Analysis Of Euthyphro's Dilemma

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