“Is something good because God likes it? Or does God like things because they are good?” This was the question asked by Socrates during his discussion on Piety with Euthyphro. This question is still a point of contention for philosophers to this day, and is known as “Euthyphro’s Dilemma.” There are two main forms of thought on this issue. The first, known as Divine Subjectivism, is the belief that something is good because God like it. The second, known as Divine Objectivism, is the belief that God likes things because they are good. Both of these two views come with their own set of criticisms, concerns, and inconsistencies. Because of this, Euthyphro’s Dilemma has been debated for thousands of years. In this paper, I will come to a conclusion
…show more content…
This view states that things are only good because God likes them and approves of them. This view allows us to look at God as an all-powerful being. Unlike Divine Objectivism, it puts God at the very top of all the moral powers. In other words, this view rejects the idea of any morality outside of God. However, this view has problems of its own. According to Divine Subjectivism, God is the final say as to what is good and what is bad. Therefore, if God were to change his beliefs on something, then that would change the morality of said action. For example, if God were to say that we should go to war with everyone who doesn’t believe in him, then we would have to comply according to Divine Subjectivism. This does not seem to be very realistic but it is something that could be possible according to the tenants of Divine Subjectivism. This possibility of a skewed morality is something that gives pause to believers of Divine Subjectivism. Because of this, it might make more sense to turn to Divine Objectivism, so that there is no change to our concept of …show more content…
The argument is a vicious circle. The exact thing which supports one side of the argument is the thing which causes problems for the other side, and vice versa. It seems that both arguments are flawed and that there is no way to distinguish which view is correct. It is possible that this dilemma may be a false one. It is also possible that both views on this matter are correct, which would also make this a false dilemma. However, we must remember the fact that God is an omni-present, all-powerful, all-knowing being. Because of this, he is never wrong. If God is never wrong, then he would never change his mind on matters of morality, or anything else for that matter. He is an all-knowing being who has always known everything. He is incapable of error. Thus, since he is all-knowing and omnipresent, the morality which he has implemented is capable of extending until the end of time. For example, things that were morally wrong in 2000 B.C are still morally wrong in 2000 AD. In response to the theory of God “changing his mind” on some tenant of morality, I am confident in saying that this is a non-issue. Since he is all-knowing, as we stated before, he would never have a single reason to “change his mind” on anything. He knows exactly what will happen from now until the end of time. Because he knows exactly what will happen throughout the duration of the existence of mankind, he will never have to
This view states that things are only good because God likes them and approves of them. This view allows us to look at God as an all-powerful being. Unlike Divine Objectivism, it puts God at the very top of all the moral powers. In other words, this view rejects the idea of any morality outside of God. However, this view has problems of its own. According to Divine Subjectivism, God is the final say as to what is good and what is bad. Therefore, if God were to change his beliefs on something, then that would change the morality of said action. For example, if God were to say that we should go to war with everyone who doesn’t believe in him, then we would have to comply according to Divine Subjectivism. This does not seem to be very realistic but it is something that could be possible according to the tenants of Divine Subjectivism. This possibility of a skewed morality is something that gives pause to believers of Divine Subjectivism. Because of this, it might make more sense to turn to Divine Objectivism, so that there is no change to our concept of …show more content…
The argument is a vicious circle. The exact thing which supports one side of the argument is the thing which causes problems for the other side, and vice versa. It seems that both arguments are flawed and that there is no way to distinguish which view is correct. It is possible that this dilemma may be a false one. It is also possible that both views on this matter are correct, which would also make this a false dilemma. However, we must remember the fact that God is an omni-present, all-powerful, all-knowing being. Because of this, he is never wrong. If God is never wrong, then he would never change his mind on matters of morality, or anything else for that matter. He is an all-knowing being who has always known everything. He is incapable of error. Thus, since he is all-knowing and omnipresent, the morality which he has implemented is capable of extending until the end of time. For example, things that were morally wrong in 2000 B.C are still morally wrong in 2000 AD. In response to the theory of God “changing his mind” on some tenant of morality, I am confident in saying that this is a non-issue. Since he is all-knowing, as we stated before, he would never have a single reason to “change his mind” on anything. He knows exactly what will happen from now until the end of time. Because he knows exactly what will happen throughout the duration of the existence of mankind, he will never have to