Euthyphro’s dilemma: what it is and what it raises about morality.

A summary of the Euthyphro dilemma, a logical problem related to morality.

Are things morally good because God has so decided, or are they good because they inherently are and God is attracted to them?

The idea that morality depends on God is a widespread belief, especially in Christianity. This belief implies that moral facts could be otherwise, that God could decide that they should cease to be good and become negative things.

Euthyphro's dilemmaThe Euthyphro dilemma, although dating back to Classical Greece, has served to overturn the views in favor of God's existence by questioning his decision-making capacity and the very nature of morality. Let's take a closer look below.

What is the Euthyphro dilemma?

The idea that morality depends on God is a widely held belief.. Within Christian theistic moralism the idea that God is the source of morality is defended. He communicates to us mortals what is right and what is wrong, and since he is omnibenevolent and never wrong, the good he says is undoubtedly good. Using his criteria, the morals that come to us from him are what we on earth use to demarcate what is right and should be done and what is wrong and should be punished.

However, if he is the one who decides whether something is right and should be done and wrong and should be punished, if it is he who decides whether something is good, he himself can decide that it becomes bad at any time.. That is, if we consider that morality is based on God's decisions, this means that morality itself is not immutable, and this aspect has been used since to attack the positions in favor of God's existence, especially by demolishing the moralistic argument to affirm his existence. This argument in particular is Euthyphro's dilemma.

Basically this argument comes to questioning the omnipotence of God and, in turn, the nature of morality itself.It is necessary to accept that either God is not capable of changing the most morally evident facts or that God can act in a totally arbitrary way, deciding what is right and what is wrong and can either err or behave capriciously.

Who was Euthyphro?

Euthyphro, about whom rather little is known, gives his name to one of the most important dilemmas surrounding the logical and philosophical discussions about the existence of God. Euthyphro is a character that appears in one of Plato's dialogues. which, although it was this philosopher who wrote it, the conversation is not with him but with Socrates. The story, called "Euthyphro" or "On Pity" belongs to a series called "First Dialogues", developing the story at the time of the accusation of Meleto against Socrates, just before being sentenced to death by drinking hemlock in subsequent trials.

In the conversation between the two, the ideas of justice and piety take center stage. Socrates is surprised by what Euthyphro plans to do, which is to accuse his father. Socrates asks him if he considers this action to be holy, this being the question that unleashes the whole dialogue and the dilemma that bears his name. Socrates asks him "Is the saint loved by the gods because he is holy, or is he holy because he is loved by the gods?" After the dialogue has begun the whole dialogue is based on analyzing the answer that both Euthyphro and Socrates issue and the implications it carries.

Euthyphro's original dilemma consists in analyzing the very "substance" of the "holy.". If the holy is loved by the gods because it is holy, then the property "to be holy" is not acquired by the decision of the gods, but holy things have this virtue by themselves. In this case, the love of the gods for holy things does not add extra value to them since they already have it and will continue to have it whether the gods love them or not.

On the other hand, if holy things are holy because they are loved by the gods then they need that love to be holy. That is to say, according to the preferences of the gods, objects, persons and acts are holy. In this case, it is the love of the gods that makes things holy.

Analyzing the dialogue it can be seen that both options cannot be valid, since by necessity one has to be the correct one: either things are holy because they are, and therefore the gods prefer them, or things are holy because they are loved by the gods, thus acquiring the property of being holy. Technically both options are opposites and one is forced to choose one of them and, consequently, each choice brings with it its own implication, each choice brings with it its own philosophical implication..

The dilemma applied to Christianity

Having understood its original version, we now turn to see how Euthyphro's dilemma is applied today, especially as an argument against the claim that God exists. Within Christianity there is a whole monotheistic theory of morality that tries to explain that things are holy in relation to God..

The theist who believes that God is a necessary being and possesses the classical qualities of deity (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent...) attributes to him all moral reality and grounds in him all that is good. God is the source of morality.

Starting from this idea, many Christians defend that God exists because with his existence we can speak "objectively" of what is good and right and differentiate it from what is bad and wrong.

God must exist out of necessity because, for example, killing innocents is universally seen as immoral. This view of this particular act as immoral would be proof that there is a God who guides us, telling us what is right and what is wrong, and how we should act.and what is right and what is wrong, and how we should act.

And it is here where Euthyphro's dilemma, wielded by non-believers, comes in, whether adopted to the vision of the Christian God or to Jehovah, Allah or the monotheistic deity that pertains, although instead of speaking of "what is holy", one speaks of "what is good". Thus, readapting the dilemma the question would be "is something good because God says so or God says so because it is good?" Both options are contrary and, as with its classical version, we have to choose one of them; one cannot affirm both as valid at the same time.

In a way it resembles the chicken-and-egg dilemmaDoes the goodness of things exist by itself or is it God who decides that this is the way things are? If God decides, then can he decide that something moral becomes immoral? is he omnibenevolent in case he changes his mind? If morality does not exist outside of God, can it really be said that everything "good" is good and everything bad is "bad"?

Euthyphro's dilemma has been widely used by non-believers as an argument to demolish the positions in favor of the existence of God, since with it, whether one chooses one or the other of the options it raises, the same conclusion is reached: it cannot be demonstrated that God exists through morality to what extent God, supposedly omnipotent, decides whether things are good or bad or to what extent he has all the capacity to rightly decide what is right, being supposedly omnibenevolent.

To give a more practical example to understand what we have just said. Let us imagine that the moral argument has just been used to say that God exists, that is, that morality is objective because it emanates from God himself. God must exist because thanks to him we know what is right and what is wrong. Then, to refute this someone speaks of Euthyphro's dilemma, saying that 1) either things are good because God so decides or 2) good things attract God.

If we choose the first option it implies that objective morality does not exist, since it is not something that exists in nature per se but because God so decides. Thus the whole argument used for the existence of God would be falsified, indicating that we cannot be sure of its existence because this option implies affirming that morality is arbitrary.

If it is arbitrary, if there are things that can be good one day and bad the next, then God is not omnibenevolent for what reason would he have to change his mind? Isn't what is right supposed to be right forever?

What if the second option is chosen? There are still problems with the theistic moral theory. This option says that good things exist independently of God and that it is these things that dictate to God what his moral preferences should be. One could go so far as to say that these very things and their characteristics, in this second option, guide God in his existence according to that which is good.

This second option implies that God is not the source of morality, and therefore the good exists independently of him. As a consequence of this, the doctrine of the aseity of God, that is, to be able to trust him, is tremendously affected, since he himself would not know what is right, he would have to receive it from the nature of things and we would have to trust that he would know how to see it.

God himself must submit to what is goodHow can he be the Supreme Being if he does not decide what is right and what is wrong, but the properties of things? What is above him and how does he solve this problem?

The conclusions in both options imply concluding that God, whether he can decide what is moral or not, is neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent and could not be trusted. If he can decide on moral issues he does so arbitrarily and, therefore, his judgment may not be the wisest or the most benevolent. If he does not decide, then he does not have absolute power over nature, but rather nature controls him and decides what he should and should not do.

Another option to this is that even God, even within his supposed omnipotence, cannot change absolutely everything, which in itself is a contradiction to this quality. As we have mentioned before, the idea of killing innocents is wrong and our mentality, whatever it is, does not conceive the possibility that this could ever be right in any scenario. So, even if we could change the moral and make it immoral, there would be concrete aspects like this particular one that God could not alter. Killing innocents is already immoral as a matter of course, without God's intervention.

False dilemma?

However, Christian theists Christian theists themselves have been able to turn the tables on Euthyphro's dilemma, or rather false dilemma.or rather false dilemma. This exercise of philosophical-religious reflection would not have two apparently opposite options, but would actually have a third if applied within Christianity. As we said, the first option says that things are good because God so decides and, therefore, is the source of morality. The other option is that things are good and God is attracted to them. However, what is not raised in the dilemma is that both options could actually be correct.

In Christianity God is the source of morality, but rather than deciding what is good and what is not, he is the one who emanates morality.. He is the source of morality in the sense that if he exists he must of necessity exist morality. In other words: the good is in the very existence of God. Good things would be inherently good insofar as they conform to the nature of God who, being omnibenevolent and the source of morality, would be inherently good and moral as well and his decisions would never err.

Thus, on this view, what happens is that God and morality exist simultaneously. Morality exists outside of God, it is not an arbitrary decision of his, but a consequence of his existence. God would not communicate to his believers what is good because he has found it out there, or because he has so decided, but because he has found those things which, as a consequence of his being, of his existence, correspond to what is really good.

Bibliographical references:

• Koons, J. (2012). Can God's Goodness Save the Divine Command Theory From Euthyphro? European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 4 (1), 177-195.
• Rodríguez, C. (). What is Euthyphro's dilemma about? Argentina. Equipo de Estudios Apologética Cristiana. http://www.apologetica.com.ar/dilema-eutifron/