Socrates And Euthyphro's Argument Analysis

Therefore, how do we know then what God approves or disapproves of? Divine command theory is the idea that certain actions are morally good or morally bad because they are what God wills for us. God’s demands determine what is right or wrong. What he tells us to do is right, and what he tells us not to do is wrong. This theory states that the only thing that makes an

This contradicts the assumption that God is the creator of all norms. (Based on Darwall 's Philosphical Ethics p. 42-44). 2) God created us, therefore we must follow his commands out of gratitude. Again, we face the problem that there appears to be a norm that exists independently from his command: that you should show gratitude, which seems inconsistent. (Darwall 's Philosophical Ethics p. 44).

This, he says is more important than knowing the facts about God or performing rituals. This is one reason Kierkegaard supports the knight of infinite resignation over that of faith. The knight of faith is also seen as something comfortable but Kierkegaard doesn’t think we should feel so comfortable. The knight of faith seems to jump into the infinite and come back and seems to have no faith, which Kierkegaard is uneasy with. The knight of faith wants the material world to be the way he wants it and remains focused on the fact that he believes in God but is getting it all back.

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.

This first premise is in relation to the second and third because if God is all powerful, wholly good and in existence, the product of his work, our world, should be a reflection of his being. It should entail a world with no evil, instead heavily endorsed with goodness. Mackie identifies this when he states “Good is opposed to evil, in such a way that a good thing always eliminates evil as far

What is sin? ” is addressed (5). Euthyphro’s dilemma is explained by Panos Dimas in his article when he says that if something is “loved by the gods….Socrates characterizes it as something that happens to it and therefore presupposes that the pious has already been constituted” (2). What this means is that we cannot be sure of what is good or bad because we do not know the real essence of what piety is. The basic question of the dilemma is: are morals considered ethical because the gods says so or do the gods say morals are ethical because they actually are?

With regards to the cosmological argument I am of the belief that Article Three of Question Two entitled “Whether God exists?” best summaries Aquinas’ opinions. Aquinas first outlines two objections of those who argue that God does not exist may raise. The first objection outlines that if God is an “infinite goodness” then there would be no evil, however evil is present in the world so God does not exist. I agree that this is a fair criticism because God is hailed as omnipotent and omnipresent, yet evil often prevails in the world. Despite this I feel the fact that Aquinas acknowledges this objection strengthens his later argument when he outlines “The Five Ways.” The second objection outlines there is no need to believe in a God because “the world can be accounted for by

While I agree with certain aspects of both theories, I have to dispute both outlooks on the ultimate power of God. John Hick believes that there is no way you can deny the existence of evil, but he believes all evil exists because the all powerful God allows it to. How could a God who is all good allow evil to be present, you ask? Hick’s answer to your question would be; In order to draw us closer to him(GOD). If there were no sorrows, pains, or woes, mankind would not see the need for God’s forgiveness and love.

The basis of the argument is the use of logic, which means that to prove that God exists one needs not apply experience. The Archbishop developed this argument to disapprove the fool mentioned in Psalms 14:1 who says that God does not exists. Anselm argues that the position taken by this fool is self-contradictory. In the verse

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