christianyouth
Puritan Board Senior
Hey guys, how would you answer this dilemma?
Euthyphro's dilemma can be expressed with the following question:"Is what is moral commanded by God because it's moral, or is it moral because it's commanded by God?" It's a dilemma for the theist because which ever option turns out to be correct, the result seems unsatisfactory. If what is moral is commanded by God because it's moral, then it means that there is an absolute standard of morality that exists independently of God. And that god is not necessary as a source of morality. On the other hand if things are moral simply because they are commanded by god, then theistic morality has a completely arbitrary foundation. If he had happened to command that killing your mother was good, it would be good in an absolute sense to kill your mother.The theist often tries to avoid the dilemma by claiming that God doesn't simply make random commandments, but that morality and goodness are a part of God's nature and his commandments are a reflection of that nature. But the theist is mistaken in thinking that he's avoided the dilemma by locating 'goodness' in gods nature instead of in his commandments. Euthyphro's question, with a slight modification can be applied again: "Is what is moral part of God's nature because it's moral, or is it moral because it's part of God's nature?"Is it true that God's nature is good by definition? in other words, whatever God's nature had been, it would have been good--and the commandments he gave would reflect that. If this was the case then if gods nature had been different, a different set of actions would be morally good. Rape could be good for instance, or killing your mother. In other words , if God's nature is good by definition, and this is where the absolute standard of morality comes from, then morality is totally arbitrary, it's an accident. It seems to me that most Christians would be uncomfortable to accept that the distinction between good and bad is ultimately arbitrary. The alternative is that God's nature _could never have been such_ that the moral principles following from it would include a sanction of things like rape and killing your mother. But if this is the case we are saying that God's character is limited by an external standard of right and wrong; a standard that we apparently already have access to, and one that would exist whether or not God existed. I don't think most theists would accept that either of these cases is true, but one of them must be if it is true that God exists and that there is an absolute moral standard.