The Euthyphro Dilemma

[JMM]

A couple days ago, I was talking with a friend of mine who is an atheist (actually, he is more of an acquaintance/co-worker than a friend, but I digress...). We were discussing different arguments for and against God, when he brought something to my attention that I had never thought of before, and for which I did not have a copasetic answer at the time. We were talking about whether or not God was capable of being immoral, or behaving immorally.

Is God good because He is GOOD, or is God good because He is GOD? This led to the divine command theory, and whether His commandments to us were good because they were truly good.....or were they good simply because they came from HIM? My friend contended that there were problems with both views, and pointed to what is known as "The Euthyphro Dilemma". He gave me this link:

http://www.moralphilosophy.info/euthyphrodilemma.html

The most common argument against divine command theory is the Euthyphro dilemma. The argument gets its name from Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue, which contains the inspiration for it. The Euthyphro dilemma is introduced with the question Does God command the good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God? Each of the two possibilities identified in this question are widely agreed to present intractable problems for divine command theory.

Suppose that the divine command theorist takes the first horn of the dilemma, asserting that God commands the good because it is good. If God commands the good because it is good, then he bases his decision what to command on what is already morally good. Moral goodness, then, must exist before God issues any commands, otherwise he wouldn’t command anything. If moral goodness exists before God issues any commands, though, then moral goodness is independent of God’s commands; God’s commands aren’t the source of morality, but merely a source of information about morality. Morality itself is not based in divine commands.

Suppose, then, that the divine commands theorist takes the second horn of the dilemma, asserting that the good is good because it is commanded by God. On this view, nothing is good until God commands it. This, though, raises a problem too: if nothing is good until God commands it, then what God commands is completely morally arbitrary; God has no moral reason for commanding as he does; morally speaking, he could just as well have commanded anything else. This problem is exacerbated when we consider that God, being omnipotent, could have commanded anything at all. He could, for example, have commanded polygamy, slavery, and the killing of the over-50s. If divine command theory is true, then had he done so then these things would be morally good. That doesn’t seem right, though; even if God had commanded these things they would still be morally bad. Divine command theory, then, must be false.

Since I'm really not sure how to answer this one, I figured maybe some people on this forum could help me out here. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I might respond to my friend? Is there an effective rebuttal to this that I could share with him?

 

[Rick W]

If God commands the good because it is good, then he bases his decision what to command on what is already morally good. Moral goodness, then, must exist before God issues any commands, otherwise he wouldn’t command anything. If moral goodness exists before God issues any commands, though, then moral goodness is independent of God’s commands; God’s commands aren’t the source of morality, but merely a source of information about morality. Morality itself is not based in divine commands.

The first:

The above makes the assumption morality already exists rather than a perfect God making judgment of what is good or evil.
I've had good pets and bad pets. I can assure you neither had a sense of morality but me, as the judge, makes the distinction.
Going further I can command a pet to do something I judge as good regardless if I judge the pet to be good or not. Here a good pet would be good if it obeyed. A bad pet would also be good if it obeyed.


The second:

"He could, for example, have commanded polygamy, slavery, and the killing of the over-50s."
Could have but didn't. Totally hypothetical.

"then had he done so"
Again, He didn't.

"If - then" builds an argument on what isn't.

"then these things would"
again, building on what isn't.

"That doesn’t seem right, though"
No kidding. The "if - then" scenerio doesn't seem right because that's not what God did.




The one thing left out of the entire argument on both sides is God's judgment. And isn't that what many wish to dodge in the first place?

 

[JMM]

Rick, thank you for taking a stab at this for me. It appears that you have rejected the first assumption (morality exists independent of God), and gone with the second (morality comes FROM God). Sounds good to me! Now, you said:

"That doesn’t seem right, though"
No kidding. The "if - then" scenerio doesn't seem right because that's not what God did.

So if God had originally commanded things like polygamy, slavery, and killing anyone over 50, then those things would be considered today to be morally right? We wouldn't know the difference?

 

[francisdesales]

A couple days ago, I was talking with a friend of mine who is an atheist (actually, he is more of an acquaintance/co-worker than a friend, but I digress...). We were discussing different arguments for and against God, when he brought something to my attention that I had never thought of before, and for which I did not have a copasetic answer at the time. We were talking about whether or not God was capable of being immoral, or behaving immorally.

Is God good because He is GOOD, or is God good because He is GOD?

The attributes that we "assign" to God are not merely descriptive of His nature, but are His Being Itself. Thus, we do not properly say "God is good", but that God is Goodness itself.

As such, we PARTICIPATE in divinity BY doing good. The act of goodness is "Godly" in of itself. This is what the Scriptures mean when it says we are to participate in the divine nature by loving others or that we can do no good without God...

Naturally, then, an evil act is something God cannot do, because He is Goodness itself. Goodness cannot be evil at the same time.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

So if God had originally commanded things like polygamy, slavery, and killing anyone over 50, then those things would be considered today to be morally right? We wouldn't know the difference?

I think it is better said that God allowed those things. Just as God allowed Moses to issue a decree of divorce, because of the hardness of the Jews' hearts.

Nothing can be "morally right" if love is not involved at its core, since God = Love. Thus, if God is Love itself, then all of His acts must be love, making them morally right. Certain acts are considered intrinsically evil, so they can never be from God.

Regards

 

[Rick W]

Rick, thank you for taking a stab at this for me. It appears that you have rejected the first assumption (morality exists independent of God), and gone with the second (morality comes FROM God). Sounds good to me! Now, you said:

"That doesn’t seem right, though"
No kidding. The "if - then" scenerio doesn't seem right because that's not what God did.

So if God had originally commanded things like polygamy, slavery, and killing anyone over 50, then those things would be considered today to be morally right? We wouldn't know the difference?

Morality may exist independent of God but God judges what is good. Paul said even the Gentile follows a law unto themselves. The question is then, is it good?
Sure, things like murder, stealing, adultery are things inherently understood as wrong. We were made in the Image of God therefore I believe we can discern good from evil to a certain exent.
Thou shalt not kill.
I knew what killing was
Thou shalt not steal.
I knew what stealing was

We were made in the image of God. And as Fran pointed out, God is goodness.
But then we also possess the sinful nature contrary to what is good such as pride.

The "dilema" seems to assume we are like unprogrammed robots. Totally empty at first. But I don't believe that to be the case.

 

[Paidion]

Suppose those people are right who think that performing action A is morally right because God commands it. If it assumed that God has a particular character, then it does not follow that God will make arbitrary commands, but rather those which are consistent with His character.

I myself believe that God commands action A because it is morally right. It does not follow from this that morality is independent of God. For God is the Creator, and because of His creation things are as they are. Adultery, slavery, and killing everyone over 50, are harmful to people (I am not sure about polygamy). That is simply nature as God created it. So the moral imperative not to do these things are not independent of God.

It is true that we can discover what is moral and immoral by a process of reasoning from basic moral principles. These basic principles transcend all cultures. In all cultures, reciprocal treatment and being helpful to the needy are understood to be moral principles. Not all cultures put these basic moral principles into practice, but all recognize them as moral principles.

I said "all cultures", but sometimes there is an aberrant group of people who seem to admire the immoral. For example, there was a tribe (this made the news) who admired those among them who were able to deceive their neighbours and steal from them as a result. However, because of the rarity of this stance, this tribe and its attitudes was newsworthy.

 

[JMM]

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion thus far. I told my atheist friend that I would get back to him on this as soon as I could give him a copasetic answer. Wish me luck as I attempt to explain to him that this "dilemma" is not as much of a dilemma as he thinks it is. ;)

If anyone else has anything to contribute to this thread, by all means, throw your hat into the ring!

 

[JMM]

I want to thank Free for sending me a link to some audio which revisits this argument, and basically concludes, which superb articulation, what everyone on this thread has been trying to say. To listen to this audio, go to:

http://feeds2.feedburner.com/reasonablefaithpodcast

...and scroll down to "Euthyphro Argument Revisited". They argue that a dilemma is not really a dilemma if there is a third option, and that there IS a third option in this case. Option number 3 is this: God IS good. God does not command what is good simply because it is good (merely recognizing "the good" as a separate abstract object), and his commandments are not good simply because He decided that they are.....meaning that God could conceivably make ANYTHING moral that He wants to, including rape and murder (IOW, "might makes right"). No.....there is a third option. God's commandments are good because goodness is God's very nature. God IS "the good", and anything that we see as "the good" IS God. The terms "God" and "good" are interchangable.

I recently presented this argument to my atheist friend, and he admitted that the concept itself made sense.....that when he says "good" and I say "God", we're both talking about the same thing; I just gave it a name. However, what does NOT make sense to him is how one can read the Bible and conclude that Yahweh is GOOD. His questions were thought-provoking: was it "good" to drown approximately 30 million people to death (including millions of babies, children, and animals) in a Great Flood? Was it "good" to murder about 500,000 first-borns in Egypt (many of which were babies and young children), for no other reason than for us to know that God "put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel" (Exodus 11:7)? Was it "good" to order that, because Achan sinned (in Joshua 7), his CHILDREN must be stoned to death as well.....for something their DAD did?

Once again I'm at a loss for words here. How do I answer questions like this? He sees the Flood as "global genocide", he sees the Passover as "serial murder", and he sees the stoning of Achan's kids as a brutally cruel injustice. Somehow I don't think that simply telling him that "God works in mysterious ways" or "God's ways are higher than ours" or "God is not subject to the laws of man" etc.....is going to satisfy my theologically skeptical friend. Is there anything that I can offer in response to him here?

 

[oneisgod]

God is Good because Gid IS Love!

 

[JMM]

Thank you, Oneisgod. But did you read my previous post? Do you have any suggestions on how to address my atheist friend's objections to the notion that YAHWEH is good and loving?