In the Euthyphro dialogue, Plato considers the question “what is piety?” (Grube, 1991). By so doing, he wants to establish whether piety is living as gods in Greek want or if what gods will and want good and pious. Plato observes that choosing any of the options is inconclusive since it ends up in a dilemma. According to Plato in this dialogue, piety can be defined as “that which is dear to the gods” or what the gods love (Grube, 1991). For the purposes of this paper, piety will be substituted for morality. This essay is a philosophical analysis of the Euthyphro problem including the two main claims made by Socrates in a dialogue with Plato, the Divine Command Theory and finally the paper will attempt to conclude which of the two claims made by Socrates Plato considers correct.
The Euthyphro problem is derived from a dialogue that takes place between Plato and Socrates. In this dialogue, Socrates asks whether some things are right since God has commanded them or if gods commands and recommends them for they are right. The first claim in this dialogue is that a moral action is right if it is commanded by God. In this claim, it can, therefore, be deductively concluded that an action will also be right if God changed his mind and restated the command. In the second claim, God concludes that something is morally right because in infinite wisdom it is obviously to him right. This eliminates to the arbitrariness of God’s commands. To solve which of the two claims is correct, some scholars have argued their case using the divine command theory, but it has created logical dilemmas which it has not been fully able to address. In the observations by Plato, religion should borrow from morality, but moral concepts can exist as separate entities from religion.
Divine command theory can be described as a morality view which states that an action is right when the gods recommend, and what is wrong is basically what the gods restricts. It “combines morality and religion” so that they appear comfortable for some people since it offers a convenient solution to arguments regarding moral relativism (Austin, 2006).
The ethical implication of this problem based on the divine command theory is that religion and morality are not distinct as previously thought. In this problem when an interlocker accepts either of the claims that Socrates makes, they are forced to logically conflict other beliefs that they have, thus creating a logical dilemma that they must solve. Take for example, if morality is based on whatever gods will, then if the will of God of whatever is morally wrong now changes; whatever is wrong become right and so if God commands people to murder babies, it follows that murdering babies will be morally right since morally right actions arise because God commands it. The second implication is that when morality is independent of God’s will, God cannot make what is wrong to be right, it will then generally be concluded that God will then have no option but to conform his will to something that is independent of him. The second implication, therefore, places a constraint on God since if God were supremely good and morality independent of him, then God can only will that which is good. This would deny him the quality of being omnipotent, but since God is omnipotent, morality can Restrict God but be dependent on the nature of God. He is the ultimate reality in which everything morally good needs to relate back to his nature.
Socrates argues that which “is dear to the gods is dear to them because it’s dear to them and because they love it” (Grube, 1991). Plato is the opinion that Piety is what is dear to the gods because they love it he does not support his case. This means that he seems to suggest that the things that gods value they will love them, and there are no other reasons why God loves them. He thus supports the second claim that something is right because it is dear to gods and thus they command it because it is right. The goodness of God is the same property as gods will. People cannot understand a concept without the other which is the argument of Socrates in response to the conclusion of Plato of the correctness of the first claim. He says that good is good is not a truth that can be analyzed and that morality that is dependent on God is a metaphysical truth and not a conceptual truth that needs further analysis.
In conclusion, it can be seen that from the dialogue Socrates suggests that there is not a clear answer as to how the logical dilemma that is created by the two claims. Both have undressable issues that need deeper reflections. He establishes that humans cannot give anything to gods since they lack nothing and so the point of striving to do well is only meant to please them. Thus, what is pious is only what is beloved of gods making all the attempts to solve the problem as suggested by Plato to be invalid. When Socrates offers they start all over again, Plato excuses leaving arguing “some other time my friend, it’s time to go” (Grube, 1991).
References
Austin, M. W. (2006). Divine Command Theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 21.
Grube, G. M. A., & Cooper, J. M. (1981). Plato: five dialogues. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
