The Euthyphro’s Dilemma
Euthyphro’s dilemma comes from the dialogue by Socrates to Euthyphro in the Plato’s Euthyphro. In fact, the dilemma is in several forms. The Euthyphro Dilemma lies on the question asked by Socrates that “Is something good because God says it is good, or God says something is good because it is good?” (Plato) These sentences provide us very different meanings. In the first part of the dilemma, God seems to be arbitrary. There may be some other conditions for a thing to be good. He is not the one to define the rules; he is the one who reads for us. In fact, God cannot do everything; he is bound by certain rules of morality which is outside of his own power. Moreover, God is not really necessary in morality because even
(Plato, p.3) In fact, we have two options from the above sentences of the Euthyphro dilemma; ether morally good actions are willed by God because they are morally good, or morally good actions are morally good because they are willed by God. The two alternatives provide to the divine command theory are considered to have very deep reasoning. Hence, if the divine command theory is right then one of the alternatives must be right. It is hard to define which of the above point is correct. Lots of controversies arise on these sentences, because God might say hurricane is good which kills thousands of people. Hence, morality seems to be arbitrary. If god makes every living beings suffer, that would be good. On the other hand, God might say that it is morally right to eat your children, would it be right? For example, the spider mom is eaten by her own children after giving birth to them. Why not God says it is morally wrong to the children of spider to eat their own mother. God cannot be argued as good, because he is not from the definition the divine command theory. Hence, God is dependent of morality. God can make anything good, and there is no any deeper reason for what is good. The theory might be right in one sense, but it is very wrong in the other sense. On divine command theory, God could have said, for example, ‘cruelty for its own sake’, and it would have been mandatory for humans to do it.( RAHIMI) we may possibly think that the God as a moral mediator which leaves the people to believe that is no path of moral goodness. On the other hand, rejecting the divine command theory believes oneself on morality which leads to falsification of understanding of god’s power, knowledge and sovereignty. In both case, the theist seems to come across in a conflicting dilemma. In fact the divine command theory must choose
Before getting into the principles of Socrates, it is important to have some context on these two stories to understand how each of these exemplify philosophical understanding. “Euthyphro” is a dialogue between Socrates and
or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or
When discussing specific knowledge, it is often hard to pin down an exact definition of what it is you are discussing. Often a concept or word will get thrown around so often that it will begin to be taken for granted and when pressed, a person may struggle to pin down specifically what it is they mean. Realizing this, Socrates often went out and attempted to fix these kinds of problems and find out what people actually knew, compared to what they just thought they knew. In the dialogues Euthyphro and Meno, Socrates attempts to pin down definitions for piety and virtue, respectively. In doing so, we are shown that the thinkers in question struggle to define these terms, and attempt to do so in vague terms that may vary heavily under different circumstances. What Socrates is attempting to find is one definitive definition of piety and virtue, what is called his One Form Requirement. Rather than defining something by classifying different parts that make it up, Socrates maintains the belief that piety and virtue both can be simplified into one specific form that describes exactly what makes all F actions F.
Everyday people make choices, whether they are good or bad. These choices are usually known as good or bad, already. What makes them good or bad? Are they good because morally we think they are, or is it something more? In the words of Socrates, “Is it pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods? (10a)” From reading Euthyphro, I found that there is not a clear answer, but rather it is more of an opinionated answer. To come up with an answer, one must really dive into their thoughts, and reason out why they think a certain way, just like Socrates did with Euthyphro. While I read, I could not help but think that not all gods agree on everything, and not all religions do, either. How are we to know which is right? For example, people are strictly forbidden to get tattoos in Islam, but in Hinduism they are allowed. How would we know which the gods loves? If we agreed that all gods loved the same things, like Euthyphro and Socrates do, we still have a problem on whether or not we agree or disagree with what the gods love or hate. The use of Euthyphro and my own thinking made me decide that the pious is pious for no other reason than it being
Euthyphro’s first attempt to define ‘what is piety ‘is when he said “pious is to do what I am doing now, to prosecute the wrongdoer”(Plato 5d-5e). Because Socrates knew “by suing his own father, Euthyphro appears to be crazy, since it would not be most usual to persecute a relative on behalf of an outsider” (McPherran 108) he urged Euthyphro to explain his self further for better understanding. Euthyphro could not justify his reason why this definition was the sure definition for piety, hence he went to the four other definition such as “piety is what is loved by the gods (6e-9d), piety is what is loved by all the gods (93-11b), piety is that part of justice which assists the gods to produce their most beautiful product (11e-14b) and piety is an art of prayer and sacrifice (14b-15c)” (McPherran 107). Even with these definitions Socrates destroyed Euthyphro way of thinking and made him return to his very first definition. “Without the least hesitation, Euthyphro swallows the bait by agreeing with suggestion” (McPherran 108). The suggestion in which Socrates made to inform Euthyphro, his idea of ‘what is piety’ was not the idea not
This is the “view according to which an act is morally right just because God commands it” (Shafer-Landau 2004, 145). If we assume God were to exist and he is the creator of all moral laws then it creates a twisted image of a God who whimsically created the moral laws that guide his teachings by pure chance. As Shafer-Landau mentions: “if an act is only right because God loves or commands them. Now it is God’s say-so that makes it so, transforming something that was previously morally neutral into something that is good or evil, or right or wrong” (Shafer-Landau 2004, 80). An alternate solution Shafer-Landau provides is to imagine God as a referee of a sports game, simply a follower of rules or laws which were previously created by a higher power. By creating this new concept of God, we can understand that morality exists this way for a significant and just reason. It has to be noted that Shafer-Landau and I believe that theists should reject the first-premise on top of the second premise because it would create shaky and untrustworthy implications of God and our laws of morality. Regardless of whether God is the author of his own moral laws or not, if he were to exist, then morality would still be
He establishes that “the pious is what all the gods love”. Socrates immediately asks a clarifying question, asking whether the gods love pious acts because they are pious or if it because since the gods love these actions it makes them pious. Euthyphro choses to say that the gods love pious acts because they are pious, which was a mistake in his thought process. Euthyphro committed the begging the question fallacy. Socrates shows that although Euthyphro is deemed an expert in this field, he does know understand piety at all. He has brought the conversation to the beginning by saying that pious acts are pious because they are pious, which is not an explanation. It is redundant in thinking, which is what Socrates wanted to avoid. At the end when Socrates tries to further push Euthyphro’s thinking, Euthyphro merely gives up and avoids Socrates altogether. Plato again illustrates the importance of applying rational thought when one ventures to find the truth. Euthyphro did not ask himself insightful and challenging questions to further push his idea towards the truth. Had he use rational standards, he would developed his idea in a much clearer
My understanding of justice is using right vs wrong to determine a course of action along with taking into account any consequences that might follow a decision. In dialogue between two philosophers, it is argued what makes an act holy and what makes an act unholy. Euthyphro has decided to prosecute his own father for murder in a time when religion forbade persecution of one’s own father. Euthyphro justifies his actions based on the claim that “It is ridiculous, Socrates, that you think it matters whether the man who was killed was a stranger or a relative, and do not see that the only thing to consider is whether the action of the slayer was justified or not, and that if it was justified one ought to let him alone, and if not, one ought to proceed against him, even if he share one's hearth [4c] and eat at one's table” (4c). Euthyphro is explaining to Socrates why it is holy to persecute injustices and unholy to ignore an injustice. Socrates has more to say, but he first helps Euthyphro build his argument. In doing so, Socrates attempts to show him though his own reasoning why he should humbly acknowledge his own ignorance in his
The unrestricted divine command theory is committed to morality being completely and solely dependent of the commands of God. This basically explains the reason any action is good or bad, and the reason an action can be called good is because God is good, just, and righteous. The question posed by Socrates proposes a thought that maybe instead of good and bad being determined by God that God’s commands are right because they were first good.
As you can see, the way to approach the Euthyphro Dilemma is to show that it is false and that there is ultimately a better option: God’s nature is the standard of goodness. There are not two options, but three. In all, one should reject both that it is right because God commands it and God commands it because it is right. Whatever is “right” is good to the degree that it fulfills its purpose. Based upon God’s standard of goodness, this is true because He is the ultimate creator of everything. The Euthyphro Dilemma is not an atheistic view on religion or the existence of God by any means, but rather an issue for deeper thought. Overall, this leads us closer to believing in Christianity and more so, God Himself.
Broadly, the divine command theory is a religious moral code in which God’s commands determine what human beings should or should not do. As such, it is expected for theists to subscribe to the divine command theory of morality. The deontological interpretation of the divine command theory separates actions into one of the following categories: mandatory for human beings to perform, prohibited for human beings to perform, or optional for human beings to perform. Those actions that are mandatory to perform are ones which have been expressly commanded by God. Failing to commit a mandatory action would be defying God’s commands, and thus, according to the divine command theory of morality, immoral. Actions that are prohibited are ones that God expressly commands human beings do not perform. Consequently, to perform a prohibited action would be immoral. Finally, those actions that God does not expressly command that human beings should perform or should avoid performing are optional; there are no moral implications to performing or not performing such acts. The rightness or wrongness of an action is inherently and wholly dependent upon th...
In The Euthyphro, Socrates uses his Socratic Method to disprove the Divine Command theory to his friend, Euthyphro. According to the textbook, the Socratic Method is a method that Socrates would use to get to the foundation of his students beliefs. He would ask continual questions about a student’s belief or assumption until a contradiction was raised. By doing so, Socrates would force his students to question their own beliefs and truly discern why they believed them. Socrates applied this method to Euthyphro when Socrates and Euthyphro had a conversation in regards to the definition of holiness. During this conversation, Euthyphro states that holiness is what is agreeable to the gods. However, Socrates disputes this idea by stating that gods quarrel just as humans quarrel in regards to issues such as right and wrong, holy and unholy, and justice and injustice. With this reasoning, Socrates argues that what one god may view as right or moral, another god may view as wrong or immoral. Thus, an action may be acceptable and moral to one god and unacceptable and immoral to another, and what is considered to
In order to understand divine command theory we must first understand the nature of God and Morality. So we will start by taking a look at what makes an action moral. Once we understand what makes an action moral, we can then try to understand the author's’ viewpoint on the divine command theory of ethics. Understanding the viewpoint will allow us to dissect the author’s viewpoints and come up with counter-arguments that the author must then contend with.
This is a reasonable answer on all fronts. Not to say that Euthyphro was not a holy man, but he certainly could not define his own existence- which is the exact sentiment which Socrates was trying to provoke. There is a clear difference between the definition of Socrates and the definitions of Euthyphro.
We have examined the arguments for and against the Divine Command Theory. It has an interesting framework to it, especially the existence of God. However, that framework is rather fragile in the presence of the mammoth objections. The Euthyphro Dilemma specifically shatters this theory more than any other. In conclusion, I have found that the Divine Command Theory is implausible.