The Euthyphro Dilemma derives from Plato and was not originally an attack on Christianity or other monotheistic religions. But the argument has become a popular attack on modern religious thinking. Plato asks, in the Euthyphro dialogue, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” The main direction that this is developed as an argument against theism is by asking: does God define good as good by commanding it or does God know the good and command it because of its own nature? Good is then either arbitrary or it is good on its own, without reference to a God. Here we’ll discuss major responses to the Euthyphro Dilemma.
Divine Command Theory: Responses to the Euthyphro Dilemma
The Divine Command Theory fully accepts that the good is whatever God commands. So the pious, or in modern language the good, is only good inasmuch as it is God’s will. The problem with such a simple response to the Euthyphro Dilemma is that it makes the good arbitrary. It’s possible that God could have commanded murder and called it the good. Certain theistic philosophers have argued that if God had commanded us to murder, then it would be right. But most rational thinkers realize that something is off within this response.
All iterations of the Divine Command Theory end up stating that the good is good because God called it so. There are always better ways of saying the same thing. But at the end of the day if the good is good because God said so, this is an act of omnipotence and not omnibenevolence.
Someone can state that omnibenevolence is a pre-requisite to understanding God. But inside the Divine Command Theory, it appears that omnibenevolence is ultimately arbitrary. God can call whatever He wants to do good. It ultimately makes the Divine Command Theory hard to swallow.
Ethics Without God: Responses to the Euthyphro Dilemma
In 1973, Kai Nelson wrote a book titled Ethics Without God where he argues the exact counterpoint to the Divine Command Theory. He states that the only rational ethics distinguish religion and morality as logically distinct. Good is good regardless of what an omnipotent being, i.e. God, says.
Kai Nelson is not attempting to create a theistic response to the Euthyprho Dilemma. He is instead attempting to create a secular ethic outside of a theistic framework. This is a problem for the theist. And it’s why theists run from the idea that good can be good apart from God. If good is good outside of God, then God is simply some schoolteacher, pointing humans to the truth, which is outside Himself.
If the theist is to accept this point, he is ultimately rejecting the necessity of God. To live a good life, one doesn’t need any understanding of God Himself, only an understanding of the good, which appears to be accessible through reason rather than revelation.
A More Compelling Solution
Most philosophers seems stuck on the two sides of the coin. They accept the paradigm that Plato originally created and because they feel compelled to insert God into the equation of ethics, they maintain an irrational stance that God arbitrarily chose the good because they are convinced that they must run away from the idea that God taught us what the good is.
All of these problems are simply resolved in understanding that God Himself is the Good. Psalm 119:68 reads, “You are good and You do good.” I think that these two statements are divisible. God is both the Good and He performs the Good. It may be a stretch to impose this interpretation on this singular passage, but elsewhere God is equated with abstract ethical actions, specifically Love.
1 John 4:16 reads, “God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.” God is not only a personal entity, He is also Love itself. Any serious reading of 1 John lends itself to the interpretation that God and Love are inseparable. God does not command us to Love because Love is itself Good as distinct from God. God commands us to Love because in Love we participate in the divine nature.
A refrain in the old testament is the command to be Holy as I am Holy. Leviticus 19:2 reads, “Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy.” God is not good in the sense that He performs the good. He Himself is the Good, and participating in the Good is to be in right relationship to God. 1 John makes it clear that it is impossible to Love without God Himself.
Reach out
If you think there’s a hole in this argument, I want to learn from you. Please reach out and let’s start the conversation. I’m personally wary of all attempts at either proving or disproving God. I don’t think human understanding can reach outside of it’s own box, but understanding and talking about where that box is is a productive and exciting discussion.