The Euthyphro dilemma is a question that can be traced back to one of Plato’s writings where Socrates and Euthyphro are talking about morality and the gods. The dilemma can be summarized in simple terms as such:
Something can be defined as good one of 2 ways:
1. It is good because God declares it to be good.
2. It is good independent of God and God loves it and commands it because it is good.
The above 2 options (sometimes called “horns” of the dilemma) are called a dilemma because each option offers problems for the theist. Let me start by saying that I believe that horn #2 poses less of a problem for theists. The main consequence stated for option #2 is that there is no longer a need for God if moral truths exist independently of God. Actually, to be fair, I believe it could be argued that there would still be other needs for the existence of a God (and those could be debated as well), but it is correct that the full force of the moral argument would be gone. Remember that the whole point of the moral argument is that objective morals could not exist without God, and because it seems that there are objective morals therefore God must exist. If a theist were to accept option #2 above then they would clearly have to dispense with that strong form of the moral argument (because option #2 admits objective morals do exist apart from God). As I noted in my previous post, there are theists who believe that there are standards of goodness apart from God. Some of these theists believe that all moral standards exist as truths apart from God and others believe that only some moral truths exist apart from God, but either way, they are running into the consequence of the second horn, and some readily admit to that.
Ok, so now option #1, usually called divine command theory. The problem with this option is sometimes described as morality becoming “arbitrary” because it is solely based on the whims of whatever God chooses to declare as good, even if they do not line up with what the vast majority of humans believes is good. Examples might be the best way to show how this could cause major difficulties. 1 Samuel 15:3 and 1 Timothy 2:12 are both passages which express commands which do not jive with what the vast majority of humans would agree is good (unless they are interpretively manipulated of course). 1 Samuel 15:3 is particularly bad because what is described is clearly genocide (slaughter of infants is even included in the command).
I personally believe that theists do have an underlying feeling that option #2 is really what is going on, but they don’t realize it. This came out in a debate I had with one of my Christian friends when I told him I had decided I could no longer believe in the Christian message. My friend told me that the truth of Christianity was obvious, and that all one needed to do was examine the major faiths to see this. What do you think was the first religion he chose to prove was obviously false? Why it was Islam of course. Why? He said it was obvious because just look at Jihad and suicide bombers! Now this friend of mine actually believed in option #1 of the dilemma above, but this is very inconsistent with the fact that he felt that he was able to judge the truth of religions by moral standards. Because if divine command theory is true then we would have no way to judge any religion by the morals that it espouses. Suicide bombing could actually be morally good if we believe that God can declare it to be good.
Louise Antony in her debate with William Lane Craig also hit on another very important observation – many theists try to re-interpret bible passages like the ones given above. If theists truly believed in divine command theory then there would be no need for interpretive gymnastics, they would simply leave the passages the way they are and accept that what they describe are good because God has commanded them. The simple fact that theists try to re-interpret them shows that there is some moral standard that they are using to judge what is written.
Now another popular apologist response to the dilemma is that there is no dilemma at all because there is a third option: God’s nature or character is what is good, and he can only command whatever lines up with his good nature. This is hard to think through, but it really is just a bit of sleight of hand trickery in moving the problem somewhere else. The dilemma and it’s consequences still stand and it simply has to be re-worded:
Something can be defined as good one of 2 ways:
1. It is good because it is consistent with God’s nature.
2. It is good independent of God and it is part of his nature because it is good.
Personally, if I were to be a theist, then I would believe in horn #2 simply because the consequences of the arbitrary nature of divine command theory are so very ugly. Goodness would lose it’s meaning for me if absolutely anything commanded by a god or gods can be defined as good.