Euthyphro: Plato's Early Dialogues - Essay Example

Euthyphro Dilemma In Plato’s dialogue, the Euthyphro, Socrates presents an argument against a common moral perception that morality or piety is a matter of what the gods’ commands. This makes Socrates to pose the following questions, is the right or pious being loved by the gods because it is pious or it is right or pious because it is being loved by the gods? According to Plato, he argued that what is right or the piety is defined without any reference to the gods. This argument elicits a contemporary criticism of the purpose of morality and God’s command rooted in the Euthyphro dilemma. The perception that Gods will is the basis in determining morality is referred to as theological voluntarism which most Christians adopt (Cooper 34-36). Does God call something right or moral because it is right or moral or does is something right or moral because God calls it moral? Therefore, if God calls an act moral because it is moral, then morality or goodness will be seen as priori to Gods Command and thus, it is independent of God. On the other hand, if an act is moral because God says it is moral or right, then it implies that whatever God says it is right (Hamilton and Cairns 37). In addition, this also implies that Gods command of what is moral is arbitrary since the same God could have willed contrary commands. The dialogue presents the challenge that was intended to make us think about the nature of morality. Therefore, when Socrates asks Euthyphro about his definition of the word piety, Euthyphro was required to identify the nature of virtue or morality by establishing on what ground does morality or virtue stand on. It is difficult for an atheist to discover the ground on which morality stands on because they claim that they can have ethics or morals without God. Certainly, an atheist can behave in a way that people perceive moral or good but it is really hard to define what the term ultimately means (Plato 10a). It may imply complying with objective standard of morality or good, a policy or law given by legitimate authority without involving a transcendent law maker-the gods. This means that there can be no transcendent law maker and no corresponding duty to be good. Most Christians oppose the argument that there is an arbitrary role of God’s power and rejects the idea that there is no law or policy over God. Then, where does morality stands? Morality can be said to be grounded in the divine and immutable character of God who is perfectly good in that his commands are not whims but planted in his holiness. Christians argue that any bad things that happen are not commanded by God because his character is that he is holy and merciful. For Christians, morality is rooted in God’s character which expresses itself in the commands of God and it is not above him. In sum, whatever is good is always commanded by God not that it is good so that God commands it to be good (Cooper 41). Christians argue that God ultimately determines the pious or morality and that the commands of God are expression of his desires and will for what human beings ought to do. This is because such argument presents a metaphysical foundation of piety or morality. Human beings need to be committed to the existence of moral truths in order for them to live in accordance with the will of God. This means the existence of moral truths for people since they have moral obligation to obey what God commands. This is so because Christians believe that their moral obligation comes from God in form of commands. Thus, people ought to be moral because they are morally accountable to God in that those people who do not obey him will be punished and good people will receive rewards (Plato 10b). Plato’s dialogue regarding the nature of morality or goodness is still being raised even today as a challenge to Christianity in that many Christians ask themselves is an action or act good or right because God says it is right or does god say it is good or right because the act is right. The Euthyphro dilemma is traced in Plato’s dialogue with Euthyphro, in which Socrates and Euthyphro engage in a dialogue where Socrates asks Euthyphro, “is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods”? In philosophical faith of monotheistic religion, it could be asked if what is morally good is commanded by God due to the fact that it is good or is it morally good because God commands it. In this dilemma, Socrates and Euthyphro are discussing the nature of piety or morality in that according to Euthyphro, the pious thing is similar thing as what is loved by the gods which is strongly rejected by Socrates. Socrates does not agree with Euthyphro as according to him, the gods may not agree among themselves. Socrates argues that something which is pious is not the same as the god-loved since what comprises the pious is not what comprises the god-loved. Reasonably, what makes the god-loved is based on the fact that the gods love it while on the other hand, the pious or moral is something different (Plato 10a). After the argument, Euthyphro states that piety is what the gods love and that impiety or immorality is what all the gods hate. When Socrates asks his question on piety, he argues that his question is based on two tenets in that there is a distinction between acting upon something and something being acted upon, and then, if two things are similar and identical, then they share every character of the other. Socrates wanted Euthyphro to agree that being loved fit the same pattern, therefore stating that piety or morality is distinct from being loved by the gods because the reasons as to why gods love certain behaviors or actions is because of the pious thing itself. This means that for Socrates, the gods love certain things or actions are an effect of the thing itself being moral or pious (Hamilton and Cairns 71-4). In addition, Socrates stresses that since there is a distinction between acting and being upon, piety or morality and that which is loved or cherished by the gods is not the same thing. Hence, since what is loved by the gods and piety is not the same thing, the Euthyphro’s definition of piety is not correct. According to Plato, morality or piety is not found on the basis of what the gods love but what is free and independent of the gods. This dilemma attempts to reveal the flaw in the Christian perception of God and goodness. For instance, is a thing right due to the fact that God declares it right or does God declares it is right because he recognizes existence of a moral code more powerful even to him? This question poses a problem because an individual is presented with two options, which are hostile to Christian theism. This makes a believer to be caught in a tough place. Therefore, on one hand, God rules and his laws are supreme. As ultimate authority, God establishes the moral rules or policies of the world in that, human beings have no option but to obey his rules which are absolute. This argument brings the content of morality which should be arbitrary in that it is dependent on God’s will. For instance, though God had declared theft, adultery, and murder as wrong, it could have been otherwise had God desired it so. Thus, any immoral behavior could suddenly become moral or right by simple flat. In addition, it reduces God’s goodness to his authority. To say that God is good implies that he is able of enforcing and stamping his commands. Therefore, according to God himself, there is no distinction between right or wrong. The first argument of the dilemma based on what is pious or moral being commanded by God is build on the argument that; it is moral or pious because it takes various names like realism and objectivism. It is arguable that there exist moral standards in society that are independent in that some behaviors or actions are wrong or right in themselves not commanded by God. It is necessary to draw distinction between what is good and evil because of the commands from God, with unalterable morals forms majority of natural laws. In this case, not even God can alter or change the 10 commandments but God can change what people deserve in specific cases in what it may appear like special dispensations to killing or stealing. Basing on this first horn of argument, that God commands us to do ethical or right things due to the fact that it is the right thing to do, then the question that needs to be asked is how is it that it is the gods that determines what the piety or morality is? From this position of argument, God loses his sovereignty in saying what is good or wrong since it is in the same manner in which a wine baker determines what makes up good wine. The issue of stating that God determines what is morally good lacks logical basis of argument since this undercuts the claims that God is ultimate recognizer or determiner of what is moral. Therefore, it should be said that the goodness of an action is independent and not liable to Gods command. The problem with this first horn is that it presents a challenge to the norms or attributes that Christians use to define their idea of God stating that their idea and knowledge of God does not rest on this position (Cooper 93-94). For instance, if there exist moral standards that are independent of the will of God, then there is something else which God is not sovereign; thus, God is limited by laws of morality rather than him being the founder of the laws. In addition, it shows that God depends on his kindness and goodness on the manner to which he conforms to moral standards, therefore God is not independent but dependent on something else. Further, such moral principles would edge freedom of god’s will thus God would not be in a position to have command over anything but would have to follow their principles in that he will have to command in accordance with them. The second argument of the dilemma which holds the position that something which is right is right or pious because it is commanded by God can be referred to as divine command. This argument presents the facts that there are no moral principles other than the will of God, in that without God’s will, there would be nothing like right or wrong. God has the powers to replace and revoke certain moral principles (Rouse and Santirocco 31). This second horn of argument also faces some challenges in that it states that there is no moral principle other than the will of God which implies that the commands of God are arbitrary and that morality is not founded on reason. More so, in the matter of God and morality, God chooses what he will say as the pious or right thing to do. However, if his divine will is not interfered by anything but recognizes what is moral because he says so, then, there arise a difficulty. This difficulty is based on the issue of morality whereby, morally right or correct thing is defined by what God commands, then, there is no reason as to why certain actions are right than to argue that God commands them. Therefore, saying that an action is morally right because God commands it is not correct since it does not provide any information as to why that act is good (Hamilton and Cairns 64). In addition, there is nothing grounding that can prevent evil things from being commanded by God. For example, if God commands that babies be mistreated or tortured, does it mean that mistreating babies is the correct or right thing to do? This in itself seems morally absurd and arbitrary. Further, it is hard to justify moral behaviors or actions of people, if people act out of fear of God or in a manner that they want reward from God. The other problem is based on the idea that the arbitrariness of God would in turn hinder his status as rational and wise being who only reacts and acts on good justifications only. More so, it would be argued that if God did not exist, then morality would not exist, and then if all morality is based on the will of God, then if God ceases to exist, there will be no morality (Cooper 110). In more reasonable sense, morality would not need the existence of God and that is the problem for atheism. This dilemma suggests that religion and morality are in some way related in that there are propositions comprising moral order to which God must conform so as to be regarded as good. Morality is linked to religion in that most religionists believe that what God commands as right is right while what God says is bad is bad. Morality should not be based on religion because one is expected by the society to be perfect and avoid sin at all cost. This objective is not possible because of human nature but religions fail to accept these impossibilities. Human beings ought to act consciously when faced with problems not basing everything on religion. Morality should have independent basis and not be intertwined with religion because there are things which religion commands and is very hard to conform to all of them because of the limited nature of humanity. The only way to get out of such dilemma is by developing a sense of argument based on the principle that moral obligation should be established by personal demands or needs whether these needs emanates from insignificant or significant persons or from the gods (Rouse and Santirocco 42). Ethics or morality has genuine roots in the conscience of human beings. The only third way to the dilemma is by arguing that the dilemma is false in that in both horns, God does not conform to or creates moral order for human beings to follow. In addition, it is vital to note that moral truths do not entail independence of morality or piety apart from God. Therefore, with the above horns from Euthyphro’s dilemma, there is no acceptable manner of describing and explaining the grounding of morality in existence of God. Some people argue that if God commands evil things such as murder and theft to take place, then such evils becomes good and right and thus, it is our moral obligation to do them. The Euthyphro dilemma presents two unacceptable choices for Christians and atheist in that it presents the ideas that morality is independent of God and that God’s will or divine command is responsible for what is good or moral. Work Cited Cooper, John. Plato: Complete Works. New York: Hackett Pub Co, 1997. Print. Hamilton, Edith and Cairns, Huntington. The collected Dialogues of Plato; Including the Letters. New York: Princeton University Press, 2005. Print. Plato. Five Dialogues. New York: Hackett Pub Co, 2002. Print. . Rouse, William and Santirocco, Mathew. Great Dialogues of Plato. New York: Signet Classics, 2008. Print. Read More