The Euthyphro Dilemma comes from ancient Greece and appears in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro, written around 400 BC. In the dialogue, Socrates questions a man named Euthyphro who claims to know what pleases the gods. Philosopher William Lane Craig explains the supposed dilemma as follows:
"Is something good because God wills it? Or does God will something because it is good? If you say that something is good because God wills it, then what is good becomes arbitrary. God could have willed that hatred is good, and then we would have been morally obligated to hate one another. That seems crazy. Some moral values, at least, seem to be necessary. But if you say that God wills something because it is good, then what is good or bad is independent of God."1
Some atheist thinkers, such as Jeffrey Jay Lowder,2 acknowledge that the Euthyphro Dilemma is a poor objection, while others, like Alex Rosenberg,3 still believe it poses a serious challenge. However, as Dr. Craig explains, the dilemma ultimately fails because it forces a false choice. He writes:
"We don't need to refute either of the two horns of the Euthyphro Dilemma because the dilemma it presents is a false one: There's a third alternative, namely, God wills something because He is good. What do I mean by that? I mean that God's own nature is the standard of goodness, and His commandments to us are expressions of His nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God.
So moral values are not independent of God because God's own character defines what is good. God is essentially compassionate, fair, kind, impartial, and so on. His nature is the moral standard defining good and bad. His commands necessarily reflect His moral nature...[s]o the Euthyphro Dilemma presents us with a false choice, and we shouldn't be tricked by it. The morally good/bad is determined by God's nature, and the morally right/wrong is determined by His will. God wills something because He is good, and something is right because God wills it."4
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Philosopher Paul Gould Considers Erik Wielenberg's "Brute Fact Atheism"
Debate Video: Jeff Lowder vs. Frank Turek- What Better Explains Reality: Naturalism or Theism?
William Lane Craig on Objective Moral Values and Duties
Footnote:
1. William Lane Craig, On Guard, p. 135.
2. See his debate with Frank Turek during the Q and A here.
3. See Rosenberg's debate with Dr. William Lane Craig here; specifically, his rebuttal.
4. Ibid., p. 135-136.
Related Posts
Debate Video: Jeff Lowder vs. Frank Turek- What Better Explains Reality: Naturalism or Theism?
William Lane Craig on Objective Moral Values and Duties
Comments