Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Science v religion
Throughout human history, the topic of theology has been a central aspect of everyday life. A common denominator of all modern-day religions is that they provide a set of rules which one is to follow in order to live as a good, moral being. When a deity (or a group of deities) commands followers to abide by specific moral standards though a vehicle such as prophets, religious texts or otherwise, this is called Divine Command Theory (DCT). Those who accept this theory believe that moral action coincides with what has been ordered by the deities, and immoral action would occur when one deviates from these orders. Despite this theory remaining relevant into the twenty-first century, it has still yet to solve one age-old dilemma. The Euthyphro Argument has stumped philosophers for years, but some Divine Command theorists believe they can overcome the massive obstacles it presents. In this paper, I will argue that it is impossible for one to resolve the Euthyphro Argument no matter how it is approached, and that the challenges it presents to DCT are insurmountable. To begin, I will first introduce the Euthyphro Argument and its two horns. Following this, I will summarize the best response a Divine Command theorist could possibly hold for the first horn of the Euthyphro Argument, and subsequently render it untrue. I will then repeat this process for the second horn of the dilemma. Once both of the original claims have proven to be unshakable, I will address the common attempt by Divine Command theorists to work around the issue by claiming it is not in fact a dilemma at all.
Plato first conceived of the Euthyphro Argument in one of his earliest dialogues, aptly entitled Euthyphro. In this literature, Socrates and Euthyphro debate the ...
... middle of paper ...
...rinciples of law that were founded outside of his or her own opinion. They are not the source of what is just or unjust, but rather they merely apply the rules already established from years of social progression and political influence. Thus, when Divine Command theorists argue that they have successfully conquered the Euthyphro Argument, they must be reminded that the opposite is true, and the age-old dilemma has actually reduced their deities to magistrates of morality.
Works Cited
Craig, W. L. (2010). On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook Publishing Company.
Johnstone, M., Primmer, J. (2014). [Lecture]. Morality I: Divine Command Theories of Ethics. PHILOS 1E03, Problems of Philosophy. Hamilton, ON, Canada: McMaster University.
Plato. (2013). Euthyphro. Problems of Philosophy: Custom Publishing , 167-169.
Before getting into the principles of Socrates, it is important to have some context on these two stories to understand how each of these exemplify philosophical understanding. “Euthyphro” is a dialogue between Socrates and
In the Euthyphro, Plato describes the proceedings of a largely circular argument between Socrates and Euthyphro, a self-declared prophet and pious man, over the nature of piety and even of the gods themselves. The issues raised in this dialogue have been reinterpreted and extended to remain relevant even with a modern theological framework, so much so that the central issue is now known simply as ?the Euthyphro dilemma.? This is based on Socrates? two-way choice which he offers in the dialogue:
or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or
Consequently, In Plato's Euthyphro, our acquaintance with Socrates is immensely beneficial to society, as we obtain awareness on such an innovative method of achieving intuition. The Socratic approach is now a fundamental approach implemented in daily conversation in society Furthermore, not only is Socrates is able to verify that the true seekers are the wise; he also validates the notion that the answers to many questions are merely questions. Simply because, life is so debate that certain subjects begin to intertwine. To sum up, Plato's Euthyphro is extremely indicative of this Socratic irony, for the reason being that: Socrates's portrays a sense of intellectual humility.
Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Trans. H. J. Paton. 1964. Reprint. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 2009.
Keeping true to Socratic/Platonic methodology, questions are raised in the Euthyphro by conversation; specifically “What is holiness?” After some useless deliberation, the discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro ends inconclusively. Euthyphro varying definitions of piety include “What I do is pious to the gods,” and, “What is pleasing to the gods is pious.” Socrates proves these definitions to be insufficient, which leads us to the Apology.
Socrates and Euthyphro sought after the definition of piety and impiety. In Euthyphro’s attempt to explain the terms, he gave examples of the gods and what they believed was pious or impious. Still determined to hear the definition rather than examples, Socrates realized to define piety and impiety, we have to first answer the question of “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” – Known as the Euthyphro dilemma. It is termed “dilemma” because the question makes you choose between two options, both of which are unfavorable to theism. Either God is not good or God is not sovereign. I will discuss in more detail what the first and second horns of the dilemma mean. Then I will discuss the weaknesses of each. Finally I will explain why the first horn is the better of the two options.
Cultural Relativism and the Divine Command Theory both had a tough time explaining why culture and God had the rights to state what is considered moral behavior. Especially when you lay your trust on God to guide you on what is moral or not, you face dangerous risks because there is a possibility that God is just a make-believe person up in the sky. Hence, humans who follow God’s words can misinterpret his meanings and cause immoral behavior in society. On the other hand, Ethical Relativism appeals to an authority that is present on this in this world, society and cultures. Nevertheless, society and cultures should not be relied on to indicate moral and immoral behavior because it is questionable to believe that our actions become moral just for the reason that our culture or society accepts them as normal. Despite the differences between The Divine Command Theory and Cultural Relativism, they both are theories that just fall short of their
Dating all the way back to ancient Greece, Plato raised a challenge by merely asking, “Is it right because God commands it, or does God command it because it’s right?” Nowadays, this simple yet complex question poses a problem to modern day Christians. When understanding this question, you are forced to believe you only have one of two choices to accept. Those being either it is right because God commands it or God commands it because it is right. If it is right because God commands it then anything, specifically evil, could be right. On the other hand, if God commands it because it is right then the standard of goodness is no longer. Both options are hostile to Christianity. However, after further investigation, there is a third option: God’s very nature is the standard of goodness. By closely examining Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma, it’s clear that a theist should undoubtedly accept the third option, being that of God’s nature is the standard of goodness.
The divine command theory is an ethical theory relating to God and how his commandments should guide the morality of humankind. Objections to this theory include objections to the nature or existence of God or to the nature of his character or commands. For the purposes of this paper, I will present the divine command theory, introduce a serious objection evident in Genesis 22, propose and explain an alternative to the divine command theory that is the divine will theory, explain why this theory avoids the objection, and critique and respond from the perspective of a divine will theorist.
The story that is found in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro proposes a dilemma that has since been a very controversial subject. When Socrates encounters Euthyphyo, he is on his way to trail to face charges against his own father. His father had been accused o...
The divine command theory is rooted in the idea that morality was created by God. This means that an action is considered moral simply because God commanded it, and immoral simply because God forbade it. This theory argues that since no one person can be considered perfect, it is up to a higher power to create a moral code suitable for humanity. By stating what is right and wrong, God has absolute power in creating an ideal code of conduct. Additionally, the divine command theory offers an incentive to keep its followers steered toward righteous living. A person who lives a pure, conscientious, and ethical life (in the eyes of God) is rewarded with an afterlife filled with pleasure while a person who lives a wicked life is doomed to everlasting
Thrasymachus then turns his own argument around by turning his thoughts on their heads and exploring a new concept; that injustice is right, which begins to foreshadow the concept of censorship from from further in The Republic. Euthyphro defines what is holy is what is agreeable to the gods. Through the Greek history, the gods were all powerful beings, beings that were literally at the top of Mount Olympus, looking down upon their subjects in the
In order to understand divine command theory we must first understand the nature of God and Morality. So we will start by taking a look at what makes an action moral. Once we understand what makes an action moral, we can then try to understand the author's’ viewpoint on the divine command theory of ethics. Understanding the viewpoint will allow us to dissect the author’s viewpoints and come up with counter-arguments that the author must then contend with.
Socrates, who’s indicted for being impious, is leading Euthyphro, the self-proclaimed intellectual, to note that he is not all-knowing and that his definition of piety is flawed and has no fundamental