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
God’s righteousness is good. God is good in His entirety. There is nothing about God that is not good (Romans), this is basically saying that the goodness of God is a life-transforming truth and that we should use the words of God in are attitudes and actions. The Ten Commandments are the clear example of God setting the standards of what is morally right and wrong. We follow these laws that God has set because we believe that they show us are sins and if we follow these laws that we will be reward towards the light.
Since we know evil and suffering is a necessary bi-product of human life, we must acknowledge that evil does exist. This proves problematic as it then brings into question the traditional theist’s view of God. However, no traditional theist would accept Hume’s conclusions because it denies God of His perfection. There are ways of sidestepping this issue such as, atheism, deism and polytheism, but none are accepted by traditional theists, and are therefore not a true solution to the problem. A theodicy is seen as a true solution as it defends God’s nature in the face of evil and suffering.
Just like a religious believer who states “god loves us” but can’t explain the contradiction of evil in the world, believers qualify their statements by explaining god’s love is not like humans love he calls this “death by a thousand qualifications”. Therefore religious language is meaningless. However religion has responded to the falsification principle. R.B Braithwaite argued that the falsification principle explains religious language as cognitive when it if in fact non cognitive and therefore cannot be falsified, religious language is therefore still meaningful. Hare also responds to the falsification principle, showing that religious statements are meaningful even though they cannot be falsified because they have a significant impact for the people using the statement.
A KoF can be the good guy or the bad guy, depending on how you view religion and the story of Abraham and Isaac for this purpose. A true KoF will be the individual or group of individuals who will defy the common worldly law of ethics in order to fulfill a religious duty. This duty may incorporate many different immoralities and negative actions. However, the immoral acts will be justified by the religion or religious figure that gives divine approval for it. This presents an issue with the moral and rational reasoning behind the deeds.
In Euthyphro, Socrates brings up a question that is very debatable. Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods? This basically asks whether something is right because it is right or is it right because God says its right. I think something is right because it is right. I think people have a conscience because we are able to reason and have empathy for others so we know when something is wrong.
In the dialogue Socrates asks, “Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?” (Rachels, 50). This question asks out of two opposing possibilities, which one is true? On the one hand it asks whether God decides what is moral and immoral. Is God the one that determined that it is wrong to steal, murder, and torture? Did god determine that it is good to help the poor, give gifts, and preserve life?
He then leads up to his main objection of this definition by means of stating that even though men and gods love that which they think is noble and good, and hate that which is opposite to those things, not everyone thinks this way about all things (Plato, 7). This being in the nature of things that are considered to be good by a group of people, can be hated by others, and this would also apply to the gods, for not everyone thinks the same. Socrates then uses a good example concerning the gods to better prove his reasons. He states that even though Euthyphro's decision to proceed against his own father may seem agreeable to Zeus, but not to Cronos or Uranus, and that there may be other gods who have these differences of opinions (7). Concerning
Examine the important concepts of two critiques of the link between religion and morality. For some religious followers there is a link between religion and morality due to the guidelines set by religion for morality, for example the Ten Commandments. However it is important to discuss whether or not there is a clear link between the two, as otherwise perceptions on what is moral may differ, causing conflict within society. The Euthyphro Dilemma is a classic discussion of this argument which was started by Plato. 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.
He was the man responsible for a majority of quotes that made this text popular. Voltaire’s satire evolves around Pangloss’s optimism. His philosophical views mainly target conceptions from the Enlightment. His views state that, “the conception that if God is all good, and all-puissant God had engendered the world and that, therefore, the world must be impeccable.” It is believed through his philosophy that it is seen as misguided or evil, it is because they do not understand the overall good that the “evil” is designated to accommodate. Like Candide, Pangloss is not a tenable character; rather, he is a distorted, hyperbolized representation of a philosopher whose beliefs and perspective is considerable linked to his philosophy.