Introduction
The question about the origin of morality is a complex ethical and philosophical problem. Many individuals believe that there is a robust connection between morality and religion, or even that people cannot be moral without it. Proponents of Divine Command Theory support the statement and claim that it is God who defines ethical principles. Other people are convinced that it is difficult to prove that there is a connection between ethics and God. Supporters of the viewpoint refer to the Euthyphro Dilemma that challenges the credibility of Divine Command Theory. The purpose of this essay is to consider the Euthyphro dilemma and what problem it poses for the Divine Command Theory.
What is the Divine Command Theory of Morality?
Divine Command Theory is an early form of ethical thought that still seems somewhat popular today with many individuals. According to the theory, the divine is considered to be the source of moral ideals and principles. Morality, as well as immorality, is defined by the divine and based on the commands and character of God. He is the necessary authority that gives morality its absolute universal character. God is the only thing that can create intrinsic worth therefore, things are worth only by the divine. The theory answers the normative question, «What ought people do?» by claiming that humans should do whatever God commands them to do. According to Danaher, «the essence of the divine command theory is thus that without a divine command, there would be no moral obligation» (383). Divine commands end up providing us norms and standards for human behavior. Examples of divine authoritative orders can be found, for example, in the Ten Commandments (you should not kill; you should not commit adultery; you should have no other gods before me, and etc.). A divine command theorist is convinced that it is a faith in God that makes a man follows moral principles. Moreover, it is argued that people tend to follow ethical standards because they are created in the image of God. According to the theory, divine commandments and morality are inseparable and interchangeable things.
What is the Euthyphro Dilemma?
There is an objection to the idea that ethics comes from God. One of the objections to the theory of divine command came from a Greek philosopher, Plato, who presented it in a dialogue called the Euthyphro. The conversation attempts to define what piety (justice before the gods) is. It leads to a dilemma for anyone who thinks that morality comes from God.
The Euthyphro is a conversation that Socrates has with a religious prophet, Euthyphro, on the nature of piety or holiness. Euthyphro has gone to court to charge his father with the accidental murder, thinking that he is doing right by the gods. Socrates asks why it is so and wants to talk with Euthyphro about his intention to sue his father and the essence of morality (Bennett 121-123). Socrates questions the Euthyphron view on moral righteousness – piety is what the gods love.
Socrates VS Euthyphro
Euthyphro is a proponent of Divine Command Theory, and he is convinced that moral principles are what the gods love and the immoral ones are what they hate. Socrates questions the logical conclusion of his interlocutor. He decides to challenge Euthyphro and argues, “Why do the gods sometimes disagree with each other and why do they become enemies and cannot come to an agreement?”
Socrates says that disagreement among the gods as well as among people is because of the different opinions about what fair and unfair, right and wrong is. Some gods consider one to be good, others believe differently, and then they start a war with each other. Socrates cites the example of the hostility between the gods. In response, Euthyphro claims that all the gods love godliness and hate wickedness. Socrates asks the opponent, “Do the gods love piety because it is pious?” In other words, if all the gods consider something to be hateful to themselves, does this mean that it determines piety? (Forghani and Koutlaki 39). Socrates concludes on this point that the gods often have different viewpoints on the same thing.
Socrates wants to consider the following questions, “Is it pious (or moral) for a son to prosecute his father? What is the criterion for a pious (or moral) action?” (Forghani and Koutlaki 37). The philosopher asks if morality comes from God, does God tell people to do what is good because it is good, or is it good because God tells them to do it. In other words, is action commanded by God because it is obligatory, or is it obligatory because God commands it? If the first part of the dilemma is correct – the divine is a primary source of morality, and it has the power to determine what moral and immoral is. If the second option of the Euthyphro dilemma is valid, then it turns out that human morality is formed independently of the divine, and it does not depend on God and divine commands. These two options are logically exhausted – if one is true, the other one is false, and vice versa.
The reason why Euthyphro gets into an awkward situation, replying to the questions, is because the gods act as subjects within the framework of his reasoning, and they love or hate something as an object. What is the solution to the dilemma that Socrates does not declare, but which follows from his argument? There can be a conclusion: the gods are like humans in their preferences, while morality must be unique and universal: there can be no contradictions on it.
Critique of Divine Command Theory
Divine Command Theory endorses that it is God who decides what is right and what is wrong. It means that actions are obligatory because God commands them. Proponents of the theory reject the notion that actions can be right or wrong independently of God’s commands. This alternative denies the idea that morality has an objective nature.
The objection of the theory comes from the arbitrariness’s argument, saying that, according to the divine command theory’s statement, the decision that is right and what is wrong is arbitrary (Bennett 123). God can make anything obligatory no matter how horrendous the action might be. It means that God can appoint something as good, what someone can consider disgusting from his moral point of view. Something is moral or immoral because God decided so, which means that morality becomes arbitrary to the will of God. It turns out that if God once decides that murder and theft are immoral, he can change his mind to the opposite, and then robbery and murder become moral. If the first part of the dilemma is correct, then it turns out that human morality is formed independently of the gods.
“Abraham-Isaac” Evidence
The biblical scene regarding Abraham and Isaac can be used as evidence that Divine Command Theory is arbitrary. First of all, if God commanded Abraham to kill his son Isaac, then it is not morally wrong for Abraham to kill Isaac. Secondly, the theory has to endorse that God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac. If the biblical story is correct that God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac, it will follow from this then that it is not morally wrong for Abraham to kill his son. The opponent of Divine Command Theory wants to see this as an absurdum of the view because this conclusion is just another premise, and if this conclusion is false, then one of these premises has to be incorrect. Thus, the divine command theorist is presented with opposing assumptions.
Socrates provides an objection to Divine Command Theory and Plato’s dialogue visa through. The Euthyphro dilemma challenges underlying assumptions of traditional conceptions of the divine, thus challenging the appeal to external support. The dialogue «Euthyphro» by Plato forces one to see that God is not the essence of morality. The dilemma ends up difficulties with considering the explanation of why something is right or wrong, good or bad. The theory does not provide significant robustness because it ends up contradicting premises of immoral actions.
Works Cited
Bennett, Christopher. What is this thing called Ethics? Routledge, 2nd ed., 2015.
Forghani, Maryam, and Sofia A. Koutlaki. Teaching Socrates to First-year Philosophy Students in Iran, Based on Plato’s Euthyphro. Journal of Classics Teaching, vol.19, no. 38, 2018, pp. 36-41.
Danaher, John. In Defence of the Epistemological Objection to Divine Command Theory. Sophia, vol. 58, no. 3, 2019, pp. 381-400.