Euthyphro's Dilemm Unrestricted Divine Command Theory

In the Euthyphro dilemma, Socrates questions how Euthyphro can be so certain of what actions are considered pious. Socrates asks Euthyphro the important question if “Gods love piety because it is pious, or is it pious because they love it?” (pg. 27) Put simply, are God’s commands right because God commanded them or did God command them because they are right? In what follows, I will explain what unrestricted divine command theory tries to convey, why Euthyphro’s dilemma poses a few significant problem to its views, and I will argue how embracing a restricted version of divine command theory can help avoid the obstacles the dilemma sets in place. It can be well argued that unrestricted divine command theory is aimed to explain what is right

This stems from three statements or traits that many believe characterize God. God is the creator of everything besides himself (divine creator), God does everything for a good reason (divine rationality), and morally God is perfect (divine moral perfection). One of the most important drives behind unrestricted divine command theory is what is right or wrong, bad or good, is dependent and only dependent on what God commands are right or good. This leads one to think what if God said that to kill and steal instead was right? There is no other standard to go by so it must be right to do then if one truly follows unrestricted divine command theory and believes God is the divine creator. This sets up the issue called arbitrary whim because with no independent right or wrong standard anything God decided to say would be considered just even if it brought upon pain or suffering. This issue challenges God’s divine rationality and divine creator traits. Since, God has no good reasons for commanding what he has commanded and he created all but himself, there is no independent standard for right or wrong that exists but his commands. If one believes there is an independent standard than one can not believe fully that God is the creator of everything. One must decide

While unrestricted divine command theory has significant issues in its reasoning, it is foolish to abandon the theory in its entirety. Fortunately, there is an intermediate option with unrestricted divine command theory and rejecting the theory completely called restricted divine command theory. To help explain this imagine unrestricted divine command theory says “all birds can fly”. Yes, most birds can fly but there are clear exceptions to this rule. To fully reject divine command theory would be equal to saying “no birds can fly”, while restricted divine command theory allows the option of saying “not all birds can fly” taking the basis of the statement while altering it enough to avoid conflict. To accept rejected divine command theory I would have to restrict God’s all- powerful nature slightly by acknowledging that God did not specifically create the standard for right and wrong. However, the standard of right and wrong, bad or good can be viewed as a “necessary truth” allowing the theist to argue that God can be “goodness”. The textbook does a decent job of stating it as “God is the ultimate realization of moral goodness and stands as the paradigm of moral goodness.” (pg. 32) This allows the theist to avoid the arbitrary whim issue by stating that since God is “goodness” and stands as the model of the necessary truth that God would never command to kill and