Tags: Reflective Essay FormatHow To Solve Hair Loss ProblemCollege Annual Function EssayAbortion The Right To Life EssayNursing Dissertation QuestionsRole Of Critical ThinkingPeriodical Essay By Joseph AddisonSolve Percent ProblemsVocabulary For Essay Writing Ielts
Tis Socrates quickly snaps up by saying that, i those premises, i would mean the gods need help from man; cnversely, snce both of them can agree that the gods are omnipotent, i would make no sense claiming that man can in any way help the gods.
Abhorrent acts, or ones we would consider as such, are automatically pious, simply because God has decreed it, though many, including those who might be inclined to side with the this theory, would agree that they are abhorrent.
The theory also rules out the option of assuming that God is just an agent of morality, not its progenitor, leaving the devotee with a puzzling quandary.
It has achieved so much fame that the core question presented in this dialogue is now known as the Euthyphro Dilemma.
In the dialogue, Socrates presents Euthyphro with a choice, “Is what is holy loved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is loved [by the gods]? I will defend the first view: the idea that there are independent moral standards, separate of any deity or their commands, and that there is a sovereign framework by which God understands what is moral.
This theory proposes that there is no rationale, moral or immoral, behind divine commands, and hence renders both his commands and morality subject to his whims.
On this theory, God could have commanded, for example, for one to kill an innocent child, and it would have been mandatory for a person to do it.According to this theory, there are no moral standards that exist without God’s will, and without his commands, nothing would be right or wrong.God is omnipotent, and therefore, morality itself is derived from God’s nature.The definition is incomplete, snce the gods themselves have been known to disagree on various matters; ufortunately, tere is very little that would please them all.Tis way what could be pious according to one god will be termed as impious according to another god; a such, te definition is not a complete one.In order to make my argument, I will substitute the word `God’ for Plato’s ‘gods’, and the word ‘moral’ for ‘holy’.These changes will not affect the strength or cogency of the argument, and will make the dilemma more relevant to the modern reader.Without God, there is no basis for our moral structure and under this, what is moral is so because God has decreed it as such.This theory would stress the complete sovereignty of God’s will, and the concept that morality exists based not on reason, or any logical basis, but simply due to the arbitrary nature of God’s commands.Scrates goes on to make a claim the gods’ love for a thing is a determinant of its piety, ego the holiness of something determines its stand with the gods.A such, h concludes that what is pious is not the same as what the gods love, rndering his opponents argument irrelevant.