Euthyphro

The Euthyphro Problem Many controversial problems in society still remain unanswered today. One such problem in philosophy is where goodness originates from. In Plato’s dialogue, Euthyphro, the question is asked as to whether “Piety is good because the gods love it, or do the gods love piety because it is good?” Changing the question around a little yields the question as to whether something is good because God wills it to be good or if God calls it good because it is already good. For most religious believers, especially Christians, this question becomes tricky to answer. Arguing from the Judeo-Christian standpoint, one can see why the former part of the question is true. Considering the latter half of the question, one can see problems that arise with stating that God merely recognizes something as intrinsically good. God’s sovereignty is immediately brought into question. After all, if He is omnipotent, He would be able to make something good or not good. If something is out of God’s power to change, then He can no longer be considered omnipotent. In this sense, a theist couldn’t submit to the latter half as the truth.
In addition, the atheistic view of the autonomy thesis has flaws as well. The atheistic model of autonomy maintains that self-interest allows us to arrive at the moral law. However, this morality would be subjective to different cultures and views. One might avoid the consequences of the law by resolving not to murder. It could then be implied that murdering is morally wrong. Hypothetically speaking though, if an individual was born to a family of cannibals, it would be imperative for them to murder innocent people to receive their food. It would actually result in the happiness of a cannibal to fulfill their appetite. Would that make murder all right for some and wrong for others? This atheistic view doesn’t present an objective law for moral nature.
The traditional Judeo-Christian theist will argue that something is solely good because God wills it to be as such. At the same time, this view draws many problems as well. Critics make the first argument that it isn’t comprehendible to make morality as one would make a sandwich. At first it does seem that you can’t create something immaterial like morality. However, arguing that it can’t be true because it isn’t easy to grasp is like arguing that gravity doesn’t exist because it isn’t tangible. This weak argument can’t discredit that God alone makes something good.
Critics use the second argument that God would possibly be able to change what is and isn’t good under the assumption that God creates goodness. After all, if He is an omnipotent God, He would have the power to change the rules of morality. At first glance, this statement holds true until one understands the attributes of God. The Bible claims that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So essentially, God could change the laws of morality, but He won’t due to his very own character. That is why torturing children will be wrong just as it was wrong decades ago, and it will continue to be wrong in the future.
A third argument is that theists use wrong reasons for adhering to certain moral principles. According to a theistic view, morality solely relies on God. With that line of thinking, torturing children is wrong because it runs counter to God’s will, but not because of the physical and mental damage it causes. Therefore, if God ceased to exist, child abuse wouldn’t necessarily be wrong. A theist could counter by stating that God will never leave existence, and therefore morality will never cease to exist either. In addition, when the atheist states that a theist has wrong reasons for holding to certain moral principles, it can be asked why an atheist is allowed to determine what is a right or wrong reason.
Finally, the biggest problem with stating that God determines what is good is the arbitrariness. An atheist will argue that there is no set guideline for morality. If morality isn’t grounded in something, then there is no foundation. For example, in the argument that God merely recognizes what is good, the atheistic view holds that morality is grounded in the self-interest of an individual. If morality is solely based on the will of God, it would potentially be subject to change.
A theist then, figuratively speaking, is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If the theist holds to the statement that morality is solely dependent on God, the arbitrariness problem is raised. But at the same time, if something is intrinsically good and just recognized by God, the theist gives up the omnipotence of God. A third line of reasoning helps the theist in this situation. If the laws of morality are etched into the very characteristic of God, he wouldn’t necessarily be subject to the law. The arbitrariness problem is avoided since the foundation would be the very traits of God, which are not subject to change. Also, the reason why atheists and theists hold to the same moral values is because God wrote His laws on everyone’s hearts, regardless of gender, race, or religion as the Bible states in the second chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans. That is why many try to justify the reasons that they break the moral laws.
Anything is good solely because God wills it to be as such. Although this concept is difficult to grasp, it doesn’t mean it’s wrong by any means. Arguing from a Judeo-Christian view shows that God makes good and bad. The moral law being a characteristic of God keeps him from doing otherwise and gives a foundation to morality. In essence, yes, morality is solely dependent upon God.