The Euthyphro Dilemma
Socrates may be called the first “agnostic” in an anachronistic (big word I learnt 2 minutes ago) sense of the word. Euthyphro stands as one of his (or Plato’s) introductory yet profound dialogues. It can be seen as a mantra for atheists (the posse I say that I constitute), but I try, here, to propose an argument for the existence of a God to the best of my abilities. Just to clarify: we will be analysing a case for a monotheistic system, where God is omnibenevolent (like Christianity, but I am not sure about the other two omnis in my solution).
“Is Good approved by God because it is Good OR is Good good because God approves of it?”
a) Let us take the 1st part as true:
The Good is approved by God because it is good.
The need for a God seems arbitrary in this conclusion, as our actions seem to have their basis only in an immutable, objective morality, which is “above God,” in the sense that it exists independently of the need for such a being.
Analogy: the 3 organs of the government work separately but complementarily.
Legislature: makes the law (morality as made by God)
Executive: implementation of laws (enforcement in the form of karma or whatever punishment doing bad gains you in the physical world)
Judiciary: interprets the laws (Inferno/Purgatorio/Paradiso)
Unlike this system, God functions as all 3 at once (cause he is God and shi).
An omnibenevolent God created a moral system of laws (morality) in which he was desirous of good (his desires seem to change when we look upon this defense in a theistic lens—Scripture—but for a God this is fine), but he also happened to grant the citizens free will (whose usage against his desires he will punish in hell?).
Therefore, God approves of good not because it is good in itself, but because he desires the good, and the framework used to distinguish good/bad (morality) isn’t above him but created by him, in such a way akin to how the lawmakers, desirous of lawfulness, follow the law—but God, unlike them, isn’t chained to it.
“Certain constraints are freeing.” The word “constraint” is used the way we choose to follow what makes us happy in life, not because life forces that path upon us, but because we are desirous of that path.
b) The Good is good because God approves of it.
The major argument against this is the malevolent nature of God, which resonates with a theist in his “Holy Scriptures”: God commanding Abe to kill his son in Genesis 22, and the eternal punishment inflicted on non-believers in Surah An-Nisa 56.
All these instances vilify a God who is morally “bad,” but our God, who is a desirer of good (in his twisted ways), is safe…
Resolution:
We now have reasons to conclude that instead of being an unanswerable question, with one presupposition (his benevolence), the 2 options go hand in hand.
:- At least this is my idea; please share yours and refute me as much as possible, as that will only help me in learning. THANK YOU
What all is Wrong with this Explanation?