“Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”

“Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”

            The very concept that the only reason moral acts are morally good is because they are willed by God brings up a lot of questions. “The dilemma states that, if you are a divine command theorist, any action x is morally good either (A) because God commands x, or (B) because x is good intrinsically.⁷” This concept states that we, as humans, have free will but that God decides what is morally right and morally wrong. It says that if we lead our lives by His commands then we will forever live a moral and righteous existence. However, how are we supposed to say what is morally right? Throughout history people have foretold of a greater power speaking unto them and telling them all the ways that they should live and how they should go about doing it. The issue with this is… if one person says that ‘God’ deems one set of rules moral but another says that ‘God’ told them it was wrong, then who should we believe? We should, of course, believe the correct one. But, how do we know which is the correct answer? The obvious answer should be by doing what is right. Although, that brings up the idea that we have come up with what is right all on our own, without the help of God. This in turn brings up the other half of the concept: “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good?”

            If we were to assume that God, in all his righteousness, does not create what is right or wrong but instead only states the facts… then that would mean that moral acts are not controlled by God, but followed by him as well because they are right. This means that God commands something because it is morally ethical to do so and that, in His vast wisdom and knowledge, he knows what should be deemed right or wrong in the judgment of life. This avoids the arbitrary argument that states that moral acts are only moral because God commands it and accepts the argument that moral acts are there with or without God present. However, this leads to the possibility that God may not even exist at all. For, if we can deem what is right and what is wrong on our own then there really is no need for a God’s thoughts on the subject at all, is there?

            Each of these statements tends to make people a little uncomfortable. Either they are uncomfortable about the fact that they do not know what is right or wrong without a God present; which, in turn, means that what we may deem a sinful act ourselves may actually be moral or what we originally deemed moral, may actually be sinful. Or, it means that we pass judgment ourselves and that there really is no need for a God’s input except to enlighten us on what most of us already know to be true. It would mean that we could exist rightly even if God did not exist at all. The very thought that God may not exist or that we may not need Him, at least in that form, is what makes people not want to lean toward this part of the argument either. So, therefore, we are in an endless struggle with what is truth or not because on the one hand… God deems everything moral and immoral and we are to obey whatever it is He says, or moral acts are moral simply because they are and God does not have to exist at all for this to work.

            The relationship between religion and morality is on the brink here. We cannot say which is right and which is wrong. The first option states that you can only act out moral righteousness if you have heard it from God and the second option states that moral actions are acted out without him. However, the first is invalid when it comes to atheists… because if it were true then that would mean that everything an atheist does is immoral and that they are inherently bad. But, this is wrong in assuming. I am sure there are atheists who have done horrible things. However, there are also plenty of atheists who live rightly and morally and cause harm to no one. If you think about that then you would have to believe more so in the second option that in the first because the second allows for atheists to do morally good acts without the help of God.

            Plato “introduces into philosophy for the first time the two technical terms of the greatest subsequent importance, and it is one of the earliest examples of the application of formal logical techniques to a philosophical problem.^5” Plato introduces the Euthyphro dilemma which is originally discussed between Socrates and Euthyphro that debates the logic behind The Divine Command Theory. There are not just spiritual, but logical issues with the very concept of the Divine Command Theory or the Euthyphro Dilemma, from which the majority of these arguments stem. While many may believe whole-heartedly in the theory, the dilemma brings their viewpoints to an abrupt halt. Not because the Euthyphro Dilemma proves the previous belief wrong, but because it brings up philosophical questions and logical reasoning that simply cannot be ignored.

            “Divine command theory is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. ¹” “Followers of both monotheistic and polytheistic religions in ancient and modern times have often accepted the importance of God's commands in establishing morality. Numerous variants of the theory have been presented: historically, figures including Saint Augustine, Duns Scotus, and Thomas Aquinas have presented various versions of divine command theory; more recently, Robert Merrihew Adams has proposed a "modified divine command theory" based on the omnibenevolence of God in which morality is linked to human conceptions of right and wrong. Paul Copan has argued in favor of the theory from a Christian viewpoint, and Linda Zagzebski's divine motivation theory proposes that God's motivations, rather than commands, are the source of morality^1”.  “The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” ^{3” “}At 7a Euthyphro proposes his first definition of piety and impiety: what the gods like is pious, and what they dislike is impious. Socrates notes the gods supposedly disagree about many things, and that there seem to be some things that are both loved and hated by the gods. So with that definition, some of the same things will be both pious and impious (8a). This point is logical as well as mythological, for by reading ‘the gods’ as ‘some gods’, piety and impiety so defined would not be logical contraries and so might be found in some of the same things.⁴”

            With that being said you can assume either idea to be correct. The Divine Command Theory is one that most would be more likely to accept and the way that Socrates and Euthyphro describe it you may even assume it to be a logical statement. “The label “Divine Command Theory” does not pick out any particular metaethical thesis, but rather a cluster of similar views.^6” It can be subject to change by which religion is using it and which contents of their bible or other teachings they are choosing to read from. The only real issue with the logical statement provided by Euthyphro is that in Catholic, Christian, Jewish, and a few other religions there is only one God. Not Gods, but God. So, if you were to think in the same way as Socrates and Euthyphro you would either have to assume that there is more than one god, which few are likely to do, or believe that God tends to change his mind often. However, if you were to believe that God changed his mind then how could you truly believe that what He stated to be moral was really moral? Wouldn’t it only confuse you more?

            The arguments presented may never be resolved. We simply cannot come up with an explanation on our own. The only way to prove either theory right or wrong is for us to meet said God and have Him tell us. However, this is not possible. Even if there were to be a heaven and someone was to ask God when they got there they cannot very well turn around and tell us. And even if someone alive were to say that they communed with the dead, or with God himself, and that they know the real answer… who is going to believe them? In this day and age you would be considered crazy, if not overly eccentric, and if a religious group were to believe you that does not mean that the whole world will go along with it. The Euthyprho Dilemma will be one to last forever unless at some point in time someone decides it is just not worth it to even debate the subject. All in all, I would say that while the philosophical question is certainly one to ponder on, it is not one to waste your life contemplating. Live your life the best way you know how and go by what you feel is morally right. If you believe that God is the one in charge, then by all means follow Him. If you believe God has nothing to do with it and you can make your own moral assumptions, then all the power to you. Life is not meant to be spent debating the issue. Live on and live well!

             

 Jessica Burnett

References

(1)   Wikipedia. Divine Command Theory, 2011. 1 September 2013.

(2)   Wikipedia. Euthyphro Dilemma, 2007. 17 September, 2013.

(3)   Ackah, K.”PLATO'S EUTHYPHRO AND SOCRATIC PIETY”. Scholia: Studies in Classical Antiquity, 15, 17-34. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/211628972?accountid=8289. 31 August2013.

(4)   Sharvy, R. “Euthyphro 9d-11b: Analysis and Definition in Plato and Others”. Noûs, Vol. 6, No. 2  pp. 119-137. May 1997. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2216144. 31 August 2013.

(5)   Hall, J. “Plato: Euthyphro 10a1-11a10”. The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 70  (Jan., 1968), pp. 1-11. Retrieved from  http://www.jstor.org/stable/2218023. 31 August 2013.

(6)   Richard, J. Theistic Ethics and Euthyphro Dilemma. Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 30 Issue 1, p49. 27p. Spring 2002. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6643603&site=ehost-live. 31 August 2013.

(7)   Burnett, B.P. Euthyphro Dilemma. Word Press. August 2012. Retrieved from http://bpburnett.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/euthyphro-dilemma/. 17 September 2013.