Did god determine that it is good to help the poor, give gifts, and preserve life? Or on the other hand did morality come about because of something independent of God. Meaning that the determination of that which is good or that which is bad came from something other than God and the reason that God agrees with certain actions is because the action is already morally right. The former of these two is known as the Divine Command Theory and the latter is the Autonomy Thesis. The clash of these two options is the Euthyphro Dilemma.
Socrates uses a rather elaborate argument to show this definition is also insufficient. If the gods approve of something because it is holy, their approval cannot be what makes it holy, he says. If an act is holy because the gods approve of it, we still do not know what makes it holy or why the gods approve. It seems that any attempt to define holiness by the will or approval of the gods is bound to fail. Even in contemporary society, we tend to associate morality with some kind of divine will, but through the Euthyphro, Socrates seems to suggesting we think along another line altogether.
Not my will, but your will be done?” Sometimes, we are afraid to do this because we have false concept that God’s will for us is not good. You might be thinking, “How about his plan for Jesus? That didn’t seem very good.” No question, it was very difficult for Jesus, to say the least. He faced the full wrath of God against all
And for morality to require God in such a way, there must be a direct link between the two. I believe that morality is defined by God, therefore immoral actions are wrong solely because God forbids them. Similarly, the “rightness” of moral actions is only because God has commanded them. In today's world things are defined as “right” or “wrong” or “moral” and “immoral.” This is because God, is the one that has allowed us to even understand what morality is. I believe that God is the creator and sustainer of all things, and that we would not even be self aware, let alone aware of right and wrong, if God had not created within us his image, and therefore the ability to make moral distinctions.
He based his argument on the statement “Does God will something because it is good or is something good because it is willed by God?” There are two ‘horns’ to this argument which stem from the statement; these both critiques of the link between religion and morality. Horn one questions “Does God command x because it is good.” This argument suggests that God is inferior to good, or perhaps good could even be temporally prior to God. In addition both God’s omnipotence and omniscience are damaged; he cannot claim full responsibility for creating the world and therefore cannot possibly have full control as it is not his creation. He also may not have the knowledge of right and wrong if it is independent of him. An independent good takes away from religious motivation to do good, we can be good for the sake of being good as opposed to seeking eschatological reward, for example going to heaven in the afterlife.
What is good is good within it. People should not behave in certain ways only because you think that God is asking it. If God were to command that rape is good, it would still not be so. Rape is bad within itself. Just like this there are more issues that people should consider bad even if in the future god would say that it is good.
Which follows on from which? Do the Gods make piety, or fit in with it? Euthyphro states “Is what is pious loved by the Gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved?” Essentially what Euthyphro is saying is ‘Does God command what is good because it is good, or is the good “good” because commanded it?’ This dilemma leaves us with an argument based upon circular logic, and no matter how we seem to go about answering it we are left with the same predicament. We could side with the latter half of this
Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful. They believe that the terms used are able to create absolute rules that everyone ought to follow. It would seem that ethical language is seen by many as very meaningful, although for varying reasons. However agent centred theories such as Virtue Ethics would argue that our main focus of morality should be on becoming as virtuous as possible, rather than deciding what is meant by ethical language. Therefore it would seem that perhaps morality should be more focussed on individuals’ actions rather then defining what is meant by ‘good’ and
Relativism relies on personal and cultural norms to determine what is right and wrong. This is not a valid source of morality because what is socially acceptable is not always what is right. There was a point in time when slavery was socially acceptable but that does not make it right. Furthermore, the secular humanist is a consequentialist, which means ethical choices are judged by their results (http://www.secularhumanism.org). The result of this moral compass is an unstable platform for truth; as a result secular humanism supports gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia.
For example if you were to tell a lie to prevent a murder or rape, the text describes that you should not do so because God sees all sin as equal. Although the above is made up of facts, if I were in the situation to save a life or prevent rape by telling a lie, I would also have a hard time not telling the lie. I believe this is where the conflicts being apparent and not real come into play. Even though I have a hard time grasping the idea of true equality of sins, I still believe that the unqualified