Analyzing Jane Craig's Euthyphro Dilemma
In this essay I will critically analyze William Jane Craig’s proposed solution the Euthyphro’s dilemma: that the dilemma itself is a false one. He continues to on to offer an alternative to the two horns which are presented in Euthyphro’s dilemma.
I start by outlining the Euthyphro dilemma and the consequences of choosing either option. The dilemma of the moral argument goes like this:
Is something good because God wills it to be good?
Or does God will something because it is good?1
If we accept option (1), God is the ultimate source of morality because what makes an action wrong is the fact that God says it is not right. If morality is dependent on God 's will, any action would be good just by him commanding that we do it. This implies …show more content…
This response to the Euthyphro dilemma seems like an atypical response from Christians on the basis that Christians would reject the first option as they do not believe God’s power is an arbitrary function of morality. And rejects the second option as they believe that God is almighty and omniscient and there is no greater power.
By creating an alternative, the atypical Christian answer avoids the dilemma entirely by arguing that divine nature is the moral standard. It is the character of God which determines how God commands us to behave. This is also reinforced in Scripture, where we see the terms “holy” and “godliness” frequently used as synonyms for moral pious or piety. They are one and the same thing. And is further reinforced by Scott Rae, "Morality is not grounded ultimately in God 's commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His …show more content…
Some atheists will push Euthyphro 's dilemma further by asking, "Is the character of God good because it is God 's character or is it God 's character because it is good?". One thus could argue that by offering an alternative Craig just pushes the dilemma back one step and does not inherently solve the problem. However, is this a plausible counter argument? I believe not. Just as Aristotle argued that an actual infinite regress of cause and effect was impossible; there has to be a self-sufficient, ultimate stopping point or else the process of giving explanations will never come to an end. I believe as a theist, that there is a stopping point that is definitive of what is good and bad; we must come to a point where we must allow that there is an entity which makes moral decrees because those decrees are good in themselves AND the grounding of the goodness of those decrees resides entirely within that entity. That entity, I call ‘God.’
The question now becomes, “is your ultimate stopping point a plausible stopping point?” I believe that for theists’, God is a plausible stopping point; he is the ultimate metaphysical, there is nothing beyond God by definition and moreover since God is a being that is worthy of worship, I think any being worthy of worship is the paradigm of goodness. Even an atheist would agree with such an idea; that God is the greatest conceivable being and if there were to be any being
I start by outlining the Euthyphro dilemma and the consequences of choosing either option. The dilemma of the moral argument goes like this:
Is something good because God wills it to be good?
Or does God will something because it is good?1
If we accept option (1), God is the ultimate source of morality because what makes an action wrong is the fact that God says it is not right. If morality is dependent on God 's will, any action would be good just by him commanding that we do it. This implies …show more content…
This response to the Euthyphro dilemma seems like an atypical response from Christians on the basis that Christians would reject the first option as they do not believe God’s power is an arbitrary function of morality. And rejects the second option as they believe that God is almighty and omniscient and there is no greater power.
By creating an alternative, the atypical Christian answer avoids the dilemma entirely by arguing that divine nature is the moral standard. It is the character of God which determines how God commands us to behave. This is also reinforced in Scripture, where we see the terms “holy” and “godliness” frequently used as synonyms for moral pious or piety. They are one and the same thing. And is further reinforced by Scott Rae, "Morality is not grounded ultimately in God 's commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His …show more content…
Some atheists will push Euthyphro 's dilemma further by asking, "Is the character of God good because it is God 's character or is it God 's character because it is good?". One thus could argue that by offering an alternative Craig just pushes the dilemma back one step and does not inherently solve the problem. However, is this a plausible counter argument? I believe not. Just as Aristotle argued that an actual infinite regress of cause and effect was impossible; there has to be a self-sufficient, ultimate stopping point or else the process of giving explanations will never come to an end. I believe as a theist, that there is a stopping point that is definitive of what is good and bad; we must come to a point where we must allow that there is an entity which makes moral decrees because those decrees are good in themselves AND the grounding of the goodness of those decrees resides entirely within that entity. That entity, I call ‘God.’
The question now becomes, “is your ultimate stopping point a plausible stopping point?” I believe that for theists’, God is a plausible stopping point; he is the ultimate metaphysical, there is nothing beyond God by definition and moreover since God is a being that is worthy of worship, I think any being worthy of worship is the paradigm of goodness. Even an atheist would agree with such an idea; that God is the greatest conceivable being and if there were to be any being