Background
Plato shares a dialogue between his teacher Socrates and a young man named Euthyphro. Socrates and Euthyphro run into each other at the court of law. Ironically, Socrates, on the one hand, is about to be charged for impiety (whatever that means). Euthyphro, on the other hand, is about to charge his own father of impiety. Apparently, Euthyphro’s father bound a laborer who, in a drunken stupor, killed another slave. The murderer was thrown in a ditch, hands and feet bound, and while Euthyphro’s father sought legal authority’s direction, the murderer died because of, according to Euthyphro, “complete neglect.” Euthyphro is convinced that his father is guilty of killing the laborer, so he feels right in bringing him to the court to be judged by the divine law of piety and impiety.
In the discourse between Socrates and Euthyphro, the former sarcastically seeks from the latter an acceptable and universal definition of piety and impiety. Euthyphro says that piety is prosecuting the unjust individual who has committed murder (as he was doing at the moment to his own father). He adds that impiety would be not prosecuting such an individual. Socrates nudges Euthyphro to further refine his definition of impiety, But, Euthyphro is not able to provide examples nor precise meanings. The best Euthyphro can do is to say, “what is pleasing to the gods is pious, and what is not pleasing to them is impious.” This invites Socrates to educate Euthyphro on the shortcomings of that statement.
Socrates articulates that there are many Greek gods that have different opinions as to what is just and unjust, what is good and evil, and what is honorable and dishonorable. Euthyphro responds, “what is pious must be something that all gods love, and that what is impious is something that all gods hate.” Having heard Euthyphro’s best and final answer, Socrates asks the million-dollar question: “Do the gods love piety because it is pious, or is it pious because they love it?” This is forever coined the Euthyphro Dilemma.
The Argument
The Euthyphro Dilemma is often used (or abused?) as an objection against moral absolutism proposed by monotheists who generally argue that God commands moral absolutes and standards because they are noble or right. Yet, does God command men to abide by moral standards because they are good or right, or is it good or right because God says so? More plainly, do moral standards exist apart from God, or is it arbitrarily authored by God?
The first horn of the dilemma posits that God imposes morality on man because it is good or right. But, if that were true, then moral standards exist apart from God, or outside of God, and quite possibly have an upper hand over God. That makes God less than maximally powerful, thereby making him not God--logically, moral standards could have been authored by someone greater than God. Further, if moral standards existed apart from God, then people can live morally without God.
The second horn of the dilemma makes moral standards arbitrary or subjective because, well, they are simply preferred by God. But, what happens when God changes his preference? For example, God’s will today maybe that humans do not murder other human beings, but he may change his mind and condone murder tomorrow. While this seems highly unlikely, many philosophers argue that morality based on God’s whim makes God unreliable, unstable, and ultimately unbelievable. This horn of dilemma also empowers atheists to either reject God or question as to which of the monotheistic God is the true God.
William Lane Craig argues, however, that the Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dilemma/dichotomy because there is another “horn” or option to the argument. In a nutshell, Craig argues that morality or moral qualities are part of God’s nature or essence. Thus, the moral standard does not exist apart from God (refutation of the first horn of the dilemma). For example, God values justice not just because it is superior to injustice or because he prefers it over some other quality, but because He is just by His nature. So, Craig “solves” the Euthyphro Dilemma by presenting the third “horn” which makes it no longer a “dilemma.”
Plus, Craig argues that applying the Euthyphro Dilemma to God altogether misses the point about God’s nature. Sure, where there are many gods, as was the case in Greek mythology, the Euthyphro Dilemma may have raised an irresolvable quandary, but a monotheistic God whose is moral (or good, or justice, or loving, etc.) can require His creation to obey His divine directives or commands. The logical next step is to figure which of the so-called monotheistic "gods" is the right one.
The last question to consider is, "If God is justice itself, can He engage in acts of injustice or order His creation to behave unjustly?" While the question is not directly related to the Euthyphro Dilemma, it seems to surface frequently in lectures and debates pertaining to the existence of benign God.
This question is tied to the Old Testament accounts of God’s commands for the annihilation of certain tribes or nations. Simply put, atheists and humanists argue that a god who orders atrocities should be rejected categorically. By the way, anyone interested in this question should read Paul Copan’s book Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Now, as Craig argues, God’s command for OT annihilations may have been, for instance, to “save” or “deliver” Amelakite children from horrific deaths via human sacrifice. In addition, as finite beings with limited reasoning abilities and information, humans may never really know why God commands or orders certain actions that seem to contradict His benign and patient character. This is not a cop-out or “God of the gaps” position. No, it is an honest and transparent assessment of human abilities in light of the maximally powerful and all-knowing being. As John MacArthur points out, God is not someone who can be all together and entirely “figured out” by mere men.
For a more in-depth treatment of the Euthyphro Dilemma, check out William Lane Craig’s video and discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBvi_auKkaI
Comments