Skip to main content

Brief thoughts on Euthyphro's Dilemma

     Euthyphro's dilemma, found in the platonic dialogue "Euthyphro", basically says:  

     Either (1) x is good because God says it is good, OR, (2) God says x is good because x is good.
     
     In the first disjunct morality seems to be arbitrary, because God simply declares "x is good." with no apparent reason.

     In the second disjunct there seems to be a moral standard that is over and above God. If such is the case, then it would seem that God is, himself, dependant on another.

   The problem with Euthyphro's dilemma is, quite simply, that it is a false dilemma. In logic a dilemma is created when we are presented with two, and only two choices (options, reasons, etc.). Socrates seems to present such a dilemma. When a person claims that there are only two possible choices, but, in reality, there are more choices, they have created a false dilemma. Of course, by adding other options, we do not change the manner in which we can arrive at a conclusion. In order to arrive at a conclusion from a logical disjunction it is necessary to negate the other option (s). However, we can demonstrate that a proposed dilemma is a false dilemma, by simply demonstrating that there is at least one other option.

    So, for example, suppose that we meet some day, and decide to go to Starbucks to have a chat about Euthyphro's dilemma. As we walk into the Starbucks I propose to you, "I'll pay, do you want coffee or tea?" I have created a false dilemma. There is at least one other option (without even looking at what is available at Starbucks). You could respond, "neither, I don't feel like having a drink right now." If what has been proposed is a false dilemma, then you need not decide between the two choices that have been provided. You may simply respond: "what you have proposed is a false dilemma, as there is, at least, one other possible option."

    Most Christian theologians, philosophers and apologists, from quite early in the history of the church, have made just this claim about Euthyphro's dilemma. Euthyphro's dilemma, again:

      Either x is good because God says it is good, OR, God says x is good because x is good.
     
     In the first disjunct morality seems to be arbitrary, because God simply declares "x is good." with no apparent reason.

     In the second disjunct there seems to be a moral standard that is over and above God. If such is the case, then it would seem that God is, himself, dependant on another.

    In response, many Christian theologians reply that there is a third possible choice: "the goodness is based not upon God's arbitrary choice, nor upon a higher moral standard, but upon the very nature of God." My personal response, which seems to provide a fourth option, is that morality is based not upon God's arbitrary choice, nor upon a higher moral standard, nor upon the very nature of God, but upon human nature (which was created by God). In order to defeat Euthyphro's dilemma you need not demonstrate that any one of the extra possibilities is true!!! You only need to demonstrate that there are other possible choices that cannot be reduced to one of the two possibilities already proposed by Euthyphro's dilemma. 

   For further reading on the subject I would suggest Keith E. Yandell's excellent article, "Moral Essentialism" in God & Morality: Four Views, ed. R. Keith Loftin (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012). See also R. Scott Smith, In Search of Moral Knowledge: Overcoming the fact-value Dichotomy (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), which is an excellent introduction to moral philosophy from a christian perspective. Smith interacts with Euthyphro's dilemma on pages 31-35, 317-322. There are other books, but these will be a good place to start.

Popular posts from this blog

How Kant’s Synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism resulted in Agnosticism

Immanuel Kant, presented with the extreme empiricism of Hume and the extreme rationalism of Liebniz, which he discovered through the writings Wolff, sought to take a middle road between these two extreme philosophical positions. I would submit that Kant’s synthesis of these two views leads to an agnosticism about what Kant called “the thing-in-itself”, and ultimately to the philosophical positions known as Atheism, determinism, and nihilism.


Kant’s Sources
First of all, Kant was influenced by Hume’s empiricism and Newton’s physics. He saw that the physical sciences, in contrast to rationalistic metaphysics, were actually making advances. They were making discoveries, and building a system of knowledge that accurately described the world of our sense perceptions. Rationalistic metaphysics, on the other hand, was floundering amidst the combating systems that the philosophers were erecting. It did not provide new knowledge, and only led to unacceptable conclusions, such as the Absolute Mon…

LEISURE: THE BASIS OF CULTURE – A BOOK REVIEW

Leisure: The Basis of Culture & the Philosophical Act. Josef Pieper. Translated by Alexander Dru. 1963. Reprint, Ignatius Press, 2009. 143 pp. $12.99. ISBN 978-1-58617-256-5.
            This book is composed of two articles written by the German philosopher Josef Pieper. Though the two articles are intimately connected, they form two distinct works; as such, this book review will begin by giving a brief introduction to the works in question, followed by and exposition of each of the works individually. The two articles that are included in this book, Leisure: the Basis of Culture and The Philosophical Act, were both published in 1947, and, as such, were written during the cultural crisis in Germany that followed the Second World War. Not only did Pieper have the cultural crisis in mind when he wrote these articles, but he was also writing in light of the works of the most well-known German philosopher of the time – Martin Heidegger. As such, any reader who is familiar with Heidegg…

IDENTITY AND DIFFERENCE by Martin Heidegger

I don’t propose to attempt any sort of reply to Martin Heidegger in this article. The purpose of this article is to explain Martin Heidegger’s thoughts, as they are found in the book, Identity and Difference. Martin Heidegger is a difficult thinker to understand, and requires a lot of work to fully appreciate his arguments. My primary goal in this article is to introduce the reader to two very important articles written by Heidegger, and, I hope, to properly explain Heidegger’s views on Being and beings.
            This book is composed of two articles written by Martin Heidegger and translated with an introduction by Joan Stambaugh. The first article, The Principle of Identity, is “the unchanged text of a lecture given on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of the University of Freiburg im Breisgau, for the faculty day on June 27, 1957.”[1] The second article The Onto-theo-logical Constitution of Metaphysics, is “the explication that concluded a seminar during the wint…