1. Morality and Authority

The Socratic Method of Philosophical Inquiry

1.  Read Plato’s dialogue “Euthyphro” at http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html.

2.  Define the term “morality” by answering Euthyphro’s dilemma.

If you were Euthyphro, how would you have responded when Socrates inquired:

“Is an action morally good because God commands it,
or does God command it because it is morally good?”

3. Read Euthyphro’s Dilemma at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_Dilemma

4. Read Divine Command Theory at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory.

“EUTHYPHRO”

by Plato

Written 380 B.C.E

Translated by Benjamin Jowett

Persons of the Dialogue
Socrates
Euthyphro

Scene
The Porch of the King Archon.

Euthyphro. Why have you left the Lyceum, Socrates? and what are you doing in the Porch of the King Archon? Surely you cannot be concerned in a suit before the King, like myself?

Socrates. Not in a suit, Euthyphro; impeachment is the word which the Athenians use.

Euth. What! I suppose that some one has been prosecuting you, for I cannot believe that you are the prosecutor of another.

Soc. Certainly not.

Euth. Then some one else has been prosecuting you?

Soc. Yes.

Euth. And who is he?

Soc. A young man who is little known, Euthyphro; and I hardly know him: his name is Meletus, and he is of the deme of Pitthis. Perhaps you may remember his appearance; he has a beak, and long straight hair, and a beard which is ill grown.

Euth. No, I do not remember him, Socrates. But what is the charge which he brings against you?

Soc. What is the charge? Well, a very serious charge, which shows a good deal of character in the young man, and for which he is certainly not to be despised. He says he knows how the youth are corrupted and who are their corruptors. I fancy that he must be a wise man, and seeing that I am the reverse of a wise man, he has found me out, and is going to accuse me of corrupting his young friends. And of this our mother the state is to be the judge. Of all our political men he is the only one who seems to me to begin in the right way, with the cultivation of virtue in youth; like a good husbandman, he makes the young shoots his first care, and clears away us who are the destroyers of them. This is only the first step; he will afterwards attend to the elder branches; and if he goes on as he has begun, he will be a very great public benefactor.

Euth. I hope that he may; but I rather fear, Socrates, that the opposite will turn out to be the truth. My opinion is that in attacking you he is simply aiming a blow at the foundation of the state. But in what way does he say that you corrupt the young?

Soc. He brings a wonderful accusation against me, which at first hearing excites surprise: he says that I am a poet or maker of gods, and that I invent new gods and deny the existence of old ones; this is the ground of his indictment.

Euth. I understand, Socrates; he means to attack you about the familiar sign which occasionally, as you say, comes to you. He thinks that you are a neologian, and he is going to have you up before the court for this. He knows that such a charge is readily received by the world, as I myself know too well; for when I speak in the assembly about divine things, and foretell the future to them, they laugh at me and think me a madman. Yet every word that I say is true. But they are jealous of us all; and we must be brave and go at them.

Soc. Their laughter, friend Euthyphro, is not a matter of much consequence. For a man may be thought wise; but the Athenians, I suspect, do not much trouble themselves about him until he begins to impart his wisdom to others, and then for some reason or other, perhaps, as you say, from jealousy, they are angry.

Euth. I am never likely to try their temper in this way.

Soc. I dare say not, for you are reserved in your behaviour, and seldom impart your wisdom. But I have a benevolent habit of pouring out myself to everybody, and would even pay for a listener, and I am afraid that the Athenians may think me too talkative. Now if, as I was saying, they would only laugh at me, as you say that they laugh at you, the time might pass gaily enough in the court; but perhaps they may be in earnest, and then what the end will be you soothsayers only can predict.

Euth. I dare say that the affair will end in nothing, Socrates, and that you will win your cause; and I think that I shall win my own.

Soc. And what is your suit, Euthyphro? are you the pursuer or the defendant?

Euth. I am the pursuer.

Soc. Of whom?

Euth. You will think me mad when I tell you.

Soc. Why, has the fugitive wings?

Euth. Nay, he is not very volatile at his time of life.

Soc. Who is he?

Euth. My father.

Soc. Your father! my good man?

Euth. Yes.

Soc. And of what is he accused?

Euth. Of murder, Socrates.

Soc. By the powers, Euthyphro! how little does the common herd know of the nature of right and truth. A man must be an extraordinary man, and have made great strides in wisdom, before he could have seen his way to bring such an action.

Euth. Indeed, Socrates, he must.

Soc. I suppose that the man whom your father murdered was one of your relatives-clearly he was; for if he had been a stranger you would never have thought of prosecuting him.

Euth. I am amused, Socrates, at your making a distinction between one who is a relation and one who is not a relation; for surely the pollution is the same in either case, if you knowingly associate with the murderer when you ought to clear yourself and him by proceeding against him. The real question is whether the murdered man has been justly slain. If justly, then your duty is to let the matter alone; but if unjustly, then even if the murderer lives under the same roof with you and eats at the same table, proceed against him. Now the man who is dead was a poor dependent of mine who worked for us as a field labourer on our farm in Naxos, and one day in a fit of drunken passion he got into a quarrel with one of our domestic servants and slew him. My father bound him hand and foot and threw him into a ditch, and then sent to Athens to ask of a diviner what he should do with him. Meanwhile he never attended to him and took no care about him, for he regarded him as a murderer; and thought that no great harm would be done even if he did die. Now this was just what happened. For such was the effect of cold and hunger and chains upon him, that before the messenger returned from the diviner, he was dead. And my father and family are angry with me for taking the part of the murderer and prosecuting my father. They say that he did not kill him, and that if he did, dead man was but a murderer, and I ought not to take any notice, for that a son is impious who prosecutes a father. Which shows, Socrates, how little they know what the gods think about piety and impiety.

Soc. Good heavens, Euthyphro! and is your knowledge of religion and of things pious and impious so very exact, that, supposing the circumstances to be as you state them, you are not afraid lest you too may be doing an impious thing in bringing an action against your father?

Euth. The best of Euthyphro, and that which distinguishes him, Socrates, from other men, is his exact knowledge of all such matters. What should I be good for without it?

Soc. Rare friend! I think that I cannot do better than be your disciple. Then before the trial with Meletus comes on I shall challenge him, and say that I have always had a great interest in religious questions, and now, as he charges me with rash imaginations and innovations in religion, I have become your disciple. You, Meletus, as I shall say to him, acknowledge Euthyphro to be a great theologian, and sound in his opinions; and if you approve of him you ought to approve of me, and not have me into court; but if you disapprove, you should begin by indicting him who is my teacher, and who will be the ruin, not of the young, but of the old; that is to say, of myself whom he instructs, and of his old father whom he admonishes and chastises. And if Meletus refuses to listen to me, but will go on, and will not shift the indictment from me to you, I cannot do better than repeat this challenge in the court.

Euth. Yes, indeed, Socrates; and if he attempts to indict me I am mistaken if I do not find a flaw in him; the court shall have a great deal more to say to him than to me.

Soc. And I, my dear friend, knowing this, am desirous of becoming your disciple. For I observe that no one appears to notice you- not even this Meletus; but his sharp eyes have found me out at once, and he has indicted me for impiety. And therefore, I adjure you to tell me the nature of piety and impiety, which you said that you knew so well, and of murder, and of other offences against the gods. What are they? Is not piety in every action always the same? and impiety, again- is it not always the opposite of piety, and also the same with itself, having, as impiety, one notion which includes whatever is impious?

Euth. To be sure, Socrates.

Soc. And what is piety, and what is impiety?

Euth. Piety is doing as I am doing; that is to say, prosecuting any one who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of any similar crime-whether he be your father or mother, or whoever he may be-that makes no difference; and not to prosecute them is impiety. And please to consider, Socrates, what a notable proof I will give you of the truth of my words, a proof which I have already given to others:-of the principle, I mean, that the impious, whoever he may be, ought not to go unpunished. For do not men regard Zeus as the best and most righteous of the gods?-and yet they admit that he bound his father (Cronos) because he wickedly devoured his sons, and that he too had punished his own father (Uranus) for a similar reason, in a nameless manner. And yet when I proceed against my father, they are angry with me. So inconsistent are they in their way of talking when the gods are concerned, and when I am concerned.

Soc. May not this be the reason, Euthyphro, why I am charged with impiety-that I cannot away with these stories about the gods? and therefore I suppose that people think me wrong. But, as you who are well informed about them approve of them, I cannot do better than assent to your superior wisdom. What else can I say, confessing as I do, that I know nothing about them? Tell me, for the love of Zeus, whether you really believe that they are true.

Euth. Yes, Socrates; and things more wonderful still, of which the world is in ignorance.

Soc. And do you really believe that the gods, fought with one another, and had dire quarrels, battles, and the like, as the poets say, and as you may see represented in the works of great artists? The temples are full of them; and notably the robe of Athene, which is carried up to the Acropolis at the great Panathenaea, is embroidered with them. Are all these tales of the gods true, Euthyphro?

Euth. Yes, Socrates; and, as I was saying, I can tell you, if you would like to hear them, many other things about the gods which would quite amaze you.

Soc. I dare say; and you shall tell me them at some other time when I have leisure. But just at present I would rather hear from you a more precise answer, which you have not as yet given, my friend, to the question, What is “piety”? When asked, you only replied, Doing as you do, charging your father with murder.

Euth. And what I said was true, Socrates.

Soc. No doubt, Euthyphro; but you would admit that there are many other pious acts?

Euth. There are.

Soc. Remember that I did not ask you to give me two or three examples of piety, but to explain the general idea which makes all pious things to be pious. Do you not recollect that there was one idea which made the impious impious, and the pious pious?

Euth. I remember.

Soc. Tell me what is the nature of this idea, and then I shall have a standard to which I may look, and by which I may measure actions, whether yours or those of any one else, and then I shall be able to say that such and such an action is pious, such another impious.

Euth. I will tell you, if you like.

Soc. I should very much like.

Euth. Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods, and impiety is that which is not dear to them.

Soc. Very good, Euthyphro; you have now given me the sort of answer which I wanted. But whether what you say is true or not I cannot as yet tell, although I make no doubt that you will prove the truth of your words.

Euth. Of course.

Soc. Come, then, and let us examine what we are saying. That thing or person which is dear to the gods is pious, and that thing or person which is hateful to the gods is impious, these two being the extreme opposites of one another. Was not that said?

Euth. It was.

Soc. And well said?

Euth. Yes, Socrates, I thought so; it was certainly said.

Soc. And further, Euthyphro, the gods were admitted to have enmities and hatreds and differences?

Euth. Yes, that was also said.

Soc. And what sort of difference creates enmity and anger? Suppose for example that you and I, my good friend, differ about a number; do differences of this sort make us enemies and set us at variance with one another? Do we not go at once to arithmetic, and put an end to them by a sum?

Euth. True.

Soc. Or suppose that we differ about magnitudes, do we not quickly end the differences by measuring?

Euth. Very true.

Soc. And we end a controversy about heavy and light by resorting to a weighing machine?

Euth. To be sure.

Soc. But what differences are there which cannot be thus decided, and which therefore make us angry and set us at enmity with one another? I dare say the answer does not occur to you at the moment, and therefore I will suggest that these enmities arise when the matters of difference are the just and unjust, good and evil, honourable and dishonourable. Are not these the points about which men differ, and about which when we are unable satisfactorily to decide our differences, you and I and all of us quarrel, when we do quarrel?

Euth. Yes, Socrates, the nature of the differences about which we quarrel is such as you describe.

Soc. And the quarrels of the gods, noble Euthyphro, when they occur, are of a like nature?

Euth. Certainly they are.

Soc. They have differences of opinion, as you say, about good and evil, just and unjust, honourable and dishonourable: there would have been no quarrels among them, if there had been no such differences-would there now?

Euth. You are quite right.

Soc. Does not every man love that which he deems noble and just and good, and hate the opposite of them?

Euth. Very true.

Soc. But, as you say, people regard the same things, some as just and others as unjust,-about these they dispute; and so there arise wars and fightings among them.

Euth. Very true.

Soc. Then the same things are hated by the gods and loved by the gods, and are both hateful and dear to them?

Euth. True.

Soc. And upon this view the same things, Euthyphro, will be pious and also impious?

Euth. So I should suppose.

Soc. Then, my friend, I remark with surprise that you have not answered the question which I asked. For I certainly did not ask you to tell me what action is both pious and impious: but now it would seem that what is loved by the gods is also hated by them. And therefore, Euthyphro, in thus chastising your father you may very likely be doing what is agreeable to Zeus but disagreeable to Cronos or Uranus, and what is acceptable to Hephaestus but unacceptable to Here, and there may be other gods who have similar differences of opinion.

Euth. But I believe, Socrates, that all the gods would be agreed as to the propriety of punishing a murderer: there would be no difference of opinion about that.

Soc. Well, but speaking of men, Euthyphro, did you ever hear any one arguing that a murderer or any sort of evil-doer ought to be let off?

Euth. I should rather say that these are the questions which they are always arguing, especially in courts of law: they commit all sorts of crimes, and there is nothing which they will not do or say in their own defence.

Soc. But do they admit their guilt, Euthyphro, and yet say that they ought not to be punished?

Euth. No; they do not.

Soc. Then there are some things which they do not venture to say and do: for they do not venture to argue that the guilty are to be unpunished, but they deny their guilt, do they not?

Euth. Yes.

Soc. Then they do not argue that the evil-doer should not be punished, but they argue about the fact of who the evil-doer is, and what he did and when?

Euth. True.

Soc. And the gods are in the same case, if as you assert they quarrel about just and unjust, and some of them say while others deny that injustice is done among them. For surely neither God nor man will ever venture to say that the doer of injustice is not to be punished?

Euth. That is true, Socrates, in the main.

Soc. But they join issue about the particulars-gods and men alike; and, if they dispute at all, they dispute about some act which is called in question, and which by some is affirmed to be just, by others to be unjust. Is not that true?

Euth. Quite true.

Soc. Well then, my dear friend Euthyphro, do tell me, for my better instruction and information, what proof have you that in the opinion of all the gods a servant who is guilty of murder, and is put in chains by the master of the dead man, and dies because he is put in chains before he who bound him can learn from the interpreters of the gods what he ought to do with him, dies unjustly; and that on behalf of such an one a son ought to proceed against his father and accuse him of murder. How would you show that all the gods absolutely agree in approving of his act? Prove to me that they do, and I will applaud your wisdom as long as I live.

Euth. It will be a difficult task; but I could make the matter very dear indeed to you.

Soc. I understand; you mean to say that I am not so quick of apprehension as the judges: for to them you will be sure to prove that the act is unjust, and hateful to the gods.

Euth. Yes indeed, Socrates; at least if they will listen to me.

Soc. 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 not adequately 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?

Euth. Why not, Socrates?

Soc. 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.

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

Soc. Ought we to enquire into the truth of this, Euthyphro, or simply to accept the mere statement on our own authority and that of others? What do you say?

Euth. We should enquire; and I believe that the statement will stand the test of enquiry.

Soc. We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.

Euth. I do not understand your meaning, Socrates.

Soc. I will endeavour to explain: we, speak of carrying and we speak of being carried, of leading and being led, seeing and being seen. You know that in all such cases there is a difference, and you know also in what the difference lies?

Euth. I think that I understand.

Soc. And is not that which is beloved distinct from that which loves?

Euth. Certainly.

Soc. Well; and now tell me, is that which is carried in this state of carrying because it is carried, or for some other reason?

Euth. No; that is the reason.

Soc. And the same is true of what is led and of what is seen?

Euth. True.

Soc. And a thing is not seen because it is visible, but conversely, visible because it is seen; nor is a thing led because it is in the state of being led, or carried because it is in the state of being carried, but the converse of this. And now I think, Euthyphro, that my meaning will be intelligible; and my meaning is, that any state of action or passion implies previous action or passion. It does not become because it is becoming, but it is in a state of becoming because it becomes; neither does it suffer because it is in a state of suffering, but it is in a state of suffering because it suffers. Do you not agree?

Euth. Yes.

Soc. Is not that which is loved in some state either of becoming or suffering?

Euth. Yes.

Soc. And the same holds as in the previous instances; the state of being loved follows the act of being loved, and not the act the state.

Euth. Certainly.

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

Euth. Yes.

Soc. Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?

Euth. No, that is the reason.

Soc. It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?

Euth. Yes.

Soc. And that which is dear to the gods is loved by them, and is in a state to be loved of them because it is loved of them?

Euth. Certainly.

Soc. Then that which is dear to the gods, Euthyphro, is not holy, nor is that which is holy loved of God, as you affirm; but they are two different things.

Euth. How do you mean, Socrates?

Soc. I mean to say that the holy has been acknowledge by us to be loved of God because it is holy, not to be holy because it is loved.

Euth. Yes.

Soc. But that which is dear to the gods is dear to them because it is loved by them, not loved by them because it is dear to them.

Euth. True.

Soc. But, friend Euthyphro, if that which is holy is the same with that which is dear to God, and is loved because it is holy, then that which is dear to God would have been loved as being dear to God; but if that which dear to God is dear to him because loved by him, then that which is holy would have been holy because loved by him. But now you see that the reverse is the case, and that they are quite different from one another. For one (theophiles) is of a kind to be loved cause it is loved, and the other (osion) is loved because it is of a kind to be loved. Thus you appear to me, Euthyphro, when I ask you what is the essence of holiness, to offer an attribute only, and not the essence-the attribute of being loved by all the gods. But you still refuse to explain to me the nature of holiness. And therefore, if you please, I will ask you not to hide your treasure, but to tell me once more what holiness or piety really is, whether dear to the gods or not (for that is a matter about which we will not quarrel) and what is impiety?

Euth. I really do not know, Socrates, how to express what I mean. For somehow or other our arguments, on whatever ground we rest them, seem to turn round and walk away from us.

Soc. Your words, Euthyphro, are like the handiwork of my ancestor Daedalus; and if I were the sayer or propounder of them, you might say that my arguments walk away and will not remain fixed where they are placed because I am a descendant of his. But now, since these notions are your own, you must find some other gibe, for they certainly, as you yourself allow, show an inclination to be on the move.

Euth. Nay, Socrates, I shall still say that you are the Daedalus who sets arguments in motion; not I, certainly, but you make them move or go round, for they would never have stirred, as far as I am concerned.

Soc. Then I must be a greater than Daedalus: for whereas he only made his own inventions to move, I move those of other people as well. And the beauty of it is, that I would rather not. For I would give the wisdom of Daedalus, and the wealth of Tantalus, to be able to detain them and keep them fixed. But enough of this. As I perceive that you are lazy, I will myself endeavor to show you how you might instruct me in the nature of piety; and I hope that you will not grudge your labour. Tell me, then-Is not that which is pious necessarily just?

Euth. Yes.

Soc. And is, then, all which is just pious? or, is that which is pious all just, but that which is just, only in part and not all, pious?

Euth. I do not understand you, Socrates.

Soc. And yet I know that you are as much wiser than I am, as you are younger. But, as I was saying, revered friend, the abundance of your wisdom makes you lazy. Please to exert yourself, for there is no real difficulty in understanding me. What I mean I may explain by an illustration of what I do not mean. The poet (Stasinus) sings-

Of Zeus, the author and creator of all these things,
You will not tell: for where there is fear there is also
reverence. Now I disagree with this poet. Shall I tell you in what respect?

Euth. By all means.

Soc. I should not say that where there is fear there is also reverence; for I am sure that many persons fear poverty and disease, and the like evils, but I do not perceive that they reverence the objects of their fear.

Euth. Very true.

Soc. But where reverence is, there is fear; for he who has a feeling of reverence and shame about the commission of any action, fears and is afraid of an ill reputation.

Euth. No doubt.

Soc. Then we are wrong in saying that where there is fear there is also reverence; and we should say, where there is reverence there is also fear. But there is not always reverence where there is fear; for fear is a more extended notion, and reverence is a part of fear, just as the odd is a part of number, and number is a more extended notion than the odd. I suppose that you follow me now?

Euth. Quite well.

Soc. That was the sort of question which I meant to raise when I asked whether the just is always the pious, or the pious always the just; and whether there may not be justice where there is not piety; for justice is the more extended notion of which piety is only a part. Do you dissent?

Euth. No, I think that you are quite right.

Soc. Then, if piety is a part of justice, I suppose that we should enquire what part? If you had pursued the enquiry in the previous cases; for instance, if you had asked me what is an even number, and what part of number the even is, I should have had no difficulty in replying, a number which represents a figure having two equal sides. Do you not agree?

Euth. Yes, I quite agree.

Soc. In like manner, I want you to tell me what part of justice is piety or holiness, that I may be able to tell Meletus not to do me injustice, or indict me for impiety, as I am now adequately instructed by you in the nature of piety or holiness, and their opposites.

Euth. Piety or holiness, Socrates, appears to me to be that part of justice which attends to the gods, as there is the other part of justice which attends to men.

Soc. That is good, Euthyphro; yet still there is a little point about which I should like to have further information, What is the meaning of “attention”? For attention can hardly be used in the same sense when applied to the gods as when applied to other things. For instance, horses are said to require attention, and not every person is able to attend to them, but only a person skilled in horsemanship. Is it not so?

Euth. Certainly.

Soc. I should suppose that the art of horsemanship is the art of attending to horses?

Euth. Yes.

Soc. Nor is every one qualified to attend to dogs, but only the huntsman?

Euth. True.

Soc. And I should also conceive that the art of the huntsman is the art of attending to dogs?

Euth. Yes.

Soc. As the art of the ox herd is the art of attending to oxen?

Euth. Very true.

Soc. In like manner holiness or piety is the art of attending to the gods?-that would be your meaning, Euthyphro?

Euth. Yes.

Soc. And is not attention always designed for the good or benefit of that to which the attention is given? As in the case of horses, you may observe that when attended to by the horseman’s art they are benefited and improved, are they not?

Euth. True.

Soc. As the dogs are benefited by the huntsman’s art, and the oxen by the art of the ox herd, and all other things are tended or attended for their good and not for their hurt?

Euth. Certainly, not for their hurt.

Soc. But for their good?

Euth. Of course.

Soc. And does piety or holiness, which has been defined to be the art of attending to the gods, benefit or improve them? Would you say that when you do a holy act you make any of the gods better?

Euth. No, no; that was certainly not what I meant.

Soc. And I, Euthyphro, never supposed that you did. I asked you the question about the nature of the attention, because I thought that you did not.

Euth. You do me justice, Socrates; that is not the sort of attention which I mean.

Soc. Good: but I must still ask what is this attention to the gods which is called piety?

Euth. It is such, Socrates, as servants show to their masters.

Soc. I understand-a sort of ministration to the gods.

Euth. Exactly.

Soc. Medicine is also a sort of ministration or service, having in view the attainment of some object-would you not say of health?

Euth. I should.

Soc. Again, there is an art which ministers to the ship-builder with a view to the attainment of some result?

Euth. Yes, Socrates, with a view to the building of a ship.

Soc. As there is an art which ministers to the housebuilder with a view to the building of a house?

Euth. Yes.

Soc. And now tell me, my good friend, about the art which ministers to the gods: what work does that help to accomplish? For you must surely know if, as you say, you are of all men living the one who is best instructed in religion.

Euth. And I speak the truth, Socrates.

Soc. Tell me then, oh tell me-what is that fair work which the gods do by the help of our ministrations?

Euth. Many and fair, Socrates, are the works which they do. Soc. Why, my friend, and so are those of a general. But the chief of them is easily told. Would you not say that victory in war is the chief of them?

Euth. Certainly.

Soc. Many and fair, too, are the works of the husbandman, if I am not mistaken; but his chief work is the production of food from the earth?

Euth. Exactly.

Soc. And of the many and fair things done by the gods, which is the chief or principal one?

Euth. I have told you already, Socrates, that to learn all these things accurately will be very tiresome. Let me simply say that piety or holiness is learning, how to please the gods in word and deed, by prayers and sacrifices. Such piety, is the salvation of families and states, just as the impious, which is unpleasing to the gods, is their ruin and destruction.

Soc. I think that you could have answered in much fewer words the chief question which I asked, Euthyphro, if you had chosen. But I see plainly that you are not disposed to instruct me-dearly not: else why, when we reached the point, did you turn, aside? Had you only answered me I should have truly learned of you by this time the-nature of piety. Now, as the asker of a question is necessarily dependent on the answerer, whither he leads-I must follow; and can only ask again, what is the pious, and what is piety? Do you mean that they are a, sort of science of praying and sacrificing?

Euth. Yes, I do.

Soc. And sacrificing is giving to the gods, and prayer is asking of the gods?

Euth. Yes, Socrates.

Soc. Upon this view, then piety is a science of asking and giving?

Euth. You understand me capitally, Socrates.

Soc. Yes, my friend; the. reason is that I am a votary of your science, and give my mind to it, and therefore nothing which you say will be thrown away upon me. Please then to tell me, what is the nature of this service to the gods? Do you mean that we prefer requests and give gifts to them?

Euth. Yes, I do.

Soc. Is not the right way of asking to ask of them what we want?

Euth. Certainly.

Soc. And the right way of giving is to give to them in return what they want of us. There would be no, in an art which gives to any one that which he does not want.

Euth. Very true, Socrates.

Soc. Then piety, Euthyphro, is an art which gods and men have of doing business with one another?

Euth. That is an expression which you may use, if you like.

Soc. But I have no particular liking for anything but the truth. I wish, however, that you would tell me what benefit accrues to the gods from our gifts. There is no doubt about what they give to us; for there is no good thing which they do not give; but how we can give any good thing to them in return is far from being equally clear. If they give everything and we give nothing, that must be an affair of business in which we have very greatly the advantage of them.

Euth. And do you imagine, Socrates, that any benefit accrues to the gods from our gifts?

Soc. But if not, Euthyphro, what is the meaning of gifts which are conferred by us upon the gods?

Euth. What else, but tributes of honour; and, as I was just now saying, what pleases them?

Soc. Piety, then, is pleasing to the gods, but not beneficial or dear to them?

Euth. I should say that nothing could be dearer.

Soc. Then once more the assertion is repeated that piety is dear to the gods?

Euth. Certainly.

Soc. And when you say this, can you wonder at your words not standing firm, but walking away? Will you accuse me of being the Daedalus who makes them walk away, not perceiving that there is another and far greater artist than Daedalus who makes them go round in a circle, and he is yourself; for the argument, as you will perceive, comes round to the same point. Were we not saying that the holy or pious was not the same with that which is loved of the gods? Have you forgotten?

Euth. I quite remember.

Soc. And are you not saying that what is loved of the gods is holy; and is not this the same as what is dear to them-do you see?

Euth. True.

Soc. Then either we were wrong in former assertion; or, if we were right then, we are wrong now.

Euth. One of the two must be true.

Soc. Then we must begin again and ask, What is piety? That is an enquiry which I shall never be weary of pursuing as far as in me lies; and I entreat you not to scorn me, but to apply your mind to the utmost, and tell me the truth. For, if any man knows, you are he; and therefore I must detain you, like Proteus, until you tell. If you had not certainly known the nature of piety and impiety, I am confident that you would never, on behalf of a serf, have charged your aged father with murder. You would not have run such a risk of doing wrong in the sight of the gods, and you would have had too much respect for the opinions of men. I am sure, therefore, that you know the nature of piety and impiety. Speak out then, my dear Euthyphro, and do not hide your knowledge.

Euth. Another time, Socrates; for I am in a hurry, and must go now.

Soc. Alas! my companion, and will you leave me in despair? I was hoping that you would instruct me in the nature of piety and impiety; and then I might have cleared myself of Meletus and his indictment. I would have told him that I had been enlightened by Euthyphro, and had given up rash innovations and speculations, in which I indulged only through ignorance, and that now I am about to lead a better life.

THE END

49 Responses

  1. Greetings Sir,

    When do we say if an action is morally good? Does it follow that God is the basis of what is moral and what is not?

    First, let me define the terms. MORALITY according to Euthyphro’s dilemma has something to do with a virtue or moral quality and MORAL has different meanings.

    For me, if God commanded an action to be moral, no doubt that it is morally good because according to the divine command theory, an action is obligatory if and only if, and because, it is commanded by God.

    But, it’s different when the basis of saying that an action is morally good is from the society. If an action is morally good for us, thus we can say that God commanded it beacause it is good and righteous. It is likely to be moral but not proved. For example, in our country, it is acceptable to kill and eat a cow; therefore, it is morally good. But in India, they cannot kill and eat a cow because it is sacred; therefore for them it is not morally good.

    God Bless,

    Tricia Louise Parcia (1-CS4)

  2. Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?

    If that is Euthyphro’s dilemma? Then what is A Dilemma? It is simply a problem in which interpretations may raise serious theological problems.

    First let us define morality…..

    “Morality” is an unusual word. It is not used very much, at least not without some qualification. People do sometimes talk about “Christian morality…..but they seldom talk simply about morality all by itself. Some people used to claim that morality, like law, applied only within a society. They claimed that “morality” referred to that code of conduct that is put forward by a society…….but mostly…the “morality” that we know…is always based on the religion or the bible… so for us to truly know what “morality” means….we must ALWAYS remember that morality is based on “ethics” not religion…that is why we learned that there can be morality w/o GOD…and we also have to remember when we base our thoughts on such things in the bible keep in mind that

    “Not everyone has the same interpretation of the bible as you do…let alone believes in the bible…”

    What, then, is ethics? Ethics is two things. First..ethics refers to well based standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues.
    Secondly, ethics refers to the study and development of one’s ethical standards. As mentioned above, feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from what is ethical.

    So does a human being actions becomes good if commanded by God but has ill intentions. No it is not the humans intentions that matter but of God. As God is All Benevolent his will is of good. Well God commanded us in Genesis that we have all control of flocks of bird and all the fishes in the sea. Yes it was advantageous to us but was it to other existence? No because we misinterpreted God’s will or Morality is doing what is advantageous only to humans? Is it not?. Yes an action does become morally good if it is a commandment of God and it will only to the actor. Good and evil are but opinions and perspective. God commanded us to procreate but is all procreation right. “

    “Therefore actions isn’t determined by it cause but by its intentions”

    Therefore morality is independent of God’s will. Being humans who can’t understand Gods will is expected but we understand morality and actions just fine. So yes morally good actions will and should be morally good to us even if God COMMANDS IT OR NOT and an action that is commanded by God is morally and will always be morally but intentions and doers of those actions will never be morally good always.

    [mostly random thoughts]
    Jan Kievan Castillote [1-CS-4] ^_^

  3. Hello,
    Is it moral because the gods love it? That is the question. First of all let us define the term MORAL. When do we know when it is moral. It is moral when you treat a person a person and not a thing. And not using the person to yours means of an end. As an example when God said to Abraham to kill his son Isaac. It is commanded by God and wanted by God. But is it moral? Abraham will use his son Isaac to sacrifice to God. And he is using Isaac to means of an end and that is to please God himself. So for me it is moral even though there are no Gods or authority. It is on the person to decide if he/she will do it or not.

    Haha un lng… Ser taasan nyu bigay nyu sakin ah..

    ^__________________^

  4. Hi,
    I believe that:
    “God command it becase it is morally good.”

    DEFINITION OF TERMS
    *Morality as Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior(http://www.answers.com/moral&r=67).
    *Command as To direct with authority; give orders to(http://www.answers.com/command).
    *God as A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions(http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/god;_ylt=AqjwIRR93dzbVuciVwCqqJusgMMF).

    In this statement Morality is higher than God power and will. It does not depend on what God commands or do because in this statement morality becomes independent on what God’s will.
    If morality becomes dependent on God’s will, then Morality can change and will not be a standard of the right behavior or actions.

    In the bible God asked Abraham to kill his son. Is this morally good? Killing is not morally good, so it is not morally good because God commands it. For this will mean that anything that God commands will be morally good. Even if it not accepted in by any person.
    Also, in the story of the Tower of babel. God changed the language of all of mankind for them not to finish the tower. Why will God change their language, if He know that the tower will not reach heaven and will they will not be powerful than God. Making people not united as one is not morally good. (tama ba?=P)

    *If morality = God’s command , God’s command = arbitrary(Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference), then morality = arbitrary?
    Morality should not be arbitrary because then morality’s concept will be based on the subject’s preference and likeness.
    (Hindi ko alam kung tama to. Seryoso. Pumasok lang sa utak ko.)

    sana mataas magbigay ng score si Sir Diego Odchimar III. ^_^
    by: Elpidio Concepcion III [1cs4]

  5. Hello,

    What can I say?
    Well, Is something moral because the gods love it or the gods love it because it is moral?

    My answer is secret! Inde joke lng.

    Seriously, something is moral because God defined it as “moral” in the first place, just like love and life (parang love life).

    If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, then He can make anything as “anything”. Gets? (Kind of a lazy answer)

    We only learned that there is “morality” when God first defined to us what is right through His commandments.

    For those who say that God has limits or He ain’t really there, I have another answer.

    Morality was developed through time, evolution in other words. We learned it like we learned that there was Math, Philosophy and such. Morality is our relationship with other men (or women), it became better over time.

    (Many answers are inspired upon by many special persons)

    Sir taasan nyo nmn grade q. ^__^
    Baba q ata sa quiz eh! T_T

    TAKE CARE, or take care sla sa inyo? HAHA

  6. When judging Morality, we have to ask two basis of options; one being God, and the other being the “lawmakers”. Is what is Moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by god?
    If we accept the second option, the one which states the Divine Command Theory, then we’d accept anything the lord has commanded based on his whim. And in doing so, we’d also run into problems like that of Abraham and Euthyphro, in which we’d have to change morality by means of what is the God’s current interest lies in. And if, for example, God’s interest lies in murder, rape, incest, and abortion,then we’d have to adjust our sense of Morality to suit his means (tama ba?), whether we like it or not.
    If we accept the first option, then we will have a conflict of belief. In which, since a person is an individual (that being able to think and act by his or her own self without anyone to choose for him), we’d have to face the saying “we are situated in the world”.
    So what is morality? A moral act based on the God’s whim, or a moral act based on a “lawmaker’s” belief? If we base the answer on saying, “an act is moral when you do not use a person as a means to an end”, then Morality would then be based on a person’s own judgment. Thus implying the first option, that the gods have loved it because it is moral. In choosing the first option, then would Morality stand by its own by the sense that it was accepted and loved by the community or it stands on its own by the sense that it was by his or her own judgment of “moral”?
    I believed that the answer to the question above would be both. It was, in it’s own sense, moral because we have chosen right and just acts for ourselves, and would continue to do so since man has a conscience that would enable them to choose what is right from wrong…

    atsure akong puro butas yung argument ko dito….. is this an AR-GU-MENT?

    hehe, sir, sa susunod mas madaling tanong naman ibigay niyo sa amin, yung pang-kindergarden naman para may thrill (^^,)…

  7. Hello and have a wonderful day sir…

    Morality? What is meant by morality?
    This word is totally difficult to emphasize for we do not have the same picture. We are situated in the world right now, as you have said sir so people have different ideas and concepts in the meaning of morality.

    But for me, this is my definition of morality. Morality is an act that favors what religion are we believing to. In accordance to the dilemma “Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?”, I believe that God commands the action first before considering it a moral output because, I believe in the quote that God is good all the time and all the time God is good. Everything He have done to the world and especially to us Christians. He had never done any harm to us. He is perfect so I believe what He commands is moral.

    But, how about the other religions? When they follow the commandments of their gods that they believe, it is also considered as a moral action.

    In general, Morality is good for it is been commanded by the gods. People have their own gods that they believe in. They have their own faith and trust to them. If their gods commanded something, they consider them as sacred and good actions.

    hehe…. pasensya na puh sir medyo inaantok na ako kasi nyan ehh..salamat puh sa lahat lalo na sa mga love quotes nyu….hehehhe

    ^_^

  8. “Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    Morality agrees with our law and standards. Provided that it states the right thing to do. And where do we get these rules? From a God? Or from our own sense of right and wrong? Do you want to be killed? No you don’t. That’s when a law comes in: “Murder is a crime”. So murder is not right, or is it? What if God said it was moral? Then we should go around stabbing people and wait to be stabbed…. I believe morality exists because we need it. Be it God’s notion or the government’s decree, it is arbitrary.

    God gave us the Ten Commandments, now those are moral acts. But how should we explain the countless atrocities throughout history? Did morality exist then? I have reason to believe that the people before were just plain warfreaks. I also have reason to believe that God existed before. Having said that, I just can’t understand why there were a myriad of battles before if God truly existed. Maybe history itself helped us create morality. Thus, morality was created through time….

    For me, morality doesn’t just apply to a person, like not treating a person as a means to an end and all that jazz. I, for one, believe that morality is a foundation of everyone’s conscience and ethical principles, and our urge to help others and the world.

    Morality is the one thing keeping us from the promising apocalypse 🙂

    *Sorry if I didn’t make sense. I just typed in what I had in mind.*

    Janmar Roque [1-CS4]

  9. Morality. What is morality? In some dictionaries it means conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. But from answering Euthyphro’s dilemma the meaning of morality may change or it may not.

    “Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    If God commands it because it is morally good then the meaning of morality does not change. Its meaning is the same in all people. They would think of it as a postive thing and having it means you are a human being but if it is morally good because God commands it then it may no longer mean the positive way because God is commanding it to be moral.Authority is found in that sentence and it is related to the word “Power.” We all know God is powerful and whatever he commands we must do or else we might go to hell if we don’t. If that is true then God is abusing his power and not letting us choose what we think is right. Commanding something to be moral, what if that something is just plain bad or evi but God commanded it to be moral.Authority can be felt with negativity.

    All catholics think that God is good.We can never think that god is abusing us because we are his creations. He gave us life to live and always gave us the oppurtunity to be happy and successful, we on the other hand did not take the oppurtunity. That is why some thinks God doesn’t care about them.

    If God is all good and all knowing then I conclude that “God command it because it is morally good.” He will not abuse his authority because of his kindness and he wants us to live like human beings having feelings for each other, caring for one another and not doing inhumane actions that’s why He commands actions that is morally good.

    Virgil Cruz [1-CS-IV] ^^,

  10. Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?

    Morality is conformity to ideals of right human conduct. Thus, morality is the act of being moral. Eh? Then, moral, means conforming to a standard of what is right and good. Moral implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong.

    Back to the question, is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good? I pick the latter. Simply because I believe morality is not dependent on God. Even God Himself is subject to morality. He knows what is moral and what is not. God commands it because it is morally good, He just passes the knowledge on to us.

    If the first statement would be true, then if God says that killing a person you had an argument with is moral; does that make sense?

    -jin

  11. hello sir,
    “Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?”
    first I define morality asThe quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God? the dilemma implies that morality is independent of God and, indeed, that God is bound by morality just as his creatures are. God then becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge.
    Will god ask a people to do bad things?
    No He does not. Why did he created does commandments..
    So goodness is grounded in God’s character and merely expressed in moral commands. Therefore whatever God commands will always be good.
    Wala nko ma-isip
    Yun lng sir,

  12. “Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    The dilemma asks the question whether values can be conceived as the choice of any mind, even a divine one. On the first choice God created goodness and value. We cannot be satisfied with why God chose this for it is vacuously true that God chose the good. On the second choice it implies that there is a source of value beyond even the will of God, and by which they can be evaluated.

    The dilemma is about whatever the source of authority is supposed to be. Do we care about the good because it is good, or do we just call good those things that we care about? It also generalizes to affect our understanding of the authority of other things: mathematics, or necessary truth, for example. Are truths necessary because we deem them to be so, or do we deem them to be so because they are necessary?

    The answer is neither. God does not command morality but morality still comes from God. The standard of morality is formed by God’s nature, and is therefore distinct from his will, but not distinct from him.

  13. “is an action morally good cause the God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good”

    well i believe that the God command it because it is morally good. well by the way who is God?, God is our creator, savior, and the father of all humanity and he wants us all to be Good as his sons and daugthers. second what is moral?. first we must define the terms
    well what is moral. as said to the dictionary moral is 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
    2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
    3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
    4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
    5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
    6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
    7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
    8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
    –noun 9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
    10. the embodiment or type of something.
    11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

    so thats why that the God commands it because it is good, and God created the commandments for us to follow it and to be good

  14. “Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    As per my understanding of the dilemma, the first part implies that anything which comes from God, may it be ideas, words, actions, and the like, will naturally be good. This is based on our belief that God is the absolute goodness. The second part, on the other hand, suggests that morally good is a barometer on its own, against which, humans may assess their thoughts, deeds and actions.

    What, therefore, is morality? In my opinion, morality is the dictates of our conscience. Some might argue that conscience comes about due to our faith in God. I disagree. By definition, conscience is the conformity to one’s own sense of right conduct. Right conduct, meanwhile, approximates morality.

  15. good evening sir!

    Morality, in the argument, is an act obeying to the rules of God. For me, God created the basis on what is to be moral or not. As what theologians believe, God is arbitrary. God’s decisions can’t be persuaded by his emotions.
    Also, according to the Bible, God is all-knowing. God can see what will happen the future. So, God knows what to do because He already knows what will be the outcome of his decisions.

    “Is an action morally good because God commands it,or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    For me, an action is morally good because God commands it. As what I’ve said, God knows everything. He knows what is the best for His people,thus,making a set of rules to prevent bad things from happening to his people.

  16. Hi Sir.!

    Morality a complex and often confusing matter.What is moral? a question that has puzzled the brains of even the greatest philosophers.If I based the definition of moral from the dilemma of Euthyphro I would define it as something that is conforming to the right behavior or the right conduct.Now we’re left with the question “Is something moral because the gods love it,or do the gods love it because it is moral?” I believe that the god love it because it is moral.For the gods love all good things and our concept of gods are that all the gods only want what is best and what is good and that leads me to believe that the god love something because it is what is right and what is good.I realized this by the definition of moral.The definition of what is moral is not what is loved by gods, the definition is that it is what is conforming to the right behavior of human beings so I have concluded that in the inquiry of Socrates that the latter is true.

    sana naintindihan nyo po ung point ko.!

    RAISA ERINA A. BAUTISTA [1cs-4]

  17. We often stumble upon the word “Morality”, and technically, our daily actions are conveyed by this. Assessing the question stated above, I began to anticipate what would happen if morality never existed, and we don’t follow certain decrees. So then, is an action morally good because God commands it, or God commands it because it is morally good?

    Morality is considered as an accepted moral standard, the act of judging how right or wrong something is. How would I know that something is moral? If I were to base on the Divine Command Theory, an act is obligatory if and only if it is commanded by God. Therefore, we can say that an action is right because God commands it. If the act is wrong, do we consider it moral because God allows it? But basing on the real world, almost everyone believes that only a right act is moral, and it is also because we are affected by ethics. If that is so, I’d be able to say that morality is arbitrary.

    Now talking on my own perception, it says that an action is right when you don’t limit a person according to his capacities, but instead you just set him free, because a person is rational. Whatever he thinks is right will be right for him, and mainly because of the fact that we are all different, and each of us have different interpretations to a specific thing. I am not declaring that God treats Christians as things because whatever He commands they must follow, but what I am referring to is that since we are taught the difference between right and wrong then we base our thinking to whatever we believe, or it’s up to our conscience to weigh. And besides, not everyone in the world are Christians and not everyone relies on one God.

    Thus, I don’t agree to the first given statement nor to the second one. Because if God doesn’t allow assassination or any kind of killings, does it follow that penalizing evil-doers is right; shooting a murderer like what’s done by the police nowadays? And to think of the fact that only God can take the life of a person? Or if euthanasia is permitted [by the laws] when a living thing cannot struggle from a complex illness, does it follow that this isn’t moral because a mere human takes the life of a creature? Considering that hospitals and veterinary clinics do it? I therefore conclude that morality’s foundation doesn’t purely depend on God’s will but on the individual himself, dependent to his own choice, authority and conviction on what is right.

    [痛い~! my head… it hurts.]

    DEZA, Jaun Iyah Caryl R.
    1CS4

  18. […] was commented on Morality and Authority. […]

  19. “Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    First, we need to define the term “Morality”.
    Morality is descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society .
    God has given each person a freewill whether to be good or bad or to do right or wrong.
    God is the supreme being which is the most powerful of all.
    He is omniscient or all-knowing, meaning to say He is perfect. I know God is the only one who created the character “morality” in our lives.
    He is our God, and we must obey and respect what He has commanded.

    I don’t believe in “that an action is morally good because God commands it” statement. If you will think deeply, what will be the basis of being moral if there is no God? In that statement, God didn’t know what being moral is all about because what all He knows is just commanding and being powerful to his words but not really He knew it.
    And what if there is no God, it means that there is no morality already.

    For me, the right statement between the two is the “God command it because it is morally good”
    statement.
    As what I have said, God is a supreme being, he knows everything, what is right and what is wrong. And in this statement, He knows what He is commanding and telling to everyone.

    “THE END”

  20. what is morality? It can be defined in various ways, depending on our situation. Morality could be what the Gods have said that is good; or it could be because it is good in the eyes of men. It is the moral standards that men has constituted by themselves, that they judge what is moral or not.

    The authority of the gods have been the basis of judgement for people’s actions. There could be something that is moral in one place and not in the other. It is because we are situated and has a different view of things.

    If we are not Christian, then what is moral to the Christian society might not be moral to us. or the others.

    MORALITY has a complex and various meaning because it is based, mainly on what people on a certain society/surroundings thinks that is moral.

    And in conclusion, morality is something that people thinks is loved by the gods, or what they believe in.

    —-as if it makes sense.haha nosebLeed! 🙂

  21. “Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    We should define first morality. Well, for me, morality is something that doesn’t violate any law and it is right in the eyes of others and also in our own eyes. And if it is said that it doesn’t violate any law, it includes the commandments of God. Also, it includes the law that humans had made.

    From my opinion about morality, we can neither say “An action is morally good because God commands it” nor “God command it because it is morally good”. There are times where an action is not morally good in our own eyes but it is morally good in the eyes of others and vice versa. It is because we have different perception in different things. In some cases, we may have same perception in the same things if we have basis. Just like the laws in our country or the Ten Commandments of God (I think it is applicable only to Christians, not sure of it). But in general, we have different perceptions. That is why I can say that an action is morally good if it is right in our own eyes and also in the eyes of others.

    Well, when I say others, I didn’t mean everyone in this world. I know you know what I mean. Others that can be affected by the ‘action’. For example, in an org, one of the members made an action for their org that is not clear if it is morally good or not. So, for him to be sure if his action is morally good or not, he needs to confirm it to the other members of his org.

    In short, (for me) an action is morally good if it meets your perception and the perceptions of the people around you, the people who will be affected of the action. And also, I said earlier that it should not violate any law. Well, it is if we have the same basis just like what I said before, about the laws in our country.

    That’s all. Thank you sir and sorry if it didn’t make any sense. T_T *nosebleed*

  22. Hello again,

    Can there be morality without God? This is the question, isn’t it?

    What is morality first? Morality is to treat people as the rational beings as they are. But isn’t the self also a rational being as well? Can we say that morality is natural? Isn’t it when a person is born, the first value they learn is selfishness? What is selfishness? Isn’t it the act of only thinking for the better of the self? The isn’t it right to assume that by being selfish we are moral?

    What is wrong with this view of morality? Since we are in the world, we only see a fraction of the truth, and a half truth is already a lie, therefore, everything we know is a lie because everything we know are just fractions of the truth. So only one who can see anything in every view is capable of telling the exact meaning of that anything. Has there been a man capable of seeing anything in every view? I don’t think so. So there can be no absolute truth? Yes there is, God. Since God is absolute and He can see things in every way, He can even see past, present and future all at the same time. Therefore God can define the exact meaning of anything. So how does God define morality? In the Bible, God commanded that we love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
    What is love? Love is to think of people’s concerns greater than the self. What is to love ourselves? Isn’t it to only think of the self? Why did God command this? Isn’t it because of our natural ability to be selfish? Then God knows that morality doesn’t come from a selfish mind. Has there been anyone born who was not taught morality grown moral? HAHA. I don’t think so. Then God gave us that command because He knows that our nature is to be selfish, so He gave us the command to love others or to think of them higher than we think of ourselves. Isn’t that the same as the definition of morality that was first stated?

    What God gave is the moral law which is universal, absolute and objective which means that it is not dependent on us humans to be able to exist. From that absolute moral law, we formed our own moral laws, which are subject to change because our human mind is also subject to change (a mango seed doesn’t bring forth an apple). Man also can’t create, he can only reform.

    So where am I getting at? There can be no morality without God. Simple, hard to accept due to the unbelief of God’s existence.

    (Sorry if I went in circles, I had to summarize everything to because my memory fails me. I wasn’t contented with my first answer so that’s why I’m here)

  23. Enjoy reading,

    “Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    Well, Morality means a code of conduct held to be authoratative on matters of right or wrong. But, in the Divine command theory it is stated that morality is based on God’s whim.

    First about the Euthypro dilemma,

    The Bible implies that God commands the action because it is morally good. A good example is the story of Noah’s Ark. God ordered Noah to only take his family and pairs of all the animals to his ark. Then God disposed of the others as if they were just mere pests. Isn’t something moral synonymous with something righteous? But isn’t that being right means that you have to treat others like the humans they are, regardless of who they are? But here it shows God to dispose of the evil men of the earth as if they were mere pests. Can that be considered as morally good?

    As a Christian, it is a duty to follow God and His Revelations. But as an individual, I beg to differ.

    Then what about morality exclusive of God. Then that would mean that God loves an action because it is morally good. As I’ve stated before, morality is synonymous with being rightneous. Therefore an action is morally good if it is right.

    So what is the answer? I think it can go either way. If God decides that an act you yourself think is immoral as something moral, then it is your choice to follow Him or your own conscience. In both statements, it implies that morality is actually arbitrary. It depends on what is agreed upon to be the norms of how to behave. Wherein the Divine Command theory states that morality is merely based on God’s whim, while the later states that morality is dependent on what you, and other people think is right.

    ……………………………………………………..

    Sorry sir medyo nakaklito o baka totally walang kwenta nagawa ko…..
    pero confident ako may atleast 1 point for effort dito… hehehehe…..

    Sige po sir, Good Luck nlng po sa pagbabasa ng mga comments namin.

    —– Cyrolle Vendivil

  24. Good day,

    I understood the conflict as:
    did gods create the moral?

    from the question,i concluded it into this statement for if the god commanded the moral,whether yes or no,the problem lies if he is the one who started it.

    before, i had this conflict in my mind. i even created a blog that “IT” is bothering me. that’s somewhere in april, i entitled the blog as,”right ba u?”.the problem stated that what if all good things in the world are bad and vice versa?what if rape is actually good? where did our deeds come from? i actually traced humanity and ended up on moses. moses gave the ten commandments which it said to be the root of all moral. and moses got it from a rock from sinai. the rock, they say, came from god. if the root of all moral came from god then god really created moral. but the fact that moses said that, it would be sorta different. moses is actually a man. man, is said to be fond of telling lies. so there is a posibility that he actually lied. then the theory comes in, if moses lied, then the theory breaks apart only because the commandments did not come from god and god commanded nothing. and of all that said is true then, “gods” commanded it because it is moral.(there is actually a smiley at the bottom left corner of this page)

    me malaking butas ung entry ko…tatamad mag typ…Ö

    ——————————————–
    sir tao gmawa ng morals, sila rin nag isip, panu un mangagaling sa dyos?kelan ba naging mabuti ang pakikipagkapwa tao? dba dating dati pa? mga before ng before christ? simula ng nagkaisip ang tao ganun na un..diba?kung inde ok lang….ser grade huh! kahin “1” lang ;p

  25. whew! i thought i will be the last to post my comment here.. hha. abot pa ‘ko. yehey!

    —————————————–

    Killing. Betrayal. Corruption. Abortion. Adultery.

    Do we consider these acts to be moral? Of course not. We know what is moral and what is not, but what is our basis in saying that something is moral?

    Is it because it is commanded by God? Do we know what is moral if we base it to God’s Ten Commandments?

    For me, “moral” is derived from our personal conscience. It is based on what somebody’s conscience suggests is right or wrong, rather than on what rules or the law says should be done.

    Morality is not necessarily dependent of God. It is based on the individual itself.

    According to the Divine Command Theory something is considered to be moral if and only if it is commanded by God. But what if God commanded us to be evil? Are we going to be cruel because it is commanded by God and something that is commanded by God is moral?

    God is our creator. He created the world , thus he can decide what things would be moral and immoral for His people.

    But, given this idea, I still don’t think that if God commanded us to be cruel, we will be what he commanded because we believe that what God commanded is moral.

    God gave his people their own minds. We are free to believe whatever we wanted. we have the power to decide what will be good for us. We decide for the meaning of things, just like how we arrive to the meaning of morality to us.

    Before I end my statement, I believe that “MORALITY” is arbitrary. It is based on our whim,solely on our personal wishes, perceptions, rather than on reasons and principles.

    That’s all! :] (hope it makes ense.)

    🙂 marie lynn (:

  26. good aftie!!

    MORALITY:

    “Where there is no free agency, there can be no morality. Where there is no temptation, there can be little claim to virtue. Where the routine is rigorously prescribed by law, the law, and not the man, must have the credit of the conduct.”

    When we say moral, it is the virtous conduct of each person..

    I picture out God as a merciful and loving God and not a capriciuos one like the Elder and younger Gods of the Ancient Greek, God doesn’t need to decide if he loves it because it is moral or it is moral that’s why he loves it..

    It depends on the person himself or herself on how he can use his/her freedom to show the morality.

    nowadays, the commandments are not strictly following by the humans maybe because they don’t believe in God.

    I, myself either is not that sure if there is God and I consulted a priest about what I am feeling.. I am lacking of faith actually, but the priest just said to me “You can’t feel God because of the temptations around you”. So, I am not sure if God is the one who formulated those rules, or it’s just the humans before who concluded those rules.. I am following those rules because it’s part of the culture that I had. I am following it because if not, i may be seized.. and i am afraid of that..

    I am following those rules for me to be part of this world!!

    ………………….

    sir, my comment is short but i guess i point it out clearly..

    sir, 5 pts ‘to ah.. wehh..

    [yza07] 😀

  27. Hey Sirrrr!!!!

    “Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    This was the question that Soccrates posed to Euthyphro. Now to answer this question, we must first define the terms. An action is considered MORAL when it is concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct; when we treat people as persons and not as things. Now, the term “god/s” pertains to a supernatural, supreme, and divine being; the creator of the universe.

    God gave us a set of rules to follow-The 10 commandments. These commandments were given to us so that we would do what is morally right. They serve as guidelines in making our decisions. They are there to protect us from ourselves and from our own sins. But just because we have knowledge of what is moral, doesn’t mean that we follow it. The definition of morality is based on the person who does the act. What one person considers moral may be the exact opposite for another person. But for us Christians, we follow a logical standard of morality because morality was defined for us by our one and only God. As human beings, we are given the 10 commandments for us to follow but we are also given the freedom to do what we want and to make our own decisions even if we sometimes incline towards sin. I believe that God gave us these commandments as a challenge. He wants to know whether we would do what is good or do otherwise.

    As Christians, we were raised to believe that God is all-good. Therefore, it follows that what God teaches us is good. He teaches it because it is good and it is good because He teaches it. God would not teach us anything bad because He wants us to be like Him. Therefore, my answer is both. An action is morally god because God commands it and God commands it because it is morally good.

    ///////////////////END.///////////////////

    I hope this made sense! @_@
    XOXO

  28. “Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    God is the source of moral obligation. What God commands is morally relevant. There is a certain conceptual order to moral knowledge that’s different from the metaphysical order regarding the existence of goodness itself. I might have to look at a map before I can know where the place is, so the map might be first in the order of concept, but the place has to exist according to the fact of the map. Similarly, God’s goodness would exist according to the existence of limit, derived goodness, though conceptually, I might have to understand what “goodness” means before I would be able to make a judgement that God is good.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    first of all let’s define morality or being moral.. There are many definitions of moral one is being able to relate to principles of right and wrong in behavior, especially for teaching right behavior, another is to conform to a standard of right behavior; sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment, and being capable of right and wrong action.. so being moral means being somewhat good or non-evil.. How many religious figures feel compelled to explain the workings of God’s mind? ‘The very question suggests blasphemy. Would it have occurred to Abraham, his knife raised over his only begotten son?’ Disinclined to seek the ‘other reason,’. So it is still up to the listener or reader to request the answer.
    But for me an action is morally good because God commands it because for me what God say are the good and no bad things are meant to do by God..

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    waaaa..nosebleed..sorry sir kung hindi masyado maintindihan..-vaughn

  29. “Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    Morality for me means knowing the good from evil and right from wrong.In the dictionary morality comes from the word “moralitas” or “manner, character, proper behavior”. The Question really asks where did proper behavior/morality come from. Is it From God or is it just what God Wants us to do because it is moral/the proper behavior?

    Base from The Bible when Adam And Eve was created, God command Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from the tree of good end evil. When Adam and Eve Ate the fruit from The Tree, they knew knowledge of good and evil and hide themselves and they made clothes in leaves. In that scene in the Bible, it tells me that when Adam And Eve ate the fruit from The tree of good and evil they had known morality or proper behavior because they had hid themselves and made clothes. But before that, when they will eat the fruit the demon said to them that when they eat the fruit in the tree they will know knowledge like a God. The point is God already knew morality at the first place. If we understand the scenes that I have written, when Adam and Eve Ate the fruit they knew morality and morality/proper bahavior is just a knowledge of God because the fruit gives knowledge like a God as the demon had said. So morality is just a knowledge from God. So God commands it because He knows that it is morally good and He created the Ten commandments because He knows that it is morally good or the right thing to do. That is my understanding base from The Bible and base from my research that God commands it because it is morally good.

    I understand it as that way because if God only commands it then Adam and Eve would not hid themselves and make clothes. Wearing clothes in front of another sex is morally good in us because it is proper behavior. God did not command Adam and eve to hid and make clothes but they did it themselves. So they already knew morality in the first place even God did not command it. I myself know that I already had known morality when I was born because even I did not know God when I was a baby, I am following my parents and that is moral.

    …………………………..

    Sir, I based my Answer to the Bible because we are talking about God and I know that I can Find the answer in the Bible. And I know I can find the beginning there and the answer will be there. My answer to the question will be the second one because I find it to be moral because God knows that it is morally good….

    …………………..

    hahaha….. un lng sir……
    =)

    -Elijah_27-

  30. Morality means doing something right and ethical or making the right actions. When we do something right, it should not offend, hurt, or discriminate someone.

    When Socrates inquired :

    “Is an action morally good because God commands it?
    Or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    If I were Euthyphro, I would have explained to him what is the difference between those two statements.

    For me, the first statement, “An action is morally good because God commands it”, means that an action can only be moral if God commanded it. It’s like you’re being forced to do it. You’re only doing it because God told you so. Our ability to think and to act freely is taken away from us because of that, we only focus on what God tells us to do and we forget about what or who it affects. What if God, commanded you to kill someone and you obeyed him, is it moral? The first statement says that it is Moral because God commanded it.

    While the second statement, “God commands it because it is Moral” , means that God tells us to do it because it is for our own good and it doesn’t offend anyone. We are still free from making a decision, whether we obey him or not. For example, God made the 10 Commandments, I think it is only a guide for us on doing what is Moral, it isn’t totally a command that forces us to do it, but it helps us distinguish what is moral or right and what is immoral or wrong. God made those commandments because it is Moral, because it doesn’t offend anyone, and it doesn’t take away our freedom from making decisions.

    The problem that confuses us is, each and every one of us have different opinions and way of thinking. When we do something, some might think it is right, some might think it is wrong, you might think it is right or you might think it is wrong. We have different pictures of what is moral for us and what is immoral. We are situated. But God is there to guide us and helps us distinguish what is moral and immoral.

    -Jonathan Cruz 1CS-4

  31. Sir,

    “Is an action morally good because God commands it,or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    Morality, as all of us knew, is an act of doing what is right whether, according to the law of men or God. But as what I have understood in Euthyphro’s Dilenma, when someone did a good thing it is moral but, should not say that when it is moral it is already right; for I cannot tell when it is right and moral nor it is morally right. Therefore, morality is only a part of what is right and part of justice to be done which attends to the God as there is other part of justice and right for men. For an action is no doubt right when it is God who commanded it, for it is written in the Divine command theory that an action is obligatory if and only if, and because, it is commanded by God. God is powerful and once believe the creator of all, and humans or immortals are only part of the creations which brings already the big difference among the two. For the God has His own rules, the Ten Commandments—that cannot be change. While the people make their own—that may change as years goes by.
    It is good because it is right and not right because it is good. For, the end doesn’t justify the means and cannot always tell that all good endings are moral.

    🙂

  32. Greetings,

    First of all, I would like to commend you sir for an oh so amazing question that can stretch out the intelligence of human understanding to a certain degree.

    The terms used in the question that needs definition is the word “moral”. I searched the net and saw that it means, “Concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles”.

    In my own belief as a Christian, I can say that it is either the both because we can say that it is moral because God allows it. We Christians believe that we must follow and obey God which is totally dependent on the person because God gave us freewill. On the second part of the question, God commands it because it is morally good, we Christians believe that God is the supreme being for good and holiness and in that belief we can safely say that he allows morality for which in that matter is good.

    As i think about this question, I can see that it is really opinionated based on the person’s belief, I think what worked for me is my Christianity because i based my answer with respect in my belief. Yet, this is a case to case basis wherein the person who have authority to answer this question can only depend on what he/she believes and that is what matter so I truly respect if they have different point of views in the question.

    Sincerely yours,
    Prince Homer B. Camon Jr. 1CS4

  33. ako si super wonder boy

  34. “Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    In my humble opinion I’ll go with the saying that “an action morally good because God commands it” because as human beings, we are not certain of the true meaning of morality. What we believe to be morally good may not be the same for God. Because we believe that God is good and just, we learned to distinguish the difference of moral and immoral through his commandments. Therefore morallity is dependent on God because as we believe, God is all knowing. He’s the only one who really knows what is right.

  35. hirap! 0_0

  36. Good day sir!

    “Is an action morally good because God commands it,or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    How to answer this question? First of all,we must know what is meant by the word moral. Then what is moral? Moral is something which is a good deed or a good action. It is somewhat acceptable in the society. So,going back to the question,let us examine the first statement. “Is an action morally good because God commands it?” Everybody in this world has his own perspective in life. They can either consider an action moral with or without knowing whether it is commanded by God or not.
    Some could follow while some could disobey. So,in this case,we have our own choice to distinguish an action whether it is moral or immoral. There could be a situation wherein in your own point of view,that certain deed was right while in the eyes of others it wasn’t right.

    Let’s go now to the second question. “Does God command it because it is morally good?”. We are aware that God is the most powerful and the superior one. Therefore, He wouldn’t command anything that could lead us to an evil thing or anything that could harm us. So,it’s clearly stated that He knows the difference between right and wrong,good and evil. So,I’ll go with this second statement.

    . . . Jessica Suba 1CS-4

  37. Good day sir,
    first of all i would like to take this opportunity to say that i really enjoy your class. ^_^

    Now to move on to the topic…

    “Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    Or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    So what is morality?

    Morality is a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong.
    Something moral is created by the society. It is either by a group or religion or by an individual. Whether it is by a religion or by an individual, these morals can be considered as a law for a religious group or for an individual. It’s kinda ironic because the basis of laws are morals. And like any other law, morals can also be broken. Also, like any other law, morals can have loopholes.

    When you ask a person about an action, you will say.. “Is it moral?”
    and the answer is based on his or her religion.
    But for me, the real question should be..
    “Is it immoral?”
    Though morals are officially put up by the religion, it is for an individual to decide what he or she will consider something moral or for this instance, immoral.
    In my point of view, something immoral for a person is way more important to know than what is moral to his/her.
    Though moral and immoral are contradictory, i believe it’s contrary..
    I’ll prove it in this scenario..
    For example..
    For us Christians, something moral is to obey our parents and that’s what most of us consider moral. So, if a child is commanded by his’ parents to go home early and set-up a curfew of 7 p.m. For a child who believes that something is moral if you obey your parents, he will go home at exactly 7pm and not care about the command to go home early. But for a child who believes that something is immoral if you don’t obey your parents, he goes home 1 hour (or even earlier) after their dismissal and obeying the command to go home early.

    So what is immoral for a person is way more important than to know what is moral for a person.

    So as to relate this to the question…
    “Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    I’d go with, “An action is morally good because God commands it”

    Because as i said earlier, morality is like a law, and a law is created by someone, and that someone is non other than God.
    But we should not stop there.
    It is important to see an action if it is immoral and not if it is moral.
    And with that.. we end up doing what is authentically morally good.. Because like laws, morals have loopholes like my example.. If we are just forced to obey our morality and not have a good job in obeying them.. Then we should not bother obeying them.. Because we are obeying our morality to please God.. And if we are not pleasing God.. We should not bother obeying His’ laws
    because He gave us freedom to do whatever we want and He is not forcing us to believe in HIm..

    That’s all…
    i Hope i Don’t bore you..
    im just cramming to answer this..
    my thoughts are still jumbled up..
    i hope you got what i’m trying to say…
    thank you..
    ^_^

    (BUTE NAKAHABOL GAD!!!)
    hahahahahaha

  38. Morality, according to the dictionary, is normally referring to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

    In my own opinion, I think that morality is the fundamental good that God had planted at the very core of the person, something deep within the person telling him/her if the action is right or wrong. I think that morality is not just based on the law of man, but it is something that comes naturally from within.

    ” Is an action morally good because the gods love it, or the gods love it because it is morally good?”

    Regarding Euthyphro’s dilemma, I think that an action is morally good because God commands it. I think that God, being omnipotent and almighty, has given us humans his rules to follow. Without these rules that God has set, we would be virtually lost, going through life without a real direction.

    I also think that an action is moral because God commanded it because although he has set up laws for us to follow, he also gave us the freedom to have a choice — to choose what is good or bad for us.

    The law of man becomes too judgemental sometimes, that we fail to see the good intention of a wrong action, or the elvil intention behind every right act. We sometimes ignore the fact that we have to look closely and read between the lines. I believe that in the end, only God has the right to judge whether an action is good or evil.

  39. Morality, according to the dictionary, is normally referring to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

    In my own opinion, I think that morality is the fundamental good that God had planted at the very core of the person, something deep within the person telling him/her if the action is right or wrong. I think that morality is not just based on the law of man, but it is something that comes naturally from within.

    ” Is an action morally good because the gods love it, or the gods love it because it is morally good?”

    Regarding Euthyphro’s dilemma, I think that an action is morally good because God commands it. I think that God, being omnipotent and almighty, has given us humans his rules to follow. Without these rules that God has set, we would be virtually lost, going through life without a real direction.

    When you ask a person about an action, you will say.. “Is it moral?”
    and the answer is based on his or her religion.
    But for me, the real question should be..
    “Is it immoral?”
    Though morals are officially put up by the religion, it is for an individual to decide what he or she will consider something moral or for this instance, immoral.
    In my point of view, something immoral for a person is way more important to know than what is moral to his/her.
    Though moral and immoral are contradictory, i believe it’s contrary..
    I’ll prove it in this scenario..
    For example..
    For us Christians, something moral is to obey our parents and that’s what most of us consider moral. So, if a child is commanded by his’ parents to go home early and set-up a curfew of 7 p.m. For a child who believes that something is moral if you obey your parents, he will go home at exactly 7pm and not care about the command to go home early. But for a child who believes that something is immoral if you don’t obey your parents, he goes home 1 hour (or even earlier) after their dismissal and obeying the command to go home early.

  40. Morality is identified with God himself, thus making it the supreme value. The belief that morality requires God is not limited to theists, however. Many atheists subscribe to it as well. The existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, says that “If God is dead, everything is permitted.” In other words, if there is no supreme being to lay down the moral law, each individual is free to do as he or she pleases. Without a divine lawgiver, there can be no universal moral law.

    Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?

    I would say that..
    an action is morally good because God commands it..
    because in the view that God creates the moral law that is often called the “Divine Command Theory of Ethics.”
    ..it is said that what makes an action right is that God wills it to be done…
    Let’s take this to its logical conclusion.. If the Divine Command Theory were true,
    then the Ten Commandments could have gone something like this:
    “Thou shalt kill everyone you dislike.
    Thou shalt rape every woman you desire. Thou shalt steal everything you covet.
    Thou shalt torture innocent children in your spare time…”
    The reason that this is possible is that killing, raping, stealing, and torturing were not wrong before God made them so. Since God is free to establish whatever set of moral principles he chooses, he could just as well have chosen this set as any other…

    ^^

    -nikko’

  41. Morality is identified with God himself, thus making it the supreme value. The belief that morality requires God is not limited to theists, however. Many atheists subscribe to it as well. The existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, says that “If God is dead, everything is permitted.” In other words, if there is no supreme being to lay down the moral law, each individual is free to do as he or she pleases. Without a divine lawgiver, there can be no universal moral law.

    Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?

    I would say that..
    an action is morally good because God commands it..
    because in the view that God creates the moral law, that is often called the “Divine Command Theory of Ethics.”
    ..it is said that what makes an action right is that God wills it to be done…
    Let’s take this to its logical conclusion.. If the Divine Command Theory were true,
    then the Ten Commandments could have gone something like this:
    “Thou shalt kill everyone you dislike.
    Thou shalt rape every woman you desire. Thou shalt steal everything you covet.
    Thou shalt torture innocent children in your spare time…”
    The reason that this is possible is that killing, raping, stealing, and torturing were not wrong before God made them so. Since God is free to establish whatever set of moral principles he chooses, he could just as well have chosen this set as any other… 😀

    ^^

    -nikko’

  42. Euthyphro’s dilemma was that he cannot give Socrates a firm, non-arbitrary definition of morality. This led to show his lack of means for his actions against his father. Since he cannot state a solid basis of morality, he therefore should not been able to determine the morality of the actions his father, never the less he accused his father of murder.

    According to the Divine Command Theory, an act is obligatory if and only if, and because it is commanded by God. So thus God, which is believed to be a higher being than humans, being omnipotent and omniscient, has the power to set the morality of a particular action? Can He make an action, such as murder or persecution, permissible and morally correct given the right condition? Even if we consider the Divine Command Theory true, we still fail to find a universal definition for morality. Since not all theist believe in the same one God, they’re basis of morality varies on which God their faith relies and atheists, who does not believe in the existence of a God, does not necessarily mean they do not believe in the existence of the morality of an action.

    If God commands an act because it is moral, it still fails to supply a non-arbitrary basis of morality. Since it only relays the arguement to other questions. If God does command out of morality, what are His basis for an act to be moral or immoral? and are acts, which was not commanded by God, immoral? Leaving us still searching for a firm basis of morality in which we can affirm the morality of the actions of Euthyphro’s father.

    But if we define morality as the rightness or wrongness of an action; right, meaning no person is treated as a mere object making him or her less human and wrong, meaning to treat a person as an unanimated tool or material, we can infer the possibility of the statement: God commands it because no person is mistreated and the falsity of the statement: No person is mistreated because God commands it. Since whether commanded by God or not, we cannot infer mistreating a person to be right, even if commanded by God, because it is contradictory to what is the accepted value of right.

    Based on that possibility, Euthyphro’s father had commited an immoral act of murder. Even though the victim was a murderer, it was not enough to treat him less humanly. Even though Euthyphro acted accordingly, he was not able to give Socrates the basis of his actions.

    😀 😛 :>

    8-| :o3

    :))

    Alfonso, A. P.(2008).

  43. “Is an action morally good because God commands it,or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    Moral,what does it mean? Maybe it is just a simple term that means “good” or something done benifitiary to others with heart.In the dictionary and for connotation it really means referring to a code of conduct that is with given specified conditions.

    So,going back to the question,”Is an action morally good because God commands it,or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    I agree that an action is moarlly good because God command it.Normally we do some good everyday even at least one,we know its moral when God command it it’s because we know in our faith that our God is moral and righteous.We know that there are laws to abide,from the bible,originated in the Ten Commanments of God.And,I believe that there is God and there are laws to be followed.That,if you abide by this rules you’ll do something moral even if it’s written on this but you whether what is right from wrong.

    but sometimes not all what God commanded could be moral and good.We don’t have such knowledge to know whether what God really is;and if God really does exist.

    But my faith tells me He does and He is just.That’s why i did answer,It is moral when God commands it.For me it’s either for the good of you or for the good of others.

    nytnyt.thank you and bbye.
    (“,)

  44. “Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    First, what is moral? For me, moral is all the accepted norms in a society. This means that morality is based on the person’s point of view in life. For example, Muslim guys can marry as many as they want as long as they can support each of their family. For them (Muslims) it is morally right to do these things but for us Christians, it is against our laws or the teachings of our God, therefore it is immoral, for us Christians.

    So what’s the real basis of morality?

    The dilemma had included God. Therefore, is morality dependent on God? But who’s God? The God of the Muslim, the God of Christians, etc..
    This is were freedom comes in. It’s our choice to choose who and where to believe in.

    But what if you don’t believe in God? Would all your actions be immoral?

    As I had said on the first paragraph, morality is all the accepted norms in a society. It states there that what can be moral is the thing that you believe on what is right. It does not state their, that you need to believe in God. We are Humans; we have our own logic reasoning about the world. That’s why we can be independent.

    Can we really be independent? (As a Christian’s point of view)

    I say no. we can be independent because we have knowledge about the world, but is knowledge alone can make us independent? And where does knowledge comes from?
    Define knowledge; these are the facts that we already know about the world. Then how about the things we still do not know? The answer is simple, we need wisdom. Which wisdom, only comes from God. So morality is dependent on God.

    Therefore, I conclude that an action is morally good because God commands it.

    yey.. finish n.. =p
    aun, gudnyt and thanks sir for the very challenging question.. hehe.. =p

  45. In the dilemma, Euthyphro did not give Socrates an accurate meaning of what is piety(moral). He only gave him attributes and examples of what makes pious pious until it ends.

    Morality is a universal law for everyone
    It is always associated with good, evil, right, and wrong. Good and Evil are values but it cannot be used to determine morality.
    Values don’t have worth in morality because they are just plain values for the ends. Right and Wrong sets standards which say what we should do. They set norms on our obligation as a human being

    “Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    -In this claim, God sets the norms of morality. God sets what should be moral or immoral. If God commands that stealing is moral, then it should be. But God did not set that to be. In the time of Socrates, They have other Gods. Each God may hate or love.Thus, one god can see something immoral but one may see the same thing moral. In this claim, Morality depends on God. An action may be good if commanded by God but is it right? For Example, God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac. Killing is wrong but it is good based from God. This is not right therefore it is not moral.

    or does God command it because it is morally good?”
    -In this claim, God is not a factor in morality. Morality is already good and God only commands it. Even if there is no God, there is morality. Morality is already set as laws.Laws that are universally accepted by everyone with no exemptions. Thus, good is not necessarily right. Evil is not necessarily wrong. Morality is set by universal standard laws which is determined by right and wrong.

  46. Good Evening sir,

    “Is An Action Morally Good Because God Commands It, Or Does God Command It Because It Is Morally Good?”

    ————————————————-

    Moral – of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour, especially for teaching right behaviour

    Morality – the ability to distinguish good and evil or right and wrong, right or good conduct.
    – (ethics) motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

    ————————————————-

    I believe that An Action Morally Good Because God Commands It. Because we do things accordingly to our faith to him. If we analyze all our actions, we can consider it as morally good because we are doing it for the sake of ourself or for others. If our actions become wrong, it just means that our faith to Him is decreasing. Think of this, if we are doing something, first we ask guidance in Him so that our actions can’t be wrong. But sometimes our actions become wrong because we are becoming greedy, selfish, etc. If we are afraid to do something bad we are asking Him if we will do that action. It all depends on your faith to him on what things you are doing.

    ————————————————-

    That’s all sir! Ayaw q na nang ganito… nahihilo na aq… Plus ang ingay pa d2 sa CAFE… d aq makapag concentrate… I accept na po if ung grade nu sakin d2 eh 1 or 0… la tlgng sense sagot q eh… Sorry po tlga sir! Bangag tlga utak q… sowee!!!

    😦 :(( X( :-/

    wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    asar!

  47. Morality means moral conduct or virtue. Being moral means relating to principles of right and wrong, conforming to a standard of right behavior, and capable of right and wrong action. These meanings were based on the dictionary, but for me, morality is the consciousness of a person to what is right from wrong actions that can affect lives of many people including his own.

    Based from the Greek myths and epics, everything that was commanded by their God was the right thing to do, or was morally good because it was the will of their God. They declare wars as if it they don’t care about the lives of their people, that they care only for the pleasure they can give to that God. They all think that it was moral…it was good because they please their God and fulfill His demands.

    But based from the bible…the God was not capricious, that he favors any man. Christians do believe that God only commands those good deeds and those bad ones were commanded by a fraud God, or just made by those people who believe in themselves as messenger of God, which they really are not.

    Therefore I say that the reason God commands it because he knew that it is the right and good thing to be done by the people and the people knew that it was the right and good thing to do because of their consciousness of what is right and good from wrong and bad, and not that He’ll command the people in wrong or bad doings and the people will think that it is right or good thing to do because it is their God who commands it and his will.

  48. Morality is independent of God and, indeed, that God is bound by morality just as his creatures are. God then becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge, well that is according to Euthyphro’s dilemma.

    According to the dictionary… morality is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

    It is also a law, and that law was given by an Absolute Lawgiver which is God. (my interpretation)

    Now i have defined morality….. next question!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?”

    First of all, that depends of your concept of “good”. If I will base it on the concept of good for the Christians then we do it because God commands it because the concept of good is based on the Ten Commandments that God bestowed upon us.

    “…piety is doing what I’m doing here today, namely, prosecuting my father for murder”

    Euthyphro is willing to execute his father because it is the morally right thing to do, and who dictates that it is the morally right thing to do? Who else, but his gods. Morality is based on faith that’s why us, Christians, should follow the law that God gave us.

    The second statement is absurd because if God commanded it because it is morally good then we already contradicted the concept of God which is the one and only Lawgiver and about the Ten Commandments. Just think of it, if God commanded it because it is morally good then there is a higher being who dictates what is GOOD and EVIL, plus remember the crusades and the countless wars PERCHED ON WHAT GOD “SAID”, they persecuted heretics which is immoral.

    I therefore favored the first statement “Is an action morally good because God commands it”

    ~~~~~~~~

    »hehe yun lang po!!!!!!!

    ~~~

    If there is no morality then killing is just ok,
    the Nazis deeds of murdering 6 Million Jews were great,
    bombing the World Trade Center is not a problem,
    invasion of Iraq is permissible,
    and the list is long.

    If you don’t believe in an Absolute Lawgiver then the basis of living is the survival of the fittest. (wag nyo isama tong part na ito sa grading ng sagot q po ha! baka kasi bumaba ako dahil d2 xD hehehe)

  49. Goodevening sir,

    Marbles are the best!!

    “Is An Action Morally Good Because God Commands It, Or Does God Command It Because It Is Morally Good?”

    First of all let us define the terms. What is meant by morality? Morality came from the Latin word moralitas which means manner, character and proper behavior, simply morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.

    Is an action morally good because God commands it?
    In this first argument it is trying to tell us that God commands us to do something good for others. It is true that God left us with commandments and rules to his disciples and passed down to us. Therefore, it is up to us to decide but because of morality we are able to distinguish good from bad.

    Does God command it because it is morally Good?
    In this second argument it simply telling us that God commands us in our day to day that this action is the right thing to do. Whether it is bad or Good as long as it is from God therefore it is good, because God is the supreme goodness for all beings. We can be sure that the action is good. If God commands you to do something wrong therefore He himself would contradict himself for He taught and differentiated right from wrong.

    As for my conclusion, first of all, God gave us freedom for we are able to decide for ourselves. With this freedom we are able to explore and improve ourselves. We learn that morality is the ability to distinguish right from wrong. For me, I believe both of the statements are either valid. First of all as a human being, I am able to decide for myself thus , i am able to follow Gods’ commands and provide goodness to people based on the teachings of God himself. Second, is that as a Christian we should know that “God is good” and what he did for us the right thing for he provided us our needs but because of freedom-abusers people are undistributed properly. Finally, Faith for me is the root of all this action and it depends on our faith in God which decides our morality and our knowledge to what morality is.

    Thanks,

    Nagmamahal,
    TiJ O.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: