Divine Command Theory In Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma

Divine command theory has many weaknesses. The weaknesses of this theory are best shown by Plato’s dialogue, Euthyphro, which poses a question. Are actions morally good because they are approved by God or the gods, or whether God or the gods approve of action because they are morally good? If someone believes that morally good acts are good because they are willed by God, then God could command us to do anything, and it would be right for us to do it. Whatever God commands becomes the principle of moral rightness.

Louise M. Antony argues an important ethical concern in her article, “Good minus God”. Can a person do good deeds without God? Arguing from an atheistic point of view, Antony believes that a person does not need to depend on God in order to complete good deeds. I agree, whether Christian or Atheist, all can perform good deeds, but who ultimately defines good versus evil? Antony subjectively defines morality and uses nature as her source.

Socrates is treating Euthyphro as the teacher, when in fact Socrates is teaching Euthyphro. It seems like Euthyphro is not thinking along the right line at all. Let’s take into account the Divine command theory, which says that the moral action is the one of God says is moral and if God prohibits it then it’s not moral. This theory is widely held to be refuted by Euthyphro argument. Euthyphro, the argument, gives two alternatives to the divine command theory that either morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.

According to dictionary.com, Piety is defined as “reverence for God or devout fulfillment of religious obligations” (dictionary.com). There has been controversy about the exact definition of piety and how it applies. Some believe that it is more related to religion and others believe that it has more to do with morality. Piety vs impiety is the main topic of the first chapter, Euthyphro, in Plato’s The Trial and Death of Socrates. The chapter focuses on and follows the dialogue between the two philosophers as they delve into the true meaning of piety and impiety as a means to figure out how Socrates can defend himself in court.

Euthyphro was prosecuting his father for doing something wrong which would be impiety, not holy, but Socrates states that is one example of piety however not a broader conclusive definition. Knowing when to pray and what to pray for on a specific occasion however Euthyphro stated holiness is what is loved by god’s and unholiness is what is hated by gods. Socrates continued his challenge by stating that gods do disagree about what is just and not just and some things are hated by gods and not hated by

According to the lecture, piety is a term that refers to what it means to be good or holy in the eyes of the gods. In the reading, Euthyphro gives several different definitions of the term piety. The definition that stood out to me the most was the one in which Euthyrphro says, “…what is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious” (Euthyphro, 8). This seems like a simple definition. However, Socrates objects this definition on the grounds that the gods disagree among themselves as to what is 'pleasing'.

Piety is the quality of being religious and reverent. It is used in a way to refer to win the favor or forgiveness of God. Piousness is an act of doing right things and being the righteous in the eyes of the God and according to Holy scripts, as it is mentioned in Holy Quran “… and whoever respects the signs of Allah, this is (the outcome) of the piety of hearts.” Piety is also a believe or point of view which is accepted with unthinking conventional reverence. The argument between Euthyphro and Socrates started when they met each other at king-archon’s court, where Socrates explained him that he is under indictment by one Meletus for corrupting young and not believing in gods in whom city believes.

King distinguishes between just and unjust laws by explaining the difference between them; he explains the moral affect each one has, the unfair way the majority used unjust laws, and the reason breaking unjust laws is okay. Now then, King uses morality to help explain the difference between just and unjust laws. King says “A just law is a man-made law that squares with the moral law or the law of God.” (356) He goes on to say “Unjust…….

Socrates does not make sound arguments because although his premises are logical, they sometimes have nothing to do with the original argument. In Plato’s Euthyphro, the Euthyphro dilemma argument states whether the Gods love the pious because it is pious or it is pious because the Gods love it. In order to support this distinction, Socrates’ first premise in supporting this conclusion is the example of being carried. Socrates claims that there is a difference between something that is already in the state of being carried because it is carried or if something is carried because it is in the state of being carried.

And yet again, Socrates is able to react to this quote by causing Euthyphro to question his statement by replying, “And to give correctly is to give them what they need from [e] us, for it would not be skillful to bring gifts to anyone that are in no way needed.” (p.19). Through this reiteration of Euthyphro’s statement regarding gifting the gods, Socrates is able subtly hinting that a true, “good” entity should not require to be gifted from a being of a lower status and instead should help others as it is in their “good” nature. For God wants to help humans for the sake of working

He points out that a just law is a moral law or a law of God, and that an unjust law is a law that is dissonant with the moral law. Unjust laws do not have there foundations in eternal law nor natural law (par. 16). He states the that any law that brighten ups “human personality” is a just law and any law that devalues human personality is an unjust law. MLK finishes of by saying that segregation is sinful. He finds this out by breaking it in to part like so; separation is sinful, segregation laws separate, and therefore segregation laws are sinful.

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God Analysis Religion has unquestionably shaped the structure of the United States from the founding of the first colonies on the eastern coast to modern political disputes. The roots of its grasp upon american society can be tied back to settlements in the east for the purpose of establishing strict religious communities. Although many continued to hold onto older religious beliefs as the colonies progressed, american colonies began to drift from the stern ideals which were held by the colony’s founders. In fear of allowing the colonies to become involved in “worldly matters”, movements such as the Great Awakening arose. In this campaign, many ministers sought to instill fear upon those they believed to be

Divine command theory states that an act is good if and only if it is loved by the gods. That is, to be loved by the gods and to be good are the same. An important challenge to this assertion, the Euthyphro

Jones. Only foundation for atheist for not having faith in Gods is that they believe there is a deficiency of faithful indication, Atheists debate if God is present then why evil subsists? Why hurt or loss? Why suffering? Mackie point is if Holy Being subsists as well as is a presence that is completely good, all-powerful, all-knowing, then there shouldn’t be reality of evil, and theists would not discard that Holy Being is completely good, omnipotent, and omniscient and along with that they believe in the existence of some evil.

Hello Sir I have a question about the connection between God’s existence and morality. The Euthyphro dilemma summarizes Kant’s argument. Our motivation to obey God’s commands are either moral or not. If moral then the moral motivation to obey God precedes God’s command.