Euthyphro and God’s morality

Socrates; But they will be sure to listen if they find that you are a good speaker. There was a notion that came into my mind while you were speaking; I said to myself: “Well, and what if Euthyphro does prove to me that all the gods regarded the death of the serf as unjust, how do I know anything more of the nature of piety and impiety? for granting that this action may be hateful to the gods, still piety and impiety are notadequately defined by these distinctions, for that which is hateful to the gods has been shown to be also pleasing and dear to them.” And therefore, Euthyphro, I do not ask you to prove this; I will suppose, if you like, that all the gods condemn and abominate such an action. But I will amend the definition so far as to say that what all the gods hate is impious, and what they love pious or holy; and what some of them love and others hate is both or neither. Shall this be our definition of piety and impiety? 

Euthyphro; Why not, Socrates? 

Socrates; Why not! certainly, as far as I am concerned, Euthyphro, there is no reason why not. But whether this admission will greatly assist you in the task of instructing me as you promised, is a matter for you to consider. 

Euthyphro; Yes, I should say that what all the gods love is pious and holy, and the opposite which they all hate, impious.

…..

Socrates; And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro: is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods? 

Euthyphro; Yes. 

Socrates; Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason? 

Euthyphro; No, that is the reason. 

Socrates; It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved? 

Euthyphro; Yes. 

……
This is part of the Euthyphro dialogue as written by Plato. The dialogue is set in the weeks coming preceding Socrates’ trial, in which he was charged with corrupting the minds of the youth, and sentenced to death by poison. While near the court for his preliminary hearing, Socrates encounters Euthyphro, also there for a preliminary hearing. Euthyphro is taking his father to court for murder, and while everybody is against him for taking his own father to court, he insists that it is the just and moral thing to do. This leads Socrates and himself into a discussion on the nature of morality.

Euthyphro argues that Zeus himself came against his father Kronos who was a tyrant. They ought to emulate the gods. Socrates points out that many times the gods were against one another, so you could not know, then, which was the right thing to do. Euthypho comes to agree that what all the gods love is righteous, and what all the gods hate is wicked.

This of course leads to the famous Euthyphro dilemma. Do the gods love what is good because it is good, or is it good because the gods love it? The dilemma has escalated when taken out of its ancient Greek framework, and applied to the Judeo-Christian Monotheistic God of Scripture.

Does God love something because it is good, or is it good because God loves it? Or, does God command something because it is right, or is it right because God commands it?

If the answer is the first; that God loves and commands something because it is good, then goodness and morality is based on a higher standard, a standard that even God Himself is subject to. If this is the case, then there is something higher than God, for one thing, and God may also be judged according to this standard, and held accountable to it. If these things are true, then God ceases to be God.

If the answer is the second; that the thing is good because God loves and commands it, then it makes no sense to praise God for being good. God can be anything and what He says goes anyway. Not only that, but God can just be arbitrary; one day He may command us to love, but if the next day He commands us to hate then suddenly it is right to hate.

I think the trouble with the dilemma is, in order to ask the question in the first place, you have to assume something pretty major – that the moral standard is something separate from God Himself. God is the absolute standard of all things, God is God, He is first and foremost and above and beyond and before all things. Time, space, matter, energy, force, numbers, logic, consciousness – it all comes from Him and originates in Him.

God gives commands to be obeyed, but ultimately the moral standard is God Himself. All commands, all moral laws, are a reflection of the true and unchanging nature of God. A thing cannot go against its own nature, and God cannot go against His. Scripture says, God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2).

If God is truth then to lie would be do go against His nature. If God is light, then the works of darkness are against His nature. If God is a God of order, then chaos is against His nature. If God is love, then hatred is against His nature.

God does not just give arbitrary moral commands, God gives commands that reflect His perfect and divine nature. Just like in all other areas of reality, the things of the world reflect His nature. This must be understood before moving on to any discussion on Christian morals and ethics.

God before ‘I am’.

There are many things which I can write concerning philosophy. Of course God is first of everything, and logically He must precede all things. Even Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” misses a stage. Of course, “I am” is the name of God, and to begin with an ‘I’ other than God is the doctrine of Satan – pride. For a long time I wrestled with this – where did Descartes go wrong? Certainly, Nietzsche’s critique of the Cogito holds no water. Descartes’ statement is true a priori. However, for “I think, therefore I am” to make sense, logic must be true. We must presuppose the existence of the laws of logic, which have meaning only in a Universe of reason and order. The Theistic Worldview must be true to use logic – thus the self evident and absolute fact of God’s existence is a necessity before one can argue for the ‘first’ logical rule – the existence of self.