The Euthyphro Dilemma Explained, and a Universal Definition of God.

The ancient Greek philosopher Euthyphro developed a theory of moral correctness stating that, “what is pleasing to the gods is holy, and what is not pleasing to them is unholy.”  In other words, “what God approves of is morally right, and what God disapproves of is morally wrong.”  This form of thought, known as the Divine Command Theory, is perhaps among the most basic of theories relating morality and religion.  Plato challenged this conjecture by asking, “Is what is morally right, right because God approves of it or commands it, or rather, does God command it because it is right?”  Both possibilities are contradictory to the theory itself by imposing conditions that result in the disproving of God.  This question, known as the Euthyphro dilemma, has no commonly accepted solutions, but has some value in explaining and developing more acceptable theories.  The problems encountered are particularly useful in refuting the Divine Command Theory.

The first option, or horn if you will, claims that something is morally correct because God says that it is so. This statement assumes that the idea of good and evil is subjective to God’s will. We must assume that anything God commands is absolutely the most righteous action to take. Although there would be merit in a commandment that forbids murder, should God command stealing to be acceptable, is that still right? Of course not! We as human beings retain the capacity for complex reasoning. This aptitude helps us naturally understand that stealing in all respects, is always a morally wrong way to act. Therefore, moral relevance cannot be based upon the subjective will of God because he could command acts that are inherently wrong by our own standards. Considering the obscurity of God’s existence, his demands might also be incomprehensible.

God could require acts that are unreasonable or impractical. By our own human reasoning, we know that planes are built to fly and cars are built to drive. What if God were to command us to fly our cars rather than drive them? We would be incapable of meeting these demands and would then be entirely unequipped to strive towards complete moral correctness. Again due to the subjectivity of God’s reasoning, morality cannot be entirely based upon his judgment because we might find such concepts too hard for our mind’s to grasp.

My last contradiction to the first horn of the Euthyphro dilemma applies to the purpose for us to act in such a way that is considered “right.”  Take for example the act of stealing.  Most people would agree that stealing is wrong because not only does the act chastise others, but by committing such an atrocity, the person responsible would be subject to an assortment of problems.  Perhaps he is stealing for drugs, because he doesn’t want to work, or to feed an overwhelming gambling addiction.  Regardless, theft is most certainly a wrong action in most cases because we as human beings have determined it to be so through reason and common sense.  Should a man choose to be honest and pay for what he receives because it is commanded or because it is the right thing to do?  Should a child clean his room because his mom asks him or should he do so simply because such an act will promote better hygiene and safety?  Though rhetorical in nature, I hope these questions lead you to choose the latter option of both.  Consistency of one’s morals, despite the effort it takes to do so, is important should they be tested. 

Stuart Rachels examines this dilemma while criticizing the Divine Command Theory. With respect to larceny, he might argue that such an act is surely wrong whether God says so or not. Rachels claims that religious laws are often debatable and even contradictory, even within individual religions themselves. Actions such as stealing or child abuse however are not reasonably debatable and are absolutely immoral. Therefore, while we may have doubt in what any given religion might ask of its clergy, we are often quite clear about what acts are fundamentally evil. As a result we find that if we can be morally right while disobeying God’s approval, God cannot exist according to the Divine Command Theory.

By the Euthyphro dilemma’s second horn, we can avoid God’s heavenly subjectivism by claiming that we are commanded by him to do right, because it is right.  Because he is all knowing, God alone has the ability to recognize what is right and wrong.  God eludes responsibility for developing the moral laws that govern our behavior, and in doing so becomes little more than a messenger of moral knowledge.  This alternative solution suggests that if God was not the developer of morality, he would not actually be the creator at all because rightness must have been established before his existence.  Stuart Rachels argues that the Divine Command Theory explains “rightness” in terms of what God approves, but fails to explain why he approves.  As a result, we are left with a theory about God that ironically suggests his inexistence. 

Rather than trying to explain morality in terms of an actual higher power, which prior to now has seemed to prove quite difficult, the Natural Law Theory refines right and wrong to a measure of value. This theory claims that if nature has allowed the existence of a law, it must have some validity. The first element to natural law has been derived from the studies of Greek philosopher, Aristotle. He found that the world has a rational order, that every piece of the universe has a function of importance built into its reality. In terms of a higher power, the theory applies these natural values as set forth purposefully to operate within the boundaries of God’s divine plan. In other words, things are how they are because God made them that way.

Rachels presents another element of the Natural Law Theory that seems to be quite useful in the evaluation of morality.  The world is designed in a fashion that, should all things function as they ought to, we can achieve absolute harmony.  This is one distinctive feature of the Natural Law Theory.  Natural laws explain how things exist normally, but they also clarify how things should be.  Most birds for example have the ability to fly and it is right for them to do so.  It would be wrong for a bird to be born without wings because their flying characteristic would be inhibited.  That which is considered natural behavior is morally right, while anything unfitting or dysfunctional is unnatural and regarded as morally wrong.  For us to be fitting enough judges to adjudicate what is natural and what is not, Rachels shows how the third portion of the Natural Law Theory explains our credentials as human beings.

Natural laws are not inscribed on stone tablets, nor are they written in any constitution.  In fact, natural laws are not actually formal laws at all.  We as humans have the aptitude to understand our own instincts and base our actions upon logic.  According to the Natural Law Theory, God has given us the elaborate tool of reason by which we can make decisions.  The morally correct direction for our actions is that which has the best reason on its side.  Furthermore, this theory accounts for believers of God and unbelievers in that God has offered the same understanding to all, regardless of anyone’s religious preference.

Stuart Rachels see’s this religiously unbiased approach towards morality as an improvement from the absurdly paradoxical Divine Command Theory.  He believes that although religion and moral value may have commonalities, they are entirely separate entities.  Rachels uses historically controversial issues, those in which the Christian church has repeatedly changed their position, to explain how religion does not command constant moral teachings.  Instead, the church tends to align their teachings of right and wrong relative to the most commonly accepted moral values at the time.  For example, Christians continue to amend their opinions about topics such as abortion.  Over time, with the development of science and technology, theologians were faced with studies that have claimed abortion to be both right and wrong.  As scientific research became more precise, the church adopted moral values that were the most permissible by the congregation.  Rachels shows how even though the Christian church has scriptures and tradition that ask believers to behave in a certain way, these moral guidelines are constantly updated and manipulated to best fit the natural laws of society.

Carlton Fisher models his beliefs after the Natural Law Theory as well, but he structures his variation with a considerably greater emphasis on the origin of value.  To summarize his argument, he begins by stating that we as humans can recognize the value of other humans.  Assuming the Christian belief that God has created us in his image, we find that God has created us valuable.  Therefore, we are valuable because God has created us in that way.  Our natural characteristics of love, intellect, and reason allow us the option to discover morality with respect to our own reality.  Finally, Fisher claims that these traits are not simply good because God supports them; rather they are good because they make God valuable.  This view does not oppose God’s sovereignty because it actually incorporates his authority into our lives as a way of explaining how we as humans instinctively determine our views of morality through reason and logic.

I am comfortable accepting the Natural Law Theory and its variations presented by Rachels and Fisher.  Both philosophers present great arguments supporting the general idea that moral correctness is based upon the laws of nature and reason.  These two theories seem valid because they maintain a standard of universal bearing, which means they could be applied to all people and the world would still function properly.  In this respect, I find the primary ends of both theories to be generally suitable for humanity; however, I am troubled by one common premise.  Rachels and Fisher both make the assumption that God is a cognizant being.

Personally, I feel it is more reasonable to imagine God as an idea, or representation of beliefs, rather than an actual “being.”  As an abstract concept, unique to each person, religion assumes a purposeful role of fulfillment.  God, or the generalized idea of a higher power, has a diverse range of purpose among all religions, cultures, and individuals.  Religion often has the purpose of giving answers to questions that cannot be made clear by any factual evidence, for example, the explanation of an afterlife is an exceptionally common feature of almost all religions.  Many religions offer suggestions to those struggling with the “meaning of life” question.  Some might worship a loving God, or even God’s, while others learn to fear their creator.  Nonetheless, the most common religions today are designed to cater their teachings in order to best meet the spiritual desires of its members.  Because religion is molded by a human’s spiritual desires, I would suggest that religion and morality do in fact have connections with one another.  Contrast to the Divine Command Theory and the Natural Law Theory however, my development concludes that our goodness is not dependent upon any aspect of God’s will, but in fact quite the opposite.  God’s will has been interpreted by humans and whether or not they were influenced spiritually, they are still human and their understanding is subjective to worldly thought.  Based upon this theory, I claim that God has been created in our image, to best meet our need for a life of purpose.