Question

What is the Euthyphro dilemma, e.g., what are two options of how God and morality are related? what must be true about God and morality if we go with the first option? What must be true if we go with the second option?

Answer 1

• As you explore the relationship between religion and morality, you will find that some people believe things are good because god commands them and some things are bad because God forbids them. This is called divine command theory. For example, if you argue homosexuality, slavery, and genocide are wrong because God forbids them then you are using divine command theory.
• But intelligent theists and atheists are aware that there is a deep problem with basing your morality on what God commands. It’s not simply that people disagree about God’s existence or what God commands, there is a deeper problem. That is, even if everyone agreed that God exists and agreed on what God commands, this problem would remain.
• This problem is called the euthyphro dilemma. A dilemma is when there are two choices and neither of the two choices is good.Does God will it because it is good or is it good because God wills it?
  
• The second option (i.e. it is good because God wills it) has a few problems. Now, one obvious problem is knowing God’s Will. People disagree about what God wills, which is one reason why there are so many religions. But this is a superficial problem, there is a deeper problem that exists even when everyone assumes God’s existence and agree on what God wills and commands.This reflects Divine command theory.
• Divine Command Theory is the position that God determines morality. That is, morally good acts are those that God commands, and morally bad acts are those God forbids. For example, a divine command theorist may argue that homosexuality is wrong simply because God forbids it.
• It doesn’t matter if homosexuality is natural or unnatural or whether it promotes happiness, all that matters to the divine command theorist (in the end) is that God forbids it or allows it.
• The problem with basing morality solely on God’s commands is that it seems to make morality arbitrary since God could command anything to be good and it would suddenly be good. For example, let’s say divine command theory is correct and it is wrong to drown kids for fun because God forbids it.
• Now, if the morally good act is simply what God commands, then God could change his mind and command that I drown my kids in a bathtub and that act would suddenly become good.
• It doesn’t matter if I think killing children is usually wrong because it violates rights, does not promote happiness, and simply goes against the empathy that I have for kids. All of these reasons and moral emotions are irrelevant if I am a divine command theorist.
• So the major problem with the second option (i.e. it’s good because God commands it) is it makes morality arbitrary. It makes morality like an arbitrary matter of taste, it’s good simply because God likes it and God could like anything at anytime.
• But, I just don’t see how God commanding the drowning of kids for fun would suddenly make it good. I don’t see how things are good because God commands or wills them.
• Euthyphro, atheists, and many intelligent theists do understand this problem.They understand that the second option implies that killing children for fun could be made moral. They understand that the main problem with the second option is that it makes morality arbitrary, and so they propose another option.
• They propose that an act is good not because God commands it, rather God commands it because it is good. This avoids the arbitrary problem because it avoids the implication that killing children for fun could become morally good.
• The first option (i.e. God commands it because it is good) has one serious problem. It sets up a standard of goodness separate from God. That is, it makes God a middle man. This is a problem because most monotheists believe God is the omnipotent source of all goodness.
• If God merely recognizes good and then informs humans, it follows that God is not omnipotent. God is not the source of all goodness, but merely informs us about some independent standard of good like a middleman or good parent.
• Let’s use an example. Imagine you have good parents and they train you to go to bed at a reasonable time, eat healthy, follow the golden rule, be empathetic towards others, and live a good moral life.
• At some point, your reason develops and you understand these things are not good because your parents commanded them, rather your parents taught you these things because they are good… perhaps because they help you flourish in life.
• That is, you realize your parents and culture are not the source of goodness, rather they are goodness recognizers and transmitters. They teach you what they think will lead to a good life, just as a mother acorn may teach baby acorns to sunbathe and get enough water.
• Indeed, If you think something is good merely because your parents or culture say so, then you still have an immature or undeveloped mindset. Your parents and culture are good recognizers, not good creators.
• So, if the first option is correct, then God is like a good parent. God is a good recognizer, not a good creator. If the first option is correct, there is a god- independent standard of goodness.
• God and your parents may originally be the epistemological source of your morality (i.e. how you come to know good from bad), but they are not the metaphysical source (i.e. the deeper reason that makes it good or bad).
• So the two options are of the dilemma are, Morality is either arbitrary meaning anything could be good, or God is not the source of morality and is subject to an external moral law.
• Due to time limit,any remaining questions can be asked as another question,they will be answered,thanyou for your cooperation