The Euthyphro Dilemma: Religion and Morality (Divine Command Theory)

This is my initial lecture on the Euthyphro. I give an overview, common replies, and q & A. Looking back in 2020, I would add more about the third alternative . Can morality be based on God's Commands?
A link to Euthyphro Dialogue: classics.mit.ed...

[@regnumis]

Suggesting that God's very essence is goodness doesn't resolve the Euthyphro Dilemma because it raises another question: Is God's character good because it is God's character, or is God's character the way it is because it's good? The latter entails the notion that God's character ascribes to an independent standard of morality. The only escape I can see from the dilemma would be if God were bound by necessity, meaning all of His actions were somehow necessary for the "greater good". God could not have acted otherwise because the consequences would have been disastrous to both Himself and us. However, such a notion would automatically call God's omnipotence into question; plus, it is frequently emphasized that nothing God does for us (or to us) is necessary. To be fair, though, the Euthyphro Dilemma would still remain even after removing God from the picture. Instead, the dilemma would be focused on the objectivity of secular morality vs moral relativism. Is an action immoral because the majority/government condemns it, or does the majority/government condemn the action because it is immoral?

[@regnumis]

@@ruaraidh74 The notion that God's nature determines morality is a fundamental axiom just as much as the notion that morality comprises an independent set of principles governing thought and conduct. You may adopt either axiom as the basis for your moral beliefs. However, if you choose to embrace the axiom that God's nature determines morality, then you must be willing to follow God regardless of whether He turns out to be a benevolent or malevolent entity. And if we simply understand God as the creator of the universe, then the idea of His malevolence or mutability would not be a logical absurdity because neither benevolence nor immutability are part of our definition of God.

[@regnumis]

@@ruaraidh74 I don't see the problem. If your ultimate standard of right and wrong depends on whatever God's nature is, then you would have to call malevolence "good" if God's nature is malevolent. If you're saying God must be benevolent because He is the ultimate standard of good, then you've already assumed goodness equals benevolence and aligned your view of God to be the ultimate example of your own conception about goodness.

[@regnumis]

​@@ruaraidh74 Sure, it would be logically impossible for God's nature to be malevolent if He is the standard of benevolence, but I never assumed He is benevolent nor that our moral intuitions (e.g. instinctively viewing benevolence as a form of goodness) come from Him. I merely took the premise "God's nature determines morality" to its most logical conclusion by proposing the idea of God's malevolence, and this proposition is not a logical impossibility if we don't assume beforehand that He is benevolent. You say I'm conflating God's nature to human nature, but that's an inaccurate assessment; I just don't assume any qualities about His nature before making propositions while you continually assume He is benevolent and immutable. I even stated in my first reply that if we simply understand God as the creator of the universe, then the idea of His malevolence or mutability would not be a logical absurdity because neither benevolence nor immutability are part of our definition of God. Hence, even if we assume the principles underlying our moral intuitions were set by God, it is not logically impossible for God to behave in ways that contradict those principles because He is not necessarily immutable by definition, meaning His nature may change. And if we exclude moral intuitions from the equation and focus on the axiom "God's nature determines morality" alongside the fact that morality cannot contradict itself, then it follows that moral laws must change in order to avoid self-contradiction (e.g. a new law permitting deception would not coexist with but instead replace the old law prohibiting deception) if God's nature changes. Thus, just because morality cannot contradict itself doesn't mean God's nature cannot change; divine command theory would only require morality to change if God changes. Furthermore, the laws of mathematics, nature, and logic merely describe how mathematics, nature, and logic work. The notion of a "standard" for the laws of mathematics, nature, and logic is an incoherent concept. God may write the laws of nature, but He cannot exemplify them (e.g. God cannot embody gravity itself despite creating the law of gravity). As for mathematics and logic, God is bound by the laws of both because He cannot create a universe where 2+2=5 (mathematically impossible) or where triangles have four sides (logically impossible). Therefore, God's change of nature doesn't mean mathematics, nature, or logic will contradict themselves because He cannot be a "standard" for the laws of mathematics, nature, or logic.

[@regnumis]

@@ruaraidh74 Firstly, would you care to explain what it even means for God to be the "standard" for the laws of logic? And does God have the power to rewrite the laws of logic so that a triangle may contain four sides or a car may simultaneously drive and not drive? If not, then how could He be the source, let alone the standard, for the laws of logic? Secondly, I agree that the laws of logic cannot change; I was asserting that moral laws governing human thought and behavior may change according to God's will, given the premise of divine command theory. Moreover, I'm not convinced God's nature must be immutable just because the laws of logic cannot change since it's unclear to me how He could be the "standard" for the laws of logic. Thirdly, yes I am saying that we aren't assuming God is benevolent when we declare Him to be the standard of morality. To claim God's will is the standard of morality means whatever He says goes, regardless of whether He is benevolent or malevolent.

[@regnumis]

@@ruaraidh74 No, we do not cite "God's nature" when invoking the laws of logic. When I invoke the definition of a triangle to say how a triangle cannot have four sides, I do not cite God's nature. When I invoke the law of non-contradiction to say a car cannot drive and not drive simultaneously, I do not cite God's nature. And the concept of reasoning is not a supernatural concept nor an immaterial reality; it is simply the application of our cognitive faculties to understand the world around us and thereby grasp the laws of logic. Even though the laws of logic would remain true regardless of whether humans existed to observe them, that doesn't mean God is the standard for the laws of logic since I could say God is just as subject to the external laws of logic as humans. After all, God cannot both create and not create a universe. Thus, you have not demonstrated to me how God could be the "standard" for the laws of logic, let alone what it even means to be a "standard" for the laws of logic. When I asked how God could be the source of logic if He cannot rewrite the laws of logic, it was a rhetorical question to demonstrate the absurdity of a "source" behind the laws of logic. A "source" behind the laws of logic would theoretically be capable of rewriting them instead of being subject to them, but we both agree the laws of logic cannot be created nor rewritten. The fact that the laws of logic simply exist uncreated and cannot be rewritten is precisely why they cannot have a "source," let alone have God be that source. Your example of Mozart being unable simultaneously play and not play music only demonstrates that he is bound by the laws of logic, and your assertion that the same goes for God only illustrates He, too, is bound by the laws of logic. Just because the laws of logic cannot contradict themselves doesn't mean God cannot contradict Himself. You seem to be arguing that since logic cannot contradict itself and God and logic are both one and the same, God cannot contradict Himself. However, I disagree with the proposition that God and logic are both one and the same. God is the supreme creator and ruler of the universe, while logic is a set of principles governing our cognitive understanding and reasoning about the surrounding reality. Even though both God and logic are uncreated, their definitions are completely different. To be benevolent is about caring for the happiness and well-being of others, while to be "good" is about adhering to a set of principles which direct and regulate thought and conduct; this set of principles is what we call "morality." Morally "right" behavior is about obedience to those principles while morally "wrong" behavior is about deviation from those principles. To say God's nature determines morality means His nature establishes the principles from which we base right and wrong. If God is benevolent, then benevolence is the standard of behavior to which adherence is "good" and from which deviation is "not good." If God is malevolent, then malevolence is the standard of behavior to which adherence is "good" and from which deviation is "not good." Hence, just because God's nature = good (this proposition could mean either God's nature adheres to a higher set of moral principles or God's nature dictates a set of moral principles for humans to follow; for the sake of argument, let's assume the latter meaning) doesn't mean God's nature = benevolent since "good" and "benevolent" are not necessarily the same.

[@manafro2714]

Frank Turek should watch this video.

[@thiendang9157]

Thank you professor Stearns, I really appreciate this video. I read this dialogue about two years ago, I was still a freshman at the time and I didn’t fully grasp the whole dilemma. I recently decided to read it once again and it is quite profound, although I felt like I still have not extrapolate all of its meaning. Maybe I’ll attempt to read it once again in the future, but this video was extremely helpful and it aided me greatly in contextualizing my thoughts.

[@taimurmirza6440]

Did you read it once again?

[@mrwolley1741]

I am a new listner and this was nicely done. Do you have any book recommendations on how I can improve my argumentation, spot fallacies etc?

[@dmdrendall]

Asking whether God's essence was determined or chosen addresses whether God is a created being, and since it is held that an eternal being is not created, then its essence just is, or has been since eternity past. "Determined" or "Chosen" implies a third party assuming God didn't determine or choose his own essence. In either case, the very notion that there is a third or more options to explore, with whatever other implications they present disproves the idea that there is a Euthyphro dilemma at all. For a strict dilemma to exist, it must have two and only two options.

[@teachphilosophy]

Yes, I think you are correct. God is more like Being itself, not a particular being. I do believe theists have a strong reply in the end.

[@foxlake02]

Another obvious option is that there is no god or gods to decree or convey morals.

[@leekelly1718]

A voice of reason. Thank you.

[@coffeeandchocolate1787]

Being eternal, God's essence was neither chosen nor determined; it has always been, and always will be, what it is. Nor does it make sense to suggest that any being, even an omnipotent one, could change its essence while continuing to exist. If one could jump the latter hurtle, there is still the problem that God, being omnibenevolent, cannot do evil. (Changing His nature from good to less-than-good would be evil, hence not doable by an omnibenevolent being.) Omnipotence, in a moral being, can be limited by moral contradictions as well as logical contradictions. Hence, the Euthyphro argument would seem not to work against monotheism.

[@teachphilosophy]

I agree that "God cannot change the moral law any more than he can change the laws of logic (Pojman)." even if he is omnipotent. Not everyone agrees with that, but most theologians and philosophers of religion do. But the bottom line is, Does moral truth exist whether or not God exists? Also, is it good simply because God commands it or does God command it because it is good? If I ask you why slavery is wrong, would you say it's wrong -or right- simply because God says so or is there some deeper reasoning involved? If so, does this deeper reasoning involve an appeal to an authority like God or are facts about what promotes, say, human well being involved? Is God the metaphysical or epistemological source of morality? For example, when I discover a scientific law, he is not the epistemological source, but MAY still be the metaphysical source. Even granting all arguments about God's omnipotence, doesn't the euthyphro dilemma still work against any belief that takes the form "Torturing and killing people for fun is wrong because God says so?"

[@wonder7798]

What about those who state and believe in God but then behave in unthical immoral ways

[@bengreen171]

beautifully explained.

[@celsiusfahrenheit1176]

Life outside love creates laws and also these types of dilemas. The universe was created to play with this idea, to figure out how to live outside love, is it possible.

[@alittax]

8:45 What would you say to the Theist who says that God doesn't do any choosing, because God's essence was always what it is now? This might be said (for example) by a Theist who thinks that God is outside of time. Thanks.

[@fanghur]

I would say that I don’t think that’s even a coherent position to hold, because if God is incapable of changing in any way, then it would also be incapable of ever doing anything, including creating the world.

[@frua97]

Why must we assume God is capricious and inconsistent? If He is neither inconsistent or capricious, the dilemma disappears. This dilemma is false because it presupposes attributes of God.

[@SashaSims]

False Dilemma, the Christian God did not choose his essence when he was created (because he wasn't created).. God is eternal, meaning that he has always existed therefore his nature has always existed. Your video does not deal with this fact.

[@teachphilosophy]

Yes, good point. I agree that if God is eternal (as the cosmological argument from contingency suggests), then nothing created God or God's Nature. As a sidenote, to ask "what caused God or what does the necessary being depend on?" is to miss the point of the Cosm Argument from Contingency. See that video for more. As for this video, Most theologians in certain traditions acknowledge that "God cannot change the moral law any more than he can change the laws of logic but claim that he is nevertheless the source of the moral law (Pojman)." One major criticism is that, if the independence thesis is correct, objective moral principles exist whether or not God exists. "They are the principles that enable human beings to flourish, to make life more nearly a heaven than a hell. Rational beings can discover these principles independently of God or revelation-using reason and experience alone" (Pojman, 199). I give examples of this in my relativism, utilitarianism, and egoism videos.

[@KayellVargas]

teachphilosophy What's interesting is I read Euthyphro and his dilemma yesterday and we covered this in my Philosophy class. I'm a Christian and I see the Euthyphro's dilemma as being applicable within the context of Greek mythology, but has no place in Christian Monotheism. First God is eternal which means there was never a point God did not exist. Gods character/nature/essence is as uncreated as God himself which means there was never a point in time when Gods law/morals did not exist. Gods goodness emanates from God himself as GOD is the source of goodness. So God does not arbitrarily choose which laws/moral to pick whether good or bad because Gods law is a reflection of Gods character which has always existed the laws just are and always will be. Now you still seem to think there is a crack in the armor so to speak in this discription of God. The objection raise is if Gods Laws always existed from Gods essence did God choose his essence or did he have not choice in his essence, but this line of questioning is irrational as it follows the same line of questioning as did God create morals or moral distinct from God and loved by God for its independent virtue. Why, because to assert the question did God choose his essence or did he have no choice in his essence is to imply that Gods essence is not eternal. Why because for GOD to make the choice of essence you have to presume that there was a point in time when there was no essence of God, whatever that means, so that God can choose his essence. One would have to rule out that Gods essence is eternal, but you also face the same issue If you presume that God had no choice in choosing his essence you are comprising the fact that Gods essence is eternal for 2 reason the first being if God did not have a choice you are implying that there was a point that God did not have an essence and that God did not have a say in the matter of the essence he would come to have. The 2nd Reason if Gods essence does not have its origin in God than Gods essence is not his own but Gods essence is actually the outflow of an essence/personality that placed his essence in God which is implying God is not the originator of all things which means there was an aspect of God that was created and disqualifies God as being eternal. In short God is eternal there was never a point when God was not and Gods law and essence are as uncreated as God himself which means there was never a point in which Gods laws and essence were not. Which means that even though the question sounds logical and rational with respects to an uncreated perpetual existence as God himself the question itself is the problem and it's irrational. That question would only work on Greek myths whose pagan deities had a point of origin they were never eternal as the true God is

[@toxendon]

It is indeed applicable to the monotheistic Christian God. The third option of appealing to God's nature simply pushes the dilemma one step further: Is something good because of God's nature or is God's nature good by some external standard? If option 1 - Then "good" and "bad" becomes arbitrary terms when talking about the consequence of our actions - we would instead be forced to define good and bad as what is in accordance with God's nature and what is not. If one should say this is the correct answer, then one must ask; why is rape bad? Is it because of the consequences of the action or because it isn't in accordance with God's nature? It can't be both - that would mean that God's nature applies to some other external standard which exists independently of God. And since God has commanded killings in the past, it means that killing in itself is in accordance with God's nature. So how do we divide "good" killing from "bad" killing? The difference is obvious. It's good when God commands it and bad when he doesn't. Enter the Euthyphro Dilemma, once again. I don't quite understand how God's nature being eternal solves this issue. It doesn't require God to ever have "picked" a standard. Option 2 - If some external standard exists, then the moral argument for God's existence falls flat.

[@KayellVargas]

Eratosthenes ok I feel the need to brake this down a bit further maybe I failed to clarify. Option 1 is not possible because God's nature is uncreated. The problem with Option 1 is the word "Choice" one must assume God did not have an essence in a point of eternal past whatever that means to at some point in eternity arbitrarily choose his essence. Also option 1 assumes God will still be who he is without his essence to choose his essence. I mean lets just use you for example take away everything you are and what are you left with. Option 2 is not possible as well as your baselessly assuming either moral standards have to be external or arbitrary when in fact in the case of the true God it's neither. God neither determines anything arbitrarily and morals don't exist as a distinct entity from GOD.

[@toxendon]

"The problem with Option 1 is the word "Choice" one must assume God did not have an essence in a point of eternal past whatever that means to at some point in eternity arbitrarily choose his essence." First of all, I already grant God's existence - but why does God's nature being eternal affect the dilemma in any way? Regarding option 2: If you are able to demonstrate that our moral reasoning beyond a shadow of a doubt comes from God you have solved a question asked for millenia. A external moral standard could very well exist - our individual standards based on empathy, logical reasoning and experience of consequence from action is just as likely to be the source of our moral reasoning. Until you demonstrate that this cannot be the case, we can *maybe* start to discuss the claim that option 2 is impossible. I have to ask you again, why is rape bad? Is it because of the consequences of the action or because it is not in accordance with God's nature?

[@ramaraksha01]

This is about who we are actually - are we slaves or children of God - free people? Remember in those times there were plenty of slaves and free people - with different rules for each If we are but slaves and when you listen to him you see plenty of slave words - obey, command etc - a slave must obey, which is why Abraham was ready to kill his son So if you are a driver taking out your master's car and caused a some property damage - the apology does not go to the property owner but to your master because it is your master who will be paying for the damage And if your master say, no problem, i will take care of it, you are good Hence God says this is right, it must be right Which is where Forgiveness comes in - you did a bad thing, you would think you are responsible but Master/Slave religions say no, it depends on the Master. Master forgives, you are good Apparently, God will help you cheat your creditors and victims but that is a whole another discussion which sadly few bring up The situation changes if you are the son, a free person, an adult, out taking your Dad's car for a spin - you caused damage, now you are responsible. YOU must apologize to the property owner, YOU must pay for the damage. Your Dad saying you are ok does not even arise! Sort of like getting an F in a test - you failed - the question of asking the teacher to change your grade does not even arise and the teacher would be disgusted if you did so In this case the latter rule applies - it is good and the Gods find it so So, basically the first rule - God says this is good and it is - applies to Slaves/Servants The latter rule - it is good and God finds it so - applies to all Free People So again does God reside up above - a ruler, a King(Christianity, Islam) or does He live in our hearts(Hinduism)?

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

The Christian God is the universal fundamental metaphysic which justifies the unjustified assumptions which lead to Agrippa's Trilemma to make knowledge & rational thought possible. Once that is understood, it also solves Euthyphro Dillema. God is the metaphysical grounding for moral good from which all moral good ultimately derives. That's why there needs to be another created being (Lucifer) from which evil or moral wrongness ultimately derives. God created His created beings with Free Will. If He didn't, He wouldn't be all-loving. Lucifer was second in power to God and gave in to pride, becoming the originator of evil / moral wrongness. He wanted to be like the Most High, but cannot possibly be. This lead to Lucifer becoming fallen and becoming Satan who then deceives humanity to lose faith in the true living God and instead put faith in satan (often unwittingly). Anything conflicting with truth ultimately derives from satan.. and satan does not care what you believe or put faith in as long it's not the Christian God (the truth). Because anyone who does not believe the truth will automatically default to believing lies and worshipping demonic forces / satan whether they realize this or not with their thoughts. It's similar to how anyone who doesn't believe truth automatically believes falsities. You either believe in the Christian God or you don't. No third option. We all know the truth about the Christian God, it's all just a matter of what we believe.

[@mikklecash6046]

Seems to me to miss the point that God causes the whole universe and everything in it to exist, and God is good. The speaker speaks as if God is one of the players who may (or may not) be making moral decrees. This view would seem natural to an ancient Greek with a whole host of deities, but should not to seem natural to Christians. God is not one of the beings among a very large set - he is the cause of it all, and he wills the good and what he wills is good, both at the same time. A dilemma if you think God is just one of the participants among others, but he is not.

[@teachphilosophy]

Hi Mikklecash, I think you are right about that: God is not simply a being among beings (but Being itself, the vertical/sustaining cause, etc) and that changes everything. My old video can be seen as the beginning of the conversation but I agree it is not the end and does not outline the strongest Christian Response. Paul/teachphilosophy

[@oldtimeycabins]

You don’t understand the dilemma

[@mikklecash6046]

@@oldtimeycabins Look at the reply above yours from 6 months ago - teachphilosophy thought that I had made a valid point, and he says " My old video can be seen as the beginning of the conversation but I agree it is not the end and does not outline the strongest Christian Response."

[@cowboy6524]

Thank you

[@chrissermoon4156]

If we are to understand God in the specific abrahamic context, then God, being almighty, must be the one, who decides what is good. However, this does not necessarily pose a problem. Just because God wills something, that a human sees as bad, this only would men, that the human is wrong. Thus he would be sinner and thus he would have to rely on the mercy of God, which is exactly what many especially christians have said all along. We cannot understand God fully, and therefore we cannot do exactly as he wishes. Another thing. The point made about, that God could just change his mind and thus it would be arbitrary, assumes something about the being of God which makes no sense in a abrahamic context. It implies that what God does is a matter of probability, however if God is almighty, then his change of mind is not an arbitrary one. It is one, that changes the fundamental structure of the world. It either is or it isn't. It is not a likelyhood. Being almighty, he could simply decide, that not only should you drown your children, he could decide, that chis has always been the case and thus he would actually never have changed his mind. This of course is weird. Does almightyness make any sense? Maybe not, but it is part of abrahamic religious assumption about the being of God. The real argument lies there. In whether almightyness makes sense. Not in whether good is good because God wills it or if it is God wills it because it is good.

[@XX-rs7sq]

Goodness is God.... But what is god? The archetype the perfect man projected into the cosmos.

[@superfly2449]

Does god even exist? What’s the evidence for this? If you just state “God is eternal”, then you live in an evidence-free realm. Anything is possible.

[@dandanato2480]

I think Jesus had it right and bypasses this whole dilemma.Be children of the father, trust and most of all Love God Love your neighbor.The problem to individuals is this God omnipotence feeds into delusions.The bible has several examples of contradiction. Jesus says God is a parent.

[@teachphilosophy]

Are you saying something like the mystics: God must be known in love and by love... and trust, God is not known via logic, science, or math?

[@Ansatz66]

Surely omnipotence offers an easy escape from the problem. This should be especially obvious to a consequentialist since an omnipotent God would dictate the consequences of all actions. For example, it's easy to come up with ways in which slavery is bad through all the suffering and dehumanization that it causes, but that all ultimately leads back to God since God created slavery and engineered all the consequences of slavery. In principle there shouldn't be anything about slavery that you could ever discover that wouldn't be the result of God's decisions. If God had chosen otherwise, we could live in a world where slavery caused nothing but happiness and flourishing and no amount of examination could find anything objectionable. This obviously limits God in the sense that God cannot dictate morality independent of the world. To make slavery good, God must change the consequences of slavery and the way we feel about slavery. Even so, that isn't a real limitation because it is purely a matter of semantics. To say that slavery is good with all its actual consequences would remove all meaning from the word "good" and be pure nonsense, and even an omnipotent God cannot be able to create a nonsense situation.

[@JonathanB00K3R]

Hey could you do a video on objectivism?

[@teachphilosophy]

+JonathanB00K3R Might be a while. What kind of objectivism are you interested in?

[@JonathanB00K3R]

+teachphilosophy I'm interested in the philosophy of objectivism that Ayn rand created. I'm a junior in high school and am still subjecting my self to philosophers and philosophy it's self and thought it would be good to see what you know of the philosophy and perhaps you could present some counter arguments to the morality/ ethics, epistemology, arguments and just perhaps the way we objectivists perceive reality. Take your pick and remember that the market produces the best outcomes when it is uncoerced ;)

[@teachphilosophy]

+JonathanB00K3R My video on ethical egoism addresses some of these issues, but I won't be able to make a video on Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

[@JonathanB00K3R]

+teachphilosophy is there any reason why?

[@Betterdangaming]

@@JonathanB00K3R because then it won't be philosophy :)

[@Stephanie-rg5ln]

4:30 4:31

[@TimCrinion]

Doesn't any moral belief imply a kind of divine command theory? If some actions are *factually* right and others *factually* wrong, then can factual truth be a completely dead thing, since it has preferences?

[@adamgarrettJn15]

As William Lane Craig most simply answers this question in another KZbin video, "God wills something because He is good." I also like what @The Theology Forum stated in a comment below about God not being created. Regarding the Abraham/Isaac point that is brought up multiple times, it's important to note that God tells Abraham to not sacrifice his son at the last minute. God did not want Abraham to actually follow through with the act. On the contrary, God was willing to sacrifice His own Son, Jesus, who chose to give His life to pay the penalty of sin and death for those who choose to follow the way of Life.

[@oldtimeycabins]

Wrong!!!

[@Stephanie-rg5ln]

7:14-7:17

[@ChipKempston]

There is no dilemma with the third option when used to resolve the Euthyphro dilemma as the speaker claims. God is necessarily good. He could not be otherwise.

[@sidneyadnopoz3427]

Why though? Who said? How do you know?

[@ChipKempston]

@@sidneyadnopoz3427 God is, by definition, that which nothing greater can be conceived. He must be the ground of all being, which would include perfect goodness.

[@sidneyadnopoz3427]

So the concept of goodness is independent of God, since in order to know that God is good, goodness has to, in some sense, be independent of him?

[@ChipKempston]

@@sidneyadnopoz3427 No, it's not independent of God. That's the point.

[@sidneyadnopoz3427]

@@ChipKempston How do you know God is good, if there is no goodness apart from him?

[@paulwillisorg]

PanENthesim is true. We are sort of in the mind of God. Built into the laws of physics in this universe.

[@paulwillisorg]

God is his “essence”.

[@ab_ab_c]

Euthyphro Dilemma's is a false dilemma because: 1. God is omniscient & omnipotent. He created morality & all that is good/right FOR humanity--not for Himself. God is NOT subject to the moral law that He created for mankind & there is no authority or power that is above God that God learned morality from or that He is subject to. The opinions from Humanity about morality are irrelevant to God as humans have no power to affect God's moral code or His perfect judgement & justice against any human/s who violate His code for humanity. Goodness is not a separate standard from God--it is THE ONLY STANDARD of what is right/good/wrong/evil from God for humanity. God is therefore not a middleman that dishes out morality & all that is right/good from what He learned elsewhere or that He Himself is subject to & there is no 'separate standard' from which God shares morality & all that is right/good for humanity. 2. God's morality & all that is good/right as a function of God's will cannot be arbitrary because God is perfect in His knowledge, power, judgment, & justice. He does not do anything on a whim or without perfect reason/judgment. It is impossible for God to err as everything He does in accordance with His perfect plan. Humanity does NOT have the wherewithal to comprehend all of the reasons & other factors that God has chosen to do as He has decided to do. The opinions of humanity are irrelevant because God is perfect & incapable of error or capriciousness or whim. 3. In Euthyphro's time the Greeks believed in multiple capricious gods. Thus his dilemma is based on that false belief system as there is only one true God. When one argues from a perfect God perspective--as I have done above--there is no arbitrary divine command theory, no mysterious morality, & no wrong morality because human opinion is irrelevant to God's perfect system of morality, good/right, & justice. God cannot err nor make anyone do anything unjustly. Any tribe that God wants eliminated is based on God's perfect judgment & justice system & it cannot be in error as God is perfect in all ways.

[@fanghur]

Except that what is ‘good’ for human beings (in the sense of being beneficial and promoting flourishing) ultimately stems from our nature and the type of creatures we are. And that would remain the same regardless of whether we were created to be this way or evolved naturally to be this way. So in that regard, God is simply irrelevant, other than in the trivial sense one might say that love stems from the Big Bang for example.

[@JonathanB00K3R]

What makes things good and bad? Why is it bad to kill people? I've been struggling with this question ever since I gave up theism and have been struggling in arguments with my theist friends on what creates good and bad. This video has certainly helped but it doesn't address where goodness and morality come from. Thank teach philosophy :)

[@teachphilosophy]

+JonathanB00K3R Hi Jonathan, thanks for the comment. Check out a theoretical ethics book. A very concise one is James Rachels' the Elements of Moral Philosophy. It will clarify what people really mean by good. For example, you could define goodness as whatever promotes greatest happiness for greatest number, or what leads to human flourishing.... or goodness may be rooted in a feeling of empathy and the insights that arise from that. Whatever the case, at a deep level, this problem does exist for theists as well as atheists.... for we can always ask why does God say it is good?

[@JonathanB00K3R]

+teachphilosophy the video has definitely helped me narrow my search. I'll look to the sources you referred me to and see if those help.

[@TruthUnadulterated]

Explain to me why God as the meta-ethical basis of morality is still a logical problem and (somehow) detracts from God's omnipotence as you stated in this video. I want to hear your rationale since you are a teacher in school teaching these things to your impressionable students. Let's use *logic alone.*

[@JonathanB00K3R]

TruthUnadulterated God as a meta-ethical basis for morality is a logical problem regarding his omnipotence because God is either all powerful and creates good or makes what's right and wrong by his will, or either he wills somethings as good because it's good in our world. Such as the principle that we ought to promote happiness being a moral truth in our species. So God is either omnipotently willing right and wrong, or there's is some form of goodness outside of God (i.e. That humans desire happiness and thus we ought to act in ways that promote it)

[@TruthUnadulterated]

JonathanB00K3R Thanks for weighing in Jonathan. To be sure, my question was directed to "teachphilosophy," since he mentioned in this video that he's a teacher who teaches his students philosophy. Unfortunately, KZbin has set things up in such a way that we cannot tag a person's name when we click the reply link for that person if it is the first post we make in that thread. Only after our post becomes part of the thread is it then possible to tag the name in the thread that we intend to reply to. . . And even then, we can only tag the name of the person we wish to reply to if we reply via the notification panel. It won't highlight the name of the person we reply to we reply directly from the original KZbin webpage itself.

[@TimCrinion]

This is a bit like saying: _Is one and one two because ten and ten is twenty, or is ten and ten twenty because one and one is two?_ The answer is both. God is the basis of moral facts.

[@TomAnderson_81]

Tim Crinion Is god good?

[@VJScope]

No, this is about the definition of 'one'. Is 'one' one or is it whatever god wants the 'one' to be?

[@TimCrinion]

Andy yes.

[@Euthyphro]

@@TimCrinion what is good about God?

[@TimCrinion]

Darius What is good about goodness? Good is who God is. Even though you can talk about good things without explicitly mentioning God, I don't think anything can be good separately from God. As per Gödel's ontological argument, God has every positive property.

[@jjiot82]

you talk too fast

[@Stephanie-rg5ln]

7:15-7:18