February 12, 2025
Josephine Frisina
The Euthyphro Dilemma
Does God define good, or just enforce it?
The Euthyphro Dilemma
Plato, Socrates, and Euthyphro
Plato’s Socratic Dialogues are a collection of conversations between his teacher Socrates, and other Athenian citizens; these dialogues are often considered the origin of modern philosophy. "The Euthyphro Dilemma" is one of these conversations, and takes place as Socrates and Euthyphro bump into each other on the steps of a courthouse, and start discussing their legal battles.
Socrates: Are you the pursuer or the defendant?
Euthyphro: I am the pursuer.
Socrates: Of whom?
Euthyphro: You will think me mad when I tell you
Socrates: Why, has the fugitive wings?
Euthyphro: Nay, he is not very volatile at his time of life
Socrates: Who is he?
Euthyphro: My father.
Socrates: Your father! My good man?
Euthyphro confides in Socrates his moral dilemma.
A servant of Euthyphro’s house has murdered a slave. Euthyphro’s father punished the servant by gravely wounding him and casting him into the gutter. Euthyphro’s father left the servant there, and asked the gods what to do next, but before the gods could respond, the servant died of his wounds. Euthyphro, believes that the gods would desire for his father to be prosecuted by Athenian law, while his family argues father’s actions were just, and require no punishment.
Discussion Question: If you were Euthyphro, would you prosecute your own father?
In the dialogues Euthyphro is concerned with being pious, which is to say, acting according to the gods will. For that reason he chooses to prosecute his father, citing that the gods would will him to do so. Hearing this, Socrates poses to Euthyphro the question now known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, is an action good because it is commanded by the gods, or do the gods command it because it is good?
While the options seem similar, they are two very distinct perspectives. The former states that the gods create goodness, meaning that what ‘good’ is, can be changed based on their whims. The latter states that the good is separate from divinity, and the gods merely enforce an existing standard of good.
This is a dilemma. In philosophy, a dilemma is a choice between two difficult-to-defend options. This two-pronged challenge is likened to a bull, where the interlocutor must pick a horn to be unpleasantly skewered on. Though the ancient Greeks believed in a very specific pantheon of gods, this kind of dilemma applies to any religion that involves a morally-guided deity. Different faiths—and even different groups within the same faith—wrestle with this question without reaching a clear consensus.
For this discussion, we’ll focus on the monotheistic God of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), as many contemporary philosophers approach the dilemma through this lens.
Discussion Question: What do you think?
God as a ‘Good-Maker’
Argument For
Throughout much of Abrahamic thought it has been asserted that God's omnipotence means that he has absolute power over morality. Christian theologians such as René Descartes, Martin Luther and John Calvin have notably defended the idea.
This take on God’s power is similar in Islam. Many Muslim thinkers believe in comparison to God, humans are unfit to make their own decisions on morality as we are too narrow-sighted. For this reason, we should follow the Sacred Law of Allah, as only Allah sees the bigger picture and has written the Sacred Law accordingly.
This perspective leads many people to “Divine Command Theory”, the ethical framework which states that since our understanding is limited, we should instead follow the “divine commands” given to us, often conveniently written down in books.
Arguments Against
The common criticism with this stance is that if God decides what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’, then he has the power to change morality arbitrarily. This seems intuitively wrong to many theologians.
You are a lifelong Christian, and one day while home alone God appears before you. He assures you that he is in fact God, and has a new set of instructions for humanity. We must now all do precisely the opposite of what the Ten Commandments say. From now on, we must say his name in vain, steal from our neighbours, disrespect our parents, and so on. God assures you that this was his plan from the very beginning, and that these reversed commandments are now the morally correct thing to do. To go against them would be a sin!
According to the ‘God as a good-maker’ perspective, these actions are now ‘good’ because they are God’s word. Similarly, according to Divine Command Theory, we must follow these instructions because he knows best.
Discussion Question: Would you start living by the Reversed Ten Commandments?
God as a ‘Good-Enforcer’
Argument For
Some things are just always true, like how two plus two will always equal four (according to most). The theologians who believe that God is the ‘enforcer' of goodness believe that morals, like numbers, don’t change based on divine will, but are fundamental truths that coexist with God.
Many who accept this believe there is a universal moral code embedded in the universe waiting to be uncovered. This perspective also suggests that we need not depend on Divine Command Theory, where the variety of text interpretations and abundance of conflicting texts make it hard to find definite answers. Instead some advocates of this perspective suggest that we use the reasoning skills God gave us, to engage rationality to uncover universal ethical truths ourselves.
Unfortunately, in the same way it took a long time for humans to get from basic addition to complex calculus, we are taking our time to get from ‘murder feels bad’ to a universal ethical framework.
Argument Against
The common criticism with the ‘God as a good-enforcer’ argument is that if God merely enforces a moral code and has no control over it, then he cannot be all-powerful. Suggesting that certain truths existed before God, goes against the Abrahamic concept of omnipotence. If God did not create morals, but simply enforces them, then isn’t he just another player in the cosmic game? Just a more powerful version of us?
A Third Option?
Theologians have often attempted to evade the figurative bull entirely by creating an alternative for the two horns. Some argue that while morality is defined by God, as he governs all things, God's omnibenevolence guarantees that He would never impose arbitrary or immoral rules. Dr William Lane Craig makes this point further by saying…
Takeaways
When Euthyphro could not adequately answer Socrates' endless questions about piety, Socrates asks Euthyphro once more for clarification.
Socrates: If you had not certainly known the nature of piety and impiety, I am confident that you would never, on behalf of a serf, have charged your aged father with murder. [...] I am sure, therefore, that you know the nature of piety and impiety. Speak out then, my dear Euthyphro, and do not hide your knowledge.
Euthyphro: ...I am in a hurry, and must go now.
Euthyphro’s retreat—whether due to his recognition of the limits of his knowledge or the exhaustion from Socrates' relentless questioning—highlights the difficulty of confronting challenging ideas. However, the Euthyphro Dilemma and similar thought experiments offer valuable chances to expand your understanding and engage in thoughtful discussions with people from various theological and ethical backgrounds. Embrace these challenges, and your understanding will be enriched.