful trial that raises the questions about human morality. Within the story we learned that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as clear-cut as some might think, Socrates forces the witnesses of his trial as well as ourselves to come to conclusions which result in a paradox that conflicts with the individual beliefs of his audience. In the event in which, Socrates poses a question to himself and Euthyphro, an attempt to answer the question "What is piety?" It has a specific tie to the events in “The Trial and Death of Socrates”, for Socrates had been accused of impiety and was about to be tried for the crime of heresy. The Euthyphro dialogue was written twenty-four centuries ago, and its conclusion is devastating for the whole idea that holiness and morality are very well connected. The idea that, “if God does not make something good by commanding it, but rather instead identifies that which is good, what measurement of morality does he use to make this judgment?” If something is right because god commands it, then it follows that something would be just as right if God instructed differently. If god declares that it is right to

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