Euthyphro's dilemma: what it is and what it raises about morality

Are things morally good because God has chosen to do so, or are they good because inherently they are and God is drawn to them?

The idea that morality depends on God is a very widespread belief, especially in Christianity. This belief implies that moral facts could be otherwise, that God could decide that they stop being good and turn into negative things.

Euthyphro's dilemma, although it dates back to Classical Greece, it has served to overturn opinions in favor of the existence of God, putting into question his decision-making capacity and the very nature of the morality. Let's take a closer look at it below.

• Related article: "Ethical dilemmas: what are they, types and 4 examples that will make you think"

What is the Euthyphro dilemma?

The idea that morality depends on God is a very widespread belief. Within Christian theistic moralism the idea that God is the source of morality is defended. He communicates to us mortals what is right and what is wrong, and since he is omnibenevolent and is never wrong, the good said by him is undoubtedly good. Using his criteria, the morality that comes to us from him is what we use on earth to define what is right and should be done and what is wrong and should be punished.

Nevertheless, if he who decides if something is good, he himself can decide that it becomes bad at any time. That is, if we consider that morality is part of God's decisions, it means that it is not immutable, and this aspect that has been used since to attack positions in favor of the existence of God, especially grounding the moralistic argument to affirm its existence. This particular argument is Euthyphro's dilemma.

Basically this argument comes to question the omnipotence of God and, in turn, the nature of one's own morality, having to accept that either God is not capable of changing the most morally evident facts or that God can act in a totally arbitrary, deciding what is correct and what is incorrect and being able to either err or behave in a whimsical.

Who was Euthyphro?

Euthyphro, who is known rather little about him, gives name to one of the most important dilemmas around the logical and philosophical discussions about the existence of God. Euthyphro is a character that appears in one of Plato's dialogues that, although it was this philosopher who wrote it, the conversation does not go with him but with Socrates. The story, called "Euthyphro" or "On piety" belongs to a series called "First Dialogues", developing the story at the time of Meleto's indictment against Socrates, just before he was sentenced to death by drinking hemlock in subsequent trials.

In the conversation between the two, the ideas of justice and piety take center stage. Socrates is surprised by what Euthyphro plans to do, which is to accuse his father. Socrates asks him if he considers this action to be holy, this being the question that unleashes all the dialogue and the dilemma that bears his name. Socrates asks him "Is the holy loved by the gods because he is holy, or is he holy because he is loved by the gods?" After Once the dialogue has begun, it is all based on analyzing the response emitted by both Euthyphro and Socrates and the implications that this carries.

The original Euthyphro dilemma consists in analyzing the very "substance" of the "holy". If the holy is loved by the gods because he is holy, then the property "to be holy" is not acquired by decision of the gods, but holy things have this virtue by themselves. In this case, the love of the gods towards holy things does not add extra value since they already have it and will continue to have it whether the gods love them or not.

On the other hand, if things are holy because they are loved by the gods then they need that love to be holy. Namely, according to the preferences of the gods objects, people and acts are holy. In this case, it is the love of the gods that makes things holy.

Analyzing the dialogue it can be seen that both options cannot be valid, since by necessity one has to be the correct one: or holy things they are because they are and therefore the gods prefer them or holy things are because they are loved by the gods, thus acquiring the property of saints. Technically both options are opposite and one is forced to choose one of them and, consequently, each choice brings with it its own philosophical implication.

• You may be interested in: "The 4 most important types of logic (and characteristics)"

The dilemma applied to Christianity

Once its original version is understood, we proceed to see how Euthyphro's dilemma is applied today, especially as an argument against the claim that God exists. Within Christianity there is a whole monotheistic theory of morality that tries to explain that things are holy in relation to God.

The theist who believes that God is a necessary being and possesses the classical qualities of deity (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent ...) attributes to him all moral reality and bases on him all that it's good. God is the source of morality.

Starting from this idea, many are the Christians who defend that God exists because with his existence we can speak "objectively" about what is good and correct and differentiate it from what is bad and incorrect.

God must exist out of necessity because, for example, killing innocents is universally viewed as immoral. This vision of this particular act as immoral would be proof that there is a God who guides us, saying what is right and what is wrong, and how we should act.

And this is where the dilemma of Euthyphro wielded by non-believers, both adopted to the vision of the Christian God, comes in. such as Jehovah, Allah or the monotheistic deity that pertoque, although instead of speaking of "the holy" one goes on to speak of "the well". Thus, re-adapting the dilemma, the question would be “is something good because God says it or God says it because it's good?" Both options are opposite and, as with its classic version, we have to choose one of they; both cannot be affirmed as valid at the same time.

In a way it resembles the chicken and egg dilemmaOnly here we are talking about morality and God and whether or not the first is a consequence of the second. Does the goodness of things exist by itself or is it God who decides that this is the way things should be? If God decides, then can he decide that something moral becomes immoral? Is he omnibenevolent in case he changes his mind? If morality does not exist outside of God, can it really be said that everything "good" is good and everything bad is "bad"?

Euthyphro's dilemma has been widely used by non-believers as an argument to overturn positions in favor of the existence of God, since with him, whether chooses one or another option that he raises, the same conclusion is reached: it cannot be shown that God exists through morality to what extent God, supposedly omnipotent, he decides if things are good or bad or to what extent he has all the ability to decide correctly what is correct, being supposedly omnibenevolent.

Putting a more practical example to understand all this that we have just said. Let's imagine that the moral argument has just been used to say that God exists, that is, morality is objective because it emanates from God himself. God must exist because thanks to him we know what is right and what is wrong. Then, to refute this, someone talks about Euthyphro's dilemma, saying that 1) either things are good because God so decides or 2) good things attract God.

If we choose the first option, it implies that objective morality does not exist, since it is not something that exists in nature itself but because God so decides. Thus, the whole argument used for the existence of God would be falsified, indicating that we cannot be sure of the existence of him because this option implies affirming that morality is arbitrary.

If it is arbitrary, if there are things that can be one day good and another bad, then God is not omnibenevolent because what reason would he have to change his mind? Isn't what is right supposed to be right forever?

What happens if the second option is chosen? Problems remain with theistic moral theory. This option says that good things exist independently of God and that it is these things that dictate to God what his moral preferences should be. It could be said that these very things and their characteristics, in this second option, guide God in his existence according to what is good.

This second option implies that God is not the source of morality, and therefore the good exists independently of him. As a consequence of this, the doctrine of the aseity of God, that is, to be able to trust him, is tremendously affected, since not even he himself would know what is correct, he would have to receive it from the nature of things and we would have to trust that he would know how to see it.

God himself he must submit to the goodHe does not decide what is right and what is wrong, which casts doubt on the concept of God as the highest authority in the universe. How is the Supreme Being going to be if he does not decide what is good or what is bad, but the properties of things? What is above it and how do you solve this problem?

The conclusions in both options imply concluding that God, whether he can decide what is moral or not, is neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent and that he could not be trusted. If he can decide on moral issues, he does so arbitrarily and, therefore, his criteria might not be the most correct or the most benevolent. If he does not decide, then he does not have absolute power over nature, but rather it is nature who controls him and decides what to do and what not to do.

Another option to this is that even God, even within his supposed omnipotence, cannot change absolutely everything, which in itself is a contradiction to this quality. As we have mentioned before, the idea of ​​killing innocents is wrong and our mentality, whatever it may be, does not conceive the possibility that this could be right in any scenario. With which, even being able to change the moral and transform it into immoral, there would be concrete aspects like this one in particular that God could not alter. Killing innocents is already immoral naturally, without God's intervention.

False dilemma?

However Christian theists themselves have been able to turn the tables on Euthyphro's dilemma, or rather false dilemma. This exercise in philosophical-religious reflection would not have two apparently opposite options, but would actually have a third if applied within Christianity. As we said, the first option says that things are good because God so decides and, therefore, is the source of morality. The other option is that things are good and God is drawn to them. However, what in the dilemma does not arise that both options could really be correct.

In Christianity God is the source of morality, but more than deciding what is right and what is not, it is he who emanates morality. It is the source of morality in the sense that if it exists, morality must necessarily exist. In other words: the good is in the very existence of God. Good things would be inherently good as long as they were in conformity with the nature of God who, being omnibenevolent and source of morality, he would be inherently good and moral as well and his decisions never they would err.

Thus, from this viewpoint, what happens is that God and morality exist simultaneously. Morality exists outside of God, it is not an arbitrary decision of him, but is a consequence of his existence. God would not communicate to his believers what is good because he has found it out there, or because he has so decided, but because he has found those things that, as a consequence of his being, of his existence, correspond to what he really is well.

Bibliographic references:

• Koons, J. (2012). Can God’s Goodness Save the Divine Command Theory From Euthyphro? European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 4 (1), 177-195
• Rodríguez, C. (). What is the Euthyphro dilemma about? Argentina. Christian Apologetics Studies Team. http://www.apologetica.com.ar/dilema-eutifron/