Euthyphro Argument Analysis

Religions are found all around the world and are a central building block for the way people choose to live their lives. In the United States alone, 89% of the adult population admits to believing in some form of God or universal spirit (Lipka). This means there is a good chance that those who believe in God would panic and become defensive when they heard Russ Shafer-Landau use of the Euthyphro argument to show that the Divine Command Theory is false. However, they shouldn’t panic so quickly as Russ Shafer-Landau is only uses the argument as part of his paper to prove his main point that ethics can be objective, which means they exists beyond personal bias and interpretations. This does not mean that God doesn’t exists but only that there

are laws which God did not create which are independent of him. Russ Shafer-Landau’s paper aims to prove that ethics can be objective and although the arguments he uses seem to discredit God, it is still possible to believe in God even when ethics are objective.
There are many arguments in Russ Shafer-Landau’s piece that can be used to prove that ethics can be objective, however, one of the strongest arguments is the Euthyphro argument.

The purpose of the Euthyphro argument is to prove the Divine Command Theory false which states that an act is right (or wrong) if, and only if, God commands (or forbids). This opens up the possibility that the rightness and wrongness of actions does not solely rely on if God commands it or not. By proving that God does not have to determine if all actions are right or wrong it allows Russ Shafer-Landau to argue his idea that ethics can be objective. However, before all of these conclusions can be made there are premises in the Euthyphro argument which need to be addressed, the argument is stated

below.
1. Either there are reasons for God's commands or there are not.
2. If there aren't reasons for God's commands, then God's commands are arbitrary.
3. Ethics is not arbitrary.
4. So, if there aren't reasons for God's commands, then DCT is false.
5. If there are reasons for God's commands, then DCT is false.
6. So DCT is false.
In the Euthyphro argument, a theist, (someone who believes in God), should reject the second premise because they most likely would believe that there are reasons for God’s commands. By doing this, one acknowledges God as a person who has infinite wisdom and power. However, when this rejection is made, it gets rid of the idea that right and wrong was determined by God because if there are reasons for Gods commands it would be because the rules God is enforcing are objective not arbitrary. This rejection of the premise, and admittance that there is an independent concept of right and wrong is still better for a theist than admitting that God is arbitrary and random. From the Euthyphro argument Russ Shafer-Landau is able to establish that ethics can be objective, while theists are able to still hold on to their beliefs that God is an all-powerful being. However, it opens up the door for the conclusion of the Euthyphro argument which declares the Divine Command Theory false because it puts a theist in position to agree ethics can be objective. Which strains the idea that god created all the rules about right and in the world.
Although the rejection to the Euthyphro argument can start a debate over whether or not the Divine Command Theory is true or false a theist who is looking at ethics through an objective view should simple not care.

Giving up on the idea that God created all right and wrong, theists can come to terms with objective morality while still believing in an all-powerful God. Since the Divine Command Theory states that an act is right (or wrong) if, and only if, God commands (or forbids) it is easy to disagree with this theory because it demands to much. To think that an act is right or wrong if and only if god commands or forbids it is much too specific with the information that we think we know about god. There are many different religions in the world and although nearly all of them share common rules/values as it comes to right and wrong subjective views are almost always included in those rules. When referencing only the Christian faith, The Bible is basically the rule book in which the Divine Command Theory is based from yet there are many different Christian religions that are based off The Bible that pick and choose what they like from it to support their beliefs. With this going on a theist wouldn’t be able to confirm or deny that an act is right or wrong only if God commands or forbids it because they don’t actually know what god thinks are moral and which are not. There is room for Russ Shafer-Landau’s objective ethics and theists belief in God to coexist when looking at

the world through an outside point of view. It does not seem far-fetched to imagine a world where moral rules are in place independent from an all knowing creator with a God who is there to judge how humans follow the rules that are in place.
Russ Shafer-Landau’s paper successfully proves that ethics can be objective and makes a case for the Divine Command Theory to be false through the Euthyphro argument, however, it should not make a theist worry. When it is stated that ethics are objective it simply means that the rules that govern society are not influenced by others personal bias and interests. This is a system that is not made by a God but one that a theist should support and believe in as it makes everyone equal and under the judgment of God. If all religions had to lay down their most simple rules of life like “don’t murder or don’t steal” more similarities would be found than differences which seems to point to ethics being objective. When subjective views are taken as the law of the land it only leads to tension as differences are highlighted instead of similarities. And by believing in God’s who are said to love everyone equally it seems that having an objective rule field of life makes the most sense.