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.


by Plato

Written 380 B.C.E

Translated by Benjamin Jowett

Persons of the Dialogue

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.


57 Responses

  1. that something is pious because it is a religious item and the gods love it, its not pious when the gods don’t even like it in the first place

  2. Morality is defined as conformity, or degree of conformity without or apart from guidance by religion or other spiritual influences, it means that we should be capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong without the influence of gods or authorities. Based on the definition of morality, I conclude that morality is independent from the authorities.

  3. It depends whether whose gods loving it and whose authority abiding it. Relating to today, many gods do not abide piousness. Personifying to a official or a running mayor, its not new to us that every election massacre is literally there, just to impede their victory against there rival. There’s no moral in there so as the pious.
    Concluding to the meaning of pious which is characterized by a hypocritical concern with virtue or religious devotion. This affiliate to all aspects of moral, which also follow to the basis of good and bad, right and wrong. All things fall on one idea which is the goodness and/or piousness and/or righteousness is the main idea of all.

  4. For me piety is morality.Morality is concerned with the judgement of the goodness or badness of a character or behavior of an individual.So i support the last state because if you do a moral act god always love moral things done by the believers,also the first statement may not always be true that a person only does moral acts to follow god people who do not believe in god but still do moral act because of they give weight in doing the right thing as a person and for their love ones.

  5. If you’re going to ask me, “Is something pious because the Gods love it, or Gods love it because it is pious?”, I will choose “Gods love it because it is pious”. People are not merely dependent to what God says. It’s more on what you think is right that you should do. For example, when you have to kill somebody because that person is trying to kill you, are you going to let that person to just kill you? Or you’ll going to kill that person for your self-defense? The action is wrong. But when you look at the reason why that person has to do it, the action for me now becomes RIGHT. In the scenario, what we are after is the reason why a person does the action. It’s not the fact killing somebody which is awful according to the Holy Bible or in the Ten Commandments of God that every Catholics should follow.

  6. For me, something is pious because the gods love it. I believe that pious things came from generally accepted standards of right and wrong which more or less, came from God’s words. To attain peace and order in this world, God gave human beings the characteristic to do something that will not harm another individual. But sometimes, because of lack of faith in God and bad influence of other people, we commit mistakes that may cause harm to other individuals.

    Billy Ray M. Dela Cruz, 1-IS-1

  7. Euthyphro’s dilemma about Gods’ piety and morality devastated the mind of each one of us. From the beginning, parents teachers and other people opened our eyes that God is holy and so, we agreed and accepted the knowledge they brought to us. But to think philosophically, the statements: Something is pious because Gods love it, and Gods love it because it is pious gave an scandalous interpretation for Christians who believe in God.

    For me, the moral argument of God’s existence, makes the awareness of morality and piety leads to him. God will never give orders such as killing and stealing, if he can, then, he is not God. Now, for some reason the claim Gods love it because it is pious will be accepted,but not by Christians, because the claim gives the idea of having piety and morality without God, w/c is so scandalous. So, to make it right, we must think about it logically, If God is holy, then holy is God,(GOD = GOD) giving a useless tautology that God and holyness is only one. But it is not, think of it, God is holy because he is holy. It is his quality, his attributes. That’s why every orders of him that we follow were based on his standard above and beyond his nature. That deletes the issue of having morality and piety without God, it was logically prior to God, on his character.

  8. Is something pious because the gods love it, or the gods love it because it is pious?

    The word pious is the same as being holy. I think that the clauses have the same connotation because the “God’s Love” is the link between the two clauses. I think something is pious because the gods love it that’s why you love being pious and when you are pious, the gods love you.

  9. ..forgot to say.. we have our own opinions, basically, we would not accept each and everyone’s opinion, but think about it, it’s philosophy, makes your mind go round.. Just teaching us how to think in other perspectives without ruining our faiths. If one’s faith was ruined, then it is one’s own fault, dont blame it to others. Ok? ^_^

  10. “Gods love it because it is pious”
    Well, we know that God did not speak tp his people directly. the relationship between god and men are like father-son relationship; wherein his children are given a free-will/freedom of what to do. So I could say that people believed their actions to be pious because of their beliefs and religion. An action for me can be considered pious when it shows loyalty to what he believes to be his supreme creator/god. Human beings are known to be made through God’s own image and likeness; so when a person respect the dignity, identity and right of any human beings, then he honor and becoming loyal. In short his actions becomes pious.

  11. for me the gods love it because it is pious because not all the holyness is in the authority of the god. if i’ll with that of it is pious because the gods love it, it just that i agree that the authority of being pious is in the gods itself. not all is undr the power of the gods. if its that so, our morality is being taken by the gods. we can’t choose of what is good for us. it is our selve to decide for our own not other. thats why we/ i consider my self liberated because i’m free to decide for my self,for my own good. it’s just that, people look on a defferent way of morality. and they also choose on what way do thaey want to go.

  12. What is the definition of morality which specifies a feature (or set of features) which ALL moral acts have and which ONLY moral acts have. This feature will enable us to determine what is moral (if it has the feature, then it is moral). And we will know what makes an act moral. What makes it moral is having this feature. The god-loved god-loved is not what makes the moral moral, it follows that the god-loved and the moral are not the same thing they do not have the same nature. The nature and goal of the moral are determined by us and not by the gods. You also know that something moral is moral because we have the so called hunch. This hunch makes us feel some things are moral because we just feel it that it is right. Meaning morality provides a guide to all rational beings, independent of whether these beings have any characteristics of human beings. Intuitionists erroneously suppose that we possess a faculty that perceives moral truths directly. For me there can be morality without the gods because the gods don’t feel what we feel because of this gods also don’t know what is good for us humans. For them morality is what makes them happy. But how if morality for us is not what makes them happy. Thats why i said so that there can be morality without god.

  13. Defining piety creates problems for most. The religious actions of a person is loved by gods. We choose to be pious not just because the gods love it but we know to ourselves that it is a good thing for us. If something is good only because the god’s say so, then there’s no way for a person to determine by himself what is pious, only a god can say what it is. The people who have trouble with this are seeing the decisions made by gods as something that gods could give or take. On the other hand, if something pious is not what the gods love, then it creates real problems. Likewise, it suggests that being pious is to do what god’s will. If the god’s change their mind, then what’s good today may be evil tomorrow.

  14. Ron Vincent P. Tuazon
    1.) Morality and Authority
    1.1) Is something moral because the goods love it, or the gods love it because it is moral?
    Ans.: it depends on the situation, if we put our selves to the scenario moral means discriminating right and wrong, like pious w/c means having revenge and love for God/gods or marked by pretended or mistaken devotion. may be when it’s moral the gods love it in such a way that they’ll have many advantages & disadvantages. Advantages, when the people will love the way how the gods/authorities govern & lead the people. Disadvantages, in times when the peoples’ revenge will start to flare due to misunderstandings of the both sides. I think the authorities will win for they have more prestige and power, but the people may win when they’ll struggle as one.

    1.2)Can there be morality w/o God?
    *NOTE: For this question I state my answer to both sides the religious side and the philosophical side.
    My religious Answer:
    Morality is the practice of moral duties it is also known as virtues and ethics. There can never be morality w/o God. My FAITH explains it all. God is a supreme ruler who governs w/ justice,peace & compassion. He is a compassionate Father, therefore He knows what’s right from wrong. He is the beginning of all things He is the one who started morality and so there can never ever be morality W/o God.
    My Philosophical Answer:
    “It’s not a question of God but a question of virtues.” We are living in one world but having different belifs, myths, folklores, cultures, gods, & goddesses. May for some of us live & survive w/o God. It depends on how we shape our lives by moral excellence, good quality, power, & of course “efficacy”, the power to produce effects, either good or bad effects.
    *I’m not against my FAITH & most especially to God, I’m just explaining whats happening in this world nowadays.


  15. Yes, there’s something pious because the gods love it, because doing something good and doing religious activities is a want and not a need. Maybe some people is doing this things because they need it. But there are more people who do it cause they want it and not cause they need it.

  16. Moral is a human value that which we are obliged to obey freely and responsibly what is right and wrong to us and to others. It doesn’t mean that we are not free if we are morally obliged. It is still left on us to do what is right. In other words, every person has a choice or free will to do what is the right thing.

    On the question, “Is something moral because the gods love it or the gods love it because it is moral?” In the first sentence, it tells that it is moral because the gods love it. So, it is dependent on the moral thing. While on the second sentence, it tells that the gods love it because it is moral. So, it is independent. It could have some problems: First, it show that it is just loved by gods without the reason. For example, “Kill your sibling.” The gods commanded you to kill your sibling without telling you the reason why they want to kill your sibling. Second, some people commanded by gods did not think why the gods want to kill that person. They just depend on what the gods said to them because they are scared to break the rules of gods. For them the gods are powerful.

    By examining this, for me, it is the best thing to prefer on the first sentence because it dependent on the moral thing. It still depends on our decision.

  17. (part two ng first comment ko)
    Something must be pious first before the gods should love it. Morality does not depend on the gods or authorities because they did not set the standards for our morality for their advantage, they set the standards for morality for the sake of all. In short, authorities were made because of morals and not the other way around. And we are the ones to decide whether what we should follow is the moral or immoral thing to do. And if you do moral things, you will be considered pious by the authorities/gods.

  18. What is moral?

    For something to be moral, something that is right should be right and not good, and something that is wrong should be wrong and not because it is evil! Meaning, right is clearly distinguished from wrong- that right is when you set man as human and wrong when you set man as things- that things are just instrumental in worth and humans are autonomous.

    Is something moral because the gods love it or the gods love it because it is moral?

    I would not choose the other one,that is, it is moral because the gods love it. Let’s take this for instance, from the dialogue Euthyphro, Socrates said “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.” From that situation, we could conclude that gods have different ways of thinking so we should not better rely on them or even to any of the authority of what is moral. Instead, the gods love it because it is moral. We have to believe that we do is moral and not because it was dictated!

  19. “When something is moral that something must be loved by the gods / authorities”. In these two terms they’re connected with each other. What I meant is that this two terms could not be separated because with the help of the gods that something would be moral and without the morality the gods itself cannot build something that is moral. Morality begins by someone who had it and the gods / authority began by making themselves moral. I think it depends.

  20. Hmm, is there even morality without gods? or is there even morality with gods?…
    What’s morality anyway?…
    Well, I’ll define morality as a state or being moral or in a sense that we treat humans as humans… if it’s a kinda mixed-up definition, I think that’s what it denotes.

    For all my thoughts, I like to conclude that this statement is like a chicken and an egg.

    When did came first, a chicken? or the egg?

    This is like a loop, the time Socrates asked that question.

    For my explanation, something will not be pious if the gods do not love it, and something the gods don’t love will not be pious… it’s a loop… But, I like to say that, ‘how would ever something be pious if PEOPLE didn’t thought about gods in the first place?…’ or worshiping things, and like that… … …

    Hmm, it’s the human’s idea, that’s make it real or a fake or like an imagination.

    But I answer, thinking in my thoughts, if we do have a god or had gods, then, something will be pious if the gods love it.
    I mean, if prayers are done, and gods didn’t respond to it, then that thing won’t be pious, even if you prayed a thousand Litanies, it won’t be pious as the gods don’t love it…

    That’s just what I thought about it.

  21. “An action is morally good because God commands it” because everything happens in God’s command. It is because God is the Creator and He is the One who plans what will happen and everything is under His plan. That’s why all the things happen by the plan and the command of God. Morality is the conformity to ideals of right human conduct. God commands it because it is moral. As we all know, God will never put us in vain & He will never let us do things that will not result to ours & His good.

  22. Pious means sacred or devotional as distinct from the profane or secular. Things became pious because they satisfy those characteristics. They are still pious even if God doesn’t love them because they satisfy the basis of being pious. Pious still exist even if there is God or none because they don’t need the approval of God to be pious. Therefore, Gods love them because they are pious, not the other way around.

  23. (part two ng pinakaunang comment dito)

    warning: offending content


    morality, seen anywhere it is defined as “code of conduct”, others say “ethics”, but for me it is as confusing as it ever has been in the history of this planet.

    It’s whatever or whoever we “would” be, if we could ever just summon up enough willpower. Most offending answer is that its an inner battle between the self (interest/indulgence) and duty.

    inspired from the seventh dialog of Euthyphro

    Some follow because they trust, others because of fear, and more of them because they worship. Commanded by a high authority, higher than anyone, God then it depends on individual conscience.

    i’m out of ideas.
    THE END.

  24. Question : “Is something pious because the Gods love it,or the Gods love it because it is pious?”


    The definition of piety is not a matter of what people think. You cannot determine what goodness, or justice, or piety, is by conducting a survey. Therefore, whether something or someone has a given piety is also not a matter of mere opinion. Whether an act or a person is good, or just, or pious, for example, is not to be settled by a vote.

    Question : “Can there be morality without God?”


    People want there to be morality, and thus they are against with their own beliefs. When a non-believer claims to be moral people, or when they object to the actions of others as immoral, they are borrowing the standard of morality from the Christians, and have no rights to it. They have to find their own basis for morality even to talk as if they know what is moral and what is not. Without morality, there is no basis for reconciliation, and without God, there is no basis for morality.

  25. To start with.. moral may pertain to us as good manner. It is a conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, while authority comes with the word “power”. Power that refers to the ability to achieve certain ends..

    There can be morality without gods…
    For me, Gods don’t love morality, They created it and us humans are the ones who define morality to ourselves. Its our choice whether in what way we want to live. It is logical to limit ourselves though, because if we tried just to do all the things that we have wanted, we would have nothing and or be nothing at all. Ü

  26. Morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. This is the meaning we can usually see on an encyclopedia and others say it is a proper behavior. In the etymology of the word morality, it comes from the latin word moralitas which means character or proper behavior. And proper behavior is when we treat human beings right and right is when we treat human beings like humans and with respect.

    On the question, “Is something moral because the gods love it or the gods love it because it is moral?” I think that the gods love something because it is moral. For example, the gods love the things that are in the Ten Commandments because all of that is a moral thing to do. The commandments are base on the morality and the commandments are telling that we need to respect all especially the one that created us. If something is moral only because the gods love it, then the meaning of morality will be change because the morality is base in how we people treat one another and if the god of one terrorist tells to kill all of us, then that can’t be moral. So I conclude that the gods love something because it is moral.

  27. an act can be considered morally good not because God commands it to be morally good
    but because it is morally good in itself.God commands an action because it is morally good.
    An action is considered morally good because of the nature it has. there are premises that proves it.
    one is that by the use of our reasoning, we can judge a thing if it is morally good or bad.
    The other is that we don’t depend the morality of an act because God commands it first but
    we realize it after judging an object if it is morally good that God commanded it.

  28. “Is something pious because the gods love it, or the gods love it because it is pious?”

    IN MY OPINION, something is considered to be pious or holy because the gods or an authority love it. Piety is something that is marked by reference for diety and it became that if not for the authorities. Nothing is considered pious unless the authority who sets the norms in our society say that it is. This dilemna also comes across our belief and faith because even if the authorities tell that something is pious or not, if you don’t believe them, nothing they say will change your mind. 🙂

  29. We were created as rational beings therefore, we can realize for ourselves what is moral and what is bot. God or any authority cannot dictate what is wrong since they can alter it according to their preference. They can make good seem right and if we allow them to influence our thinking, then the concept of right will be lost. Our being will be useless. We contain the intuition to differentiate what is moral or not.

  30. Without God, there wouldn’t be a basis of what’s right and what’s wrong without a superior being pointing it out. On what standard would one have to say what is right from wrong?

    We can never observe morality without God. For God has been conceived as the source of all moral obligations created by society, philosophy, religion and individual consciences, for us to distinguish morality. God clearly is the example of goodness that we follow and his teachings are all of what we see as morality. Morality is a natural fact, it is not created by the formulation of laws, these only express God’s existence and our own sense of value.

  31. We were created as rational being therefore, we can realize for ourselves what is moral and what is not. God or any authority cannot dictate what is wrong since they can alter it according to their preference. They can make good seem right and if we allow them to influence our thinking, then the concept of right will be lost. Our being rational beings will be useless. We contain the intuition to differentiate what is moral or not.

  32. for me it is “the Gods love it because it is pious” because not all good and bad things is said in the bible…sometimes even if we hadn’t read a bible we would already know what’s right from wrong because of our instincts..like in one of the ten commandments it is said that “thou shall not kill” which means killing is immoral,but even if it doesn’t exist we already know that killing is immoral..so in the end,pious or morality will be known by man not because God said it but simply by human instinct

  33. First, what is moral? It is something relating to principles of right and wrong. It is of or concerned with the judgement or instruction of goodness or badness of character and behavior. While God, is a being conceived as th e perfect, omnipotent, omniscent, originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. And love is to like or desire enthusiastically.

    I think something is moral because the Gods love it. Because, according to the definition of God, he created and ruled the universe. So the rules are in his basis. And probably, something is moral because the Gods says it is. Everything goes around by the Gods’ system and ideas. And I think morality is one of them. So I think that something is moral because the Gods love it.

  34. The word Morality cannot be defined. It is either created by man nor invented by gods. Maybe Morality is deep to the gods that is why they shared it to man, or either there is no god.. Whether there is or not, morality still somehow became a basis of decision-making for man. But one thing that always puzzles me is that man believe there is something moral without even knowing what is moral.

    People believed that things here in the world are created by god.. even rules that He says we have to follow.. Even without explanations what is it.. They said that we have the freedom but how can we demonstrate that freedom if we are given rules that have no basis?? That is not freedom, it holds us to be what we should. It keeps us way from what we really love. We became puppets for their own use.. They tell what is right and wrong, good and evil.

    “Piety then is that which is deep to the gods and impiety is that which is not dear to them.”

    Just like this statement.. What the gods love,we should also love it. What the gods do not love, we should also hate..

    Morality became a requirement rather than just something..

    I believe that there is no morality. Even if there is, Gods did’nt create it. Things always depends on the person.

  35. I say that gods love moral things for they are moral. If the people we refer as gods are worthy of their positions and power, they do know how to love morality. By this love I mean, that they themselves know how to be moral and implement what is moral. Besides if there is no God, life would be just a case of endless and aimless living,and if there is no god all that is left in man is despair. There is no marality without the god…Therefore “something is pious or moral because the Gods love it”…

  36. Morality vs. Authoriy. Who’s gonna win? I think I’m going to choose ‘Morality can exist without Authority.’ Why? Deciding for an answer for this question might take me a lot of thinking, but simply put, for me, there exists something within us that influences us with our decisions. Regardless of what people are going to say about us after doing it, in the end we still stick with our choice. Very much like thinking whether is it right or good, we mostly choose the latter one. A lot of times, we decide depending on the after-product it might bring us on earth, not on the fact if it might bring us to Heaven or not. I completely believe in God, but not actually a hundred percent on religion. Two different things. Religion (aka ‘authority’) for me is created to tell people what is right or wrong, for our own sake. But what if no one invented one? I think life will still find a way to give birth to something that will provide us guidance in our lives. Something that will give us morality. ‘Cause if we have morality, we will probably have some peace, and with peace, we might find happiness, and so on. Which is what we want, probably need, actually. That ends up to the conclusion of mine that morality can exist without authority because humankind, in fact, are the authority. It came from us! For we created the by-laws of being moral. And God, I think, loves us for doing it. =)

  37. “God command it because it is morally good”
    I believe that God loves us and he will never command something that is negative or can affect our situation. In life, God always comes first and God tells us something for our own GOOD and our own personal improvement.
    God commands us for us to live a better life and to experience a life with him that is why
    he wants us to trust and believe in him by giving commands that is for our own sake.
    that’s all..thank you! ^_^

  38. god himself is a rational supreme being.he also thinks and differentiate the right from the wrong. he would command an action to his men to treat them as humans and not as instruments.
    he would comand things that are moral,things that are right.

  39. The starting point of Morality is acknowledge that we are creature, not God. That we are stewards, not masters of creation. The gods love it because it is moral. To live a moral life means to decide then act accordingly to God’s plan for us. Christian moral person are the one who experience liberating and transforming presence of Christ through the graces.

    Morality refers to our choice or human action whether it is good; bad; right or wrong. It is the science of what humans like us ought to do by reasons of what morality depends on the correct view of the person-
    only if humans understood as children of God who have an incalculable dignity can they be expected to act with freedom, dignity, and responsibility.

  40. For me, the gods command it bec. it is morally good bec. the gods know what is right and what is wrong. If God didn’t tell us that its wrong to kill someone, imagine what will be happening to us by now. God knows that we human beings are fragile so He commands us to do morally good things.

    Good day and God bless! ^_^

  41. morality: determining right and wrong.

    “Is an action morally good because God commands it,
    or does God command it because it is morally good?”
    NONE OF THE ABOVE because we have different concepts if an action is morally good

    We have a brain and we know that the brain is responsible for our behavior and thoughts. So even if God appears in front of me (gising na gising ako hinde rin ako lasing o naka drugs… 100% mentally healhty ako nung nag appear siya) and commands me to do something for example He said with feelings “I can see the kindness in your heart… I see that you have no plan doing evil things.. you are very welcome to my kingdom so… COME WITH ME… I’ll bring you to heaven RIGHT NOW…”
    ****!?!?! 110% I’m going to refuse. Because as I said I’m 100% mentally healhty so my brain is functioning 100% so I know it is wrong to go with Him to heaven at that time because I still want to live.(kung sa inyo nangyari to sasama ba kayo o hinde?)mmmm

    So we must base our decisions on our own concepts not on others
    •hinde tayo dapat matakot sa pag gawa ng ating sariling desisyon kahit sino o ano pa ang nasa harap natin (kahit si God pa yan)xD

  42. Can there be morality without god? For some they would say that gods that they believe they are conformed to right and that is why they conduct it as it is. But if there would be no god there would be still the morality because the can understand what might be the cause if they do some action if it is good or wrong. We may say that if the person has a virtuous attitude if he or she does the right thing that came form own decision and from that he or she can have that morality without a god to follow. These gods, they might have the morality, but in some reasons if we follow their knowledge we could be in a wrong path. And that is why we could have the morality even if there would be no gods at all because we can learn on our mistakes through our self.

    If we look on the other side of would there be a morality without god there is still big possibility that we will depend on them because we quickly look back on what they’ve done good than thinking what may cause of it. As we believe on gods we really think that they are the model to be followed by us. These gods have the morality on their own because they do really have the true way of life. At the end it will depend on us if we want that morality to have to make the future right or not. And as a catholic, I myself really believe to God my lord for He is the answer to my right track of my life.

    WelL tHis iS It.. aNd AgaIn tHis Is iT.. bY tHe wAy.. My WaY.. hIgH Way.. sKy WaY… i tHanK YOUUUUUUUU!:D

  43. Morality is doing what is right in the present situation regardless of the consequences involved. The standard of morality is depending on the outlook of the person who is thinking. We as rational beings should know how to balance things, what is right and the best thing to do rather than what satisfy us.

    The gods love it because it is moral. Any standard of morality that cannot be applied is useless. For something to be moral standard, it must pass the tests based on the actual experiences. These god-given experiences teach us to distinguish between morality and immorality. In the same way, anything that gods love is moral because something moral is right and beneficial. Because gods will never lead us to harm and will always guide us in our journey. But still, all of us are given the freedom to choose.

  44. We cannot say that the reason why the moral is moral is that the gods love it. The gods love the moral because it is moral, both parties on this, and we cannot say the gods love the moral because it is moral, and then add that the moral is moral because the gods love it, for this would be circular reasoning.


  45. Right is clearly distinguished from wrong. Right is when you set man as human (having a worth)and wrong when you set a man as a thing (having no worth).

    We can realize for ourselves what is moral and what is not. Any authority cannot dictate what is wrong and what is right since we have to believe that we do is moral and not because it was dictated.

    mark genesis bisconde IS 1

  46. For me, we should know within ourselves what is morality. We should not think of it as gods love it or it is moral(which has an independent criteria). Morality is a system of standards used to produce honest, decent, and ethical results are considered moral.

  47. God is not the basis of morality. Because if God is the source of morality, then it is implied that God innately is good; that without God, a person can perform no good acts. The existence of God is not enough reason to justify his inherent goodness. The morality of an act, therefore, is independent of religious considerations. Morality is giving respect to the freedom of others.

  48. when a man is being dictated by anyone, even God, then it is not morally right. an action is morally right if he himself believes in his action that he is right not because someone said he’s doing the right thing. a man has his own perception on what is right and what is morally wrong.

  49. God is not the basis of morality. Because if God is the source of morality, then it is implied that God innately is good; that without God, a person can perform no good acts. The existence of God is not enough reason to justify his inherent goodness. The morality of an act, therefore, is independent of religious considerations. Morality now as I define is the rightness and wrongness of an act based on his perception

  50. There is something moral because the gods love it because there can be no legal unless the authority love it like in the olden times if the gods love something it can be moral because they have the authority or power to make it legal.

  51. The first statement “The pious is loved by the gods because it is pious”, implements that there isa an independent basis on morality of acts that even the gods recognize. The basis could be the human’s sense of good/evil and right/wrong or something that the authorities have agreed upon on like the church. But contrary to that, why would the gods listen or follow to someone who is much of a lower kind of being compared to them and what could be that independent basis of morality?

    The second statement “It is pious because it is loved by the gods” implements that gods have the absolute power of disctating what is right and what is wrong. It is like God as projection of man’s fears and desires. On the negative side, the gods can tell or command whatever they want and we should obey their orders because it is willed by the gods therefore it is the right thing to do. In Abraham’s dilemma, God ordered him to kill his firstborn as a sign of devotion to him. As a follower of the Lord, every order must be executed but as a loving father, it us very unethical for the son to be killed by the very hands of his own father for a reason that not justifiable. The order is categorized as holy because it is something willed by the gods. Could gods exercise such tyranny to its followers?

    In analyzing the dilemma, we could come up with opinions from the different time eras, on Socrates’ time and the present time which could be based on the Christian faith.

    In Socrates’ time, it is the people that pleases the gods and never the gods that please the people. In ancient mythology, Greek gods were most likely humans in way of thinking. They’re also vulnerable from thoughts of earthly desires. They demand sacrifices from men such as crops, animals or even life just to please them. In those times, the gods’ image were mostly fear, anger and total command among humans.

    As a Christian believer, God is the supreme being that is all knowing and the absolute good. He created us to be his followers and that’s what we should do. God as our loving father, he would not want us to be misled.

    *sir, pinost ko na po ito last friday pa pero mali po napag-postan ko po. sa ICS-5 ko po na-post ung una. hehehe. sorry po

  52. An action is morally good because God commands it, and God commands it because it is morally good.

    “Morality” is the code of conduct, the code of ethics, the capacity of the conscienceor/and the godliness in people.

    God created us in His own image and likeness, he gave us the ability to think. He gave us the rights and the ability to think and decide what is right and wrong, good and evil.
    God commands only those things and actions that are morally good bacause it is morally good.

  53. For me “God commands it because it is morally good.”

    if you would define morality it won’t tell you anything about the Christian God. the usual definition would be; 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. From this, we could already conclude that God commands us to stick to morality simply because it is moral, because it is the right thing to do. God tells us in the Lord’s prayer to follow thy will. yes, it is his will but it is not because he owns it or it originated from him but simply because he would love to see us doing it. God just want us to be free from harm and to follow “thy” will which is the will that would that he would love us to do will lead us to a better way, to the place where we can be with him.

    Another definition of Morality tells us that it refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. This tells us that NOT ALL kinds of Morality contemplates to the morality which God tells us. it depends upon the believers or the followers what can be moral to them cannot be moral to us because we have our own distinct variety and it is Christian morality.

  54. From http://dictionary.reference.com

    1. having or showing a dutiful spirit of reverence for God or an earnest wish to fulfill religious obligations.
    2. characterized by a hypocritical concern with virtue or religious devotion; sanctimonious.
    3. practiced or used in the name of real or pretended religious motives, or for some ostensibly good object; falsely earnest or sincere: a pious deception.
    4. of or pertaining to religious devotion; sacred rather than secular: pious literature.
    5. having or showing appropriate respect or regard for parents or others.

    who determines what moral and what is not. If it is god then there can never be morality without god. But if morality is based on ethics, then there can be.

    therefore, i would say “because pious persons believes that Gods love it”. Since we can’t prove/disapprove the existence of Gods,much less their moral disposition.

    nagkamali po ng post sir. nailagay ko sa mismong page ng 1IS-1. repost lng sir. 😀

  55. I have attempted for that past 35 a long time to drop and Preserve OFF my abdomen undesirable fat.
    I’ve attempted every matter from diet plan tablets, personal trainers, nearly every diet ever proposed, I at this time shell out on two gymnasium memberships, at any provided time, and also have not had the time for you to utilize the benefits of the two regarded as certainly one of them in above a yr. I’ve to state that only matter that assisted me healthy diet plan to lose weight
    hoping the ambiance, ease together with availability
    with all the amenities staying opened from five:00a.m until finally gradually ten:00pm
    would inspire me to continue to be on track, attend a lot of the cardio
    courses, aquatics lessons, stage lessons etc…

  56. Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you penning this post and the rest of
    the website is really good.

  57. My family members every time say that I am killing my time here at
    net, except I know I am getting experience daily by reading such pleasant posts.

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: