Good or God, what exists? – Euthyphro Dilemma
Euthyphro is a series of short dialogues; it begins with young Euthyphro having a conversation with Socrates. Socrates is charged of being impious and Euthyphro presence is to explain what is pious and what is not pious. A series of various questions and answers ensues from both sides while Euthyphro is trying to prosecute his own father for murder. Socrates challenged Euthyphro to give a universal definition for piety, which is true for every culture at any time. Socrates explained that defining piety is important to define universally as it would help measuring what is good/holy and what is bad act in the world. Socrates trying to pull out the right answer out of Euthyphro, finally framed the question, if pious is what is loved by Gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the Gods.
This exigent question asked by Socrates to Euthyphro has led to great conclusions. This paper reveals around three authors and their different theories trying to explain and answer to Plato’s question: if piety can be dependent on Gods wishes, or piety exists independent of God. It will be revealed how different theories, i.e., divine command theory, theological voluntarism helps understand if God is inherently good, or if it is logically reasonable that God can accept cruelty too even though they are wrong actions within a human judicial framework. The argument seems to work well for theists but not with individuals who do not believe in the existence of God.
A biologist E.O Wilson explained, that morals are formed from the biological processes like natural selection and evolution, thus morals do not come from God.
Euthyphro’s responds that piety is loved and approved by Gods, whereas impiety is something that is disapproved and unloved by God. Socrates explains how the question poses a dilemma. It poses an intriguing argument forcing to make choices between two different alternatives. This paper will unpack the introduction of each alternative from different perspectives.
Dilemma faced through Euthyphro’s response is, certain acts and personal temperament are good, as God favours them. This alternative led to an inconsistency between the concepts good and evil. It seems to be arbitrary what is good or what is wrong. There is no distinction or reason why God should favour one kind of action and label them good and bad without understanding the situation. Therefore this alternative asserts that the distinction between good and evil is entirely God’s decision and taste. An example would be, every individuals taste and interpretations on different kinds of meat. This again shows that no reason is given to God, to favour what is right and justified and what is wrong and evil. God might have equally favoured evil and wrong acts. Thus this alternative portrays that cruelty and evil act would be ethically and morally right. Since both good and evil is portrayed as arbitrary we can understand distinction by divine revelation. In the world today, we have built justice against crimes, thus we definitely know that evil and crime is wrong autonomously of any relation to God’s decision of what is good or bad.
An individual has set of blind moral rules based and framed by different culture and religious views in the society, which the individual believes is accepted and claimed by God. This statement is morally undeveloped arbitrary rules. Just like a 5 year old child refusing to take a bite of his food and spilling it all over the place. Rule is not to throw the food off the table, but it seems to me morally immature as a 5 year child is revealed to certain culture and rules that are arbitrary, as they are given the label of good or bad based on the consequences not by God.
A. Kim explains how Chiastic contradiction alone makes possible Socrates refutation of Euthyphro’s claim to expertise in the realm of hosion. Euthyphro’s second definition of piety and impiety;
The pious is what all the gods love, and the opposite, what ll the gods hate is the impious (9e)
If P=G, where P=the pious and G= god’s beloved
Socrates question: is P, G? Because P is P or is P, P? Because P is G?
It seems reasonable to not agree those consequences of accepting the goodness of actions simply as it is favoured by God. But consequences for accepting the alternative statement also seem to be immature. If we understand that God accepts actions because they are good, then it is understood that the good deeds are independent of God’s will. But such an explanation seems to be inconsistent with the definition and the powerful figure of God. God is known to be an deific creator of all. This therefore contradicts that their is moral values which exists, it might be not from God’s will but might be under human judicial reform.
For the individuals who believe in God and accept them an inherent good figure, might be sacrilegious to the above view. In the above explanation it implies God as not a divine figure.
This gives rise to the question if god is the source of morality or should we define God as moral in relation to an independent moral framework. Many contemporary thinkers, like Plato asked the same question before Christianity and came across various conclusions. For many individuals God is an erroneous subject so they believe morality is independent and is not related to God. The relation between God and morality presupposes the existence of God to a possibility using theological arguments.
The intriguing question now surfaces out is, if there is a possibility of God’s existence, how can we individually understand God’s commands on our moral judgements? This seems to be completely immature understanding as we will not be having any knowledge about what is morality at the beginning. In the Euthyphro, Plato explains how we hold two different conflicting assumptions.
That is pious is what is loved by Gods or Gods love piety because it is pious. Based on Christianity religion and morality an individual could ask how something is right based on God’s command.
Plato explains that relation between what is right and God is that if Gods love something then it must be good and if God does not love something than it might be wrong and evil. But this can be proved wrong as rightness of a thing or wrongness of a thing depended on God’s love can be two different prosperities of a thing. Like a flower can both have a nice colour and a distinctive smell but these two properties are separate and not identical, therefore the presence of one of the properties does not necessarily requires the presence of the other property. Thus we can say Gods can love the actions but these actions can be cruel actions, as there is no reason why in terms of logic we suppose that, Gods can be inherently moral.
Murray Macbeth a philosopher argues that it is possible for an action can be god-beloved and for it to be good or right can be coincidental. I could play with boys fire fighter toys; one might interpret that toys are boys’ fire fighters because I play with them or that I play with them because they are boys’ fire fighter toys. But this conclusion cannot be proved without any pragmatic proof. In the situation of good and evil acts based on God’s taste, we have no empirical proof either, therefore this situation cannot explained with a certainty that it is coincidental or a causal relationship is present.
We cannot portray that there is a direct connection present between God and morality either. Rules made and present within the society and justice are all arbitrary made by various societal institutions in the society and cultures. Based on Macbeath’s example; it is possible that my friend Kyle happens to buy those boys fire fighter toys and I just happen to play with it after he finishes playing with them. This portrays an indirect relationship between me and the fire fighter toys that belong to a boy. Therefore here we can say that it is neither coincidental nor causal. So it can be believable that the actions that are right and what God commands happens to be related in the similar way.
The intermediary connection could be that God follows an action and makes the action right. But an action cannot be right because God commands it nor the god cannot command an action because it is right. But we can definitely say that action can be good or right if it satisfies the rules framed by the moral framework built in the society. When compared to the utilitarianism model, it can be explained that God is concerned with goodness and happiness of the people and therefore acts in that constant moral framework to achieve his goal. Therefore God’s commands are right.
Therefore portraying how Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma is a false disagreement as God cannot love or accept an action because it is right, but accept it because the properties of the action in a given situation, that makes it morally right.This creates an indirect relationship and asserts a theological dilemma, as it does not necessitate God’s intrinsic goodness. Therefore this can bring to conclusion that God can only carry out the goodness if he continues to act the way to provide good.
If an individual denies God is good, this will put ‘God’ into question. Mark Murphy works on political and moral theories. According to him we can around this conclusion with theological voluntarism. This theory states that God is believed to be good if he has fulfilled his own standards. Murphy explains that God’s goodness evolves from an independent moral framework by fulfilling a moral obligation. Thus this says that God knows what is good by nature and chooses to uphold his standards. But would this understanding be enough for us to claim that God is good? It seems to be morality is an arbitrary rule, this labels the people who do not believe in God as immoral or they are advocating to God’s moral framework without having faith in him. To explain this situation we would have to understand morality on the basis of God’s will, hence the theological voluntarism comes into explain God’s good will cannot be understood through moral terms, but how he voluntarily takes good care of his creations. God tells us what is good and right for us, we assert our conscience to believe in moral values commanded by God. This statement therefore gives an answer to Plato’s euthyphro dilemma as long we assume God is intrinsically good.
The alternative to the above explanation would be God commanding an individual to do something cruel and label it as good. If God is considered inherently morally good, then this can be disagreed as it is logically impossible as God can command a wrong action to be morally right according to his command.
This seems to break down the understandings of the concept of wrong or right. But it seems it is logically impossible for God to command cruelty to his creations, and no individuals will believe in it either, as it is an item or belief in faith. We can support this idea based on theological reasons too, based on various religious and cultural texts. All these texts portray God as a good image. Lot of individual base their definition and rules of morality based on the religious texts. If one of these texts did suggest that God commanded revenge and cruelty when brought bad, then our society’s moral concept would unalterably turn into incoherent actions.
Based on Divine Command Theory by Adam:
“if X is right, it is by the command of a loving God; if God commands evil, God will not considered a loving God; therefore if God commands evil, X cannot be considered right, nor wrong, thus cannot be morally judged at all.”
Therefore to maintain direct and indirect relationship between the concepts what is right and if God demands so, we must believe that God is inherently good. Another step can be established between these two concepts.
Objection of Divine Command Theory is, that if we do not have empirical evidence to suggest the possible logic otherwise, it is possible to imagine that God might command well by suggesting us to do wrong acts within the society. This is a huge dilemma if all acts are believed to be judged according to God. That would be all our acts are defined and rules by the Divine Law. Locke explains that three laws can be established, civil; civil laws can be broken by the individuals in the society through damaging others property, thus going against the good commands of God. God can also command the society to do something that is against their moral beliefs, which is simply against our own arbitrary built laws and it not in relation to God’s command. Hence from this we understand that God’s command is completely different to our own beliefs and opinions in such situations. But if we have built our own laws will God not show any interest in these matters? This seems to imply that questions and rules of morality seem to be dependent on Divine Law.
Referring to all the above explanations we develop a complex answer to Plato’s question blended with Christian doctrine. Hence, action commanded by God is good as God only commands actions that cohere with his own inherent good intentions in his moral framework. What we assume right within our society might be right as God accepts it or because it is just related with arbitrary laws and rules in the human justice framework. This whole situation seems to portray a circular argument; God loves actions that are good as he makes them right. But to this claim there is no evidence to proof that if God is inherently good or is it just a built arbitrary faith and belief within the society.