The Euthyphro Dilemma -Part One

C messier, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

In an earlier article, I laid out the basics of the Moral Argument for the existence of God. The most common objection brought by skeptics to the Moral Argument is called the Euthyphro Dilemma. Let’s begin by winding the clock back to the event that is credited with its origin.

The story goes, around 399 B.C., the Greek philosopher Socrates was awaiting trial for discouraging belief in the Greek pantheon (the collective gods worshipped by the Greeks), when a man called Euthyphro shows up at the courts to sue his own father for mistreating one of his servants and strikes up a conversation with Socrates. They discuss their reasons for being at court and Socrates, intrigued by Euthyphro’s situation with his father, asks him what the essential nature of moral virtue -or what he calls “the pious” or “piety”- is. Euthyphro responds by alluding to his present legal action; punishing his own father for his wicked actions. Socrates points out that in merely giving an example of moral virtue, he neglected to explain its essential nature, or offer a grounding for such virtue.

Euthyphro, being a religious Greek, then attempts to give a religious grounding for morality. He suggests that the pious (or the “good”) is simply what the gods love. To which Socrates points out the shortcomings of this explanation by stating that the gods don’t all love the same things.

This dialogue goes on and Euthyphro does his best to defend his position, until Socrates asks the question that has come to be known as the Euthyphro dilemma:

Do the gods love something because it is pious, or is something pious because the gods love it?

In today’s world, where this attack is used against primarily monotheistic religions, it is phrased slightly differently:

Does God say something is good because it is good, or is something good because God says it is good?

After being asked this question, the Christian will likely get some examples to clarify the point of the question such as:

“If God said that torturing toddlers for fun is good, would it then be good to torture toddlers for fun?”

Or on the other hand of the dilemma, “If God only says something is good because He recognizes that it is good, then the grounding for morality is outside of God, so what do we need God for when it comes to right and wrong?”

There is a simple answer to this question and there is a more in-depth answer that we will discuss in Part 2 of this article to be published at a later date.

The simple answer to the Euthyphro dilemma is to first point out that it is what we call a “false dilemma,” or a “false dichotomy”. That is to say, the question allows two options, neither of which the biblical Christian will be comfortable affirming, however, there is a third option not presented in the dilemma. God cannot simply declare rape, or murder to be “good” because it is inconsistent with His nature. This third option gives us a much better option than either of the two given by the Dilemma and thus avoid the pitfalls of each. God Himself is the paradigm of moral goodness. Moral virtue is grounded in the very nature of God, not merely His divine commands. Now, as Christians, we affirm that if God commands something, that we are obligated to obey His command; but, as David Baggett has explained in great detail, there is a difference between moral virtue and moral duty or obligation. But we will discuss this further in Part 2 of our exploration of the Euthyphro dilemma in which we will also address an objection to this answer to the dilemma. I hope you’ll give it a read!

Recommended Resources:

(1) The Moral Argument - YouTube by InspiringPhilosophy
(1) The Euthyphro Dilemma (William Lane Craig) - YouTube by Dr. Craig Videos