Euthyphro Dilemma: My Personal View On The Presented Propositions

Euthyphro’s Dilemma is an ancient dilemma posed by Greek philosopher Socrates to Athenian prophet Euthyphro in the dialogue Euthyphro recorded by Plato. The dilemma first arose in a conversation between the two as Euthyphro was taking his father to court. When Socrates stopped to ask him why he was taking his father, Euthyphro replied explaining his father had killed one of their slaves and thus must be brought before the king. Through a series of questions between the two regarding the gods and their judgements on right and wrong, Socrates poses the famous dilemma. Socrates asks Euthyphro if holiness is loved by the gods which Euthyphro affirms. Socrates then raises the question if piety is “loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?” While Euthyphro initially agrees, Socrates then begins to question him on that statement and which of the two ideas must be true. The dilemma Euthyphro faces can be simplified to “Is something good because God calls it so, or does God call something good because it is good?” As Socrates continues to question, Euthyphro explains he is in a hurry and must leave, leaving the argument with no sound conclusion. Personally, I believe of the two, the first proposition has the least contradictions and is thus the more convincing argument; however, if given the option, I don’t completely agree with either proposition. I believe a third option can be explored by examining the character of God.

The first proposition found in the dilemma supports the idea that something is good just because God says it is. The meaning behind this statement is that a good thing is considered good only because God, at some point, said it was so. The defense behind this idea is God’s ultimate power and what it implies. The definition of the idea of a monotheistic God is a being who is a) the ruler of and creator of the universe and b) the creator of all. It is in God’s very definition that He is the creator of everything in the world. If God is the creator of all things, and morality is a thing, then He must be the creator of morality, and thus the judge who decided the principles to begin with. If one was to imply He is not the one who personally decides what is good and what is evil, they would imply that God did not create morality and is thus, not God. This would also imply that goodness and morality are defined by whoever has the most power rather than by the existence of goodness itself as goodness cannot exist unless God has created it. Therefore, because God must be the most powerful creator of all things, He must be the creator of morality and thus the one who decides what is right and wrong.

The second proposition contained in Euthyphro’s Dilemma suggests that rather than God defining what is right and wrong, good is defined by some unknown quality and God only acknowledges that. It means that God names a thing good because it is good due to some other reason that is independent of Him. This would qualify morality as something unchanging and the standard of good always the same. Morality is then not a question of power, and it is also not arbitrary; it has already been established by some unknown quality. If good is an absolute quality, then promoting others to be good is good, therefore God enforcing good makes Him good. Thus, if God is good, God is also always unchanging which is in line with many monotheistic beliefs. Good also only applies to God if one was to believe this proposition.

Faced between the two propositions, I, personally, am inclined to take the first one. Something is good because God says it is. While it may be seen as a violation of God’s character to say that morality is a matter of power, the second proposition to me defies the exact definition of God. If God is God, He created everything, so morality cannot exist from a higher authority, He had to create and define it. As a dilemma, however, both sides raise their own difficulties. For example, the statement “God is good” means only “God is able to be God” if God is the One who defines good in the first place. To say “God is God” is still true, thus I’m more inclined to lean to the first proposition. I believe as a Christian, I’m meant to have faith in God to make decisions and judgements that He knows are best. I believe it’s part of believing in Him. With that said, however, there exists for Christians, a third argument. I think there should be a possibility where both God is god, the creator of all and sovereign ruler, while also being “good”. If goodness is rooted into a part of God’s character, then God is still the definer of right and wrong while it also exists as something unchanging, tearing down both sides of the dilemma. It seems inherent in the character of God to be “good”; it isn’t something He decided that does not apply to Him, and it is not something defined by an outside authority. Goodness is just a part of God’s character. This also has the advantages of both propositions, He is all powerful, and He is unchanging. Thus, if given only the choice between the two, I believe the first proposition makes the most logical sense, however, as a Christian, I believe in the third proposition more and what it has to offer. Moral intuition? The second proposition directly contradicts both parts of the definition of God while the first only contradicts the image of God.

The two propositions existing in Euthyphro’s Dilemma are meant to bring into question what exactly defines right and wrong to a god and thus, to his followers. The first proposition, a thing is good because God has said it is so, supports the idea that God, as the creator of everything, is also the definer of morality; however, it also has to mean that morality is decided by power rather than an inherent good or evil and also that those rules of right and wrong do not apply to God Himself. The second proposition, God calls something good because it is already good defined by an unknown quality, would give the statement that God is good weight and meaning but would also contradict the definition of God directly as He would thus not be sovereign and not be the creator of all things. To me, the first proposition is more logically sound as it contradicts only the image of God rather than the actual definition that makes Him God; however, I also feel inclined to believe in a third option independent of Euthyphro’s Dilemma in which goodness is an inherent, unchanging part of God’s character and morality as one would know it is just the existence or lack thereof of God’s good nature and our own moral intuition that God placed in us.

Works Cited

1. Plato. “The Internet Classics Archive: Euthyphro by Plato.” Translated by Benjamin Jowett, The Internet Classics Archive | Euthyphro by Plato, classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html.