What is Euthyphro Dilemma?

Euthyphro is a Socratic dialogue that takes place a week before the Socrates trial between Socrates and Euthyphro (Alican 209). The discussion discusses the meaning of holiness and justice. Euthyphro defines righteousness as the prosecution of those who break the law. In the dialogue, Socrates meets Euthyphro in the King Archons lobby. Socrates tells Euthyphro that he is getting ready to go to church to press charges against Meletus for impiety. Euthyphro tells Socrates that he will go to court to put his father on trial for putting his employee in chains and leaving him to die. The employee had murdered a fellow employee; Socrates' father used this as a justification for killing his employee. Since Euthyphro has so much confidence in himself, Socrates challenges him by asking him to define piety. His definition will explain Socrates’ case in the courtroom. Assuming that Socrates is asked to define holiness, he will reckon Euthyphro's definition. This leads to the central dilemma in their dialogue in the courtroom. The two cannot come to a satisfactory conclusion, thus indicating the complexity of the matter, given that the two parties gave satisfactory justifications for their positions.

Euthyphro defines piety in three different ways: as what the gods love, prosecuting the wrongdoers, and lastly, doing things that make sense (Rabbas 291). This dilemma raises questions such as: is an action wrong because God forbids it, or does God forbid it because it is wrong? Some deeds are just right or wrong in themselves. The dilemma challenges whether what is believed to be morally correct is a dictatorial choice by God or has some objectives. God loves good things since there is good that is seen in Him. The problem comes in when it looks like something outside of God that controls Him. Also, the dilemma asserts that what is right is good just because God says it is good. This means that if God's choices are random, then morality is not impartial. It may also make room for making assumptions about what God wants. The dilemma shows that it is unnecessary to obey God since Obedience brings you well while disobedience brings you punishment. Lastly, saying ‘God is good’ is not correct under the divine command theory; it is not what is believed by the nature of religion. The dilemma is a philosophical problem that views morality with theism. It brings confusion, as people tend to do what is wrong, thinking that it is right to fight wrong actions, yet they are wrong.

Euthyphro's dilemma challenges one to know what is good or not good. What is goodness? How can you tell worth without having its definition? One should judge merit through his or her moral intuition. Even an atheist understands moral terms. He does not need God for him to be able to identify morality (Miller). The dilemma motivates one to live life by fulfilling one's duty to both God and humanity. The puzzle communicates the importance of relating situations with morality and religion. For instance, in homosexuality, some people believe a same-sex relationship is morally wrong, and to others, it is not an issue. Homosexual relationship has the benefits of happiness, support, security, passion, and zest for life. Some people rebuke homosexuals simply because God says the kit is wrong in the bible. Given that a believer must fulfil all the regulations that religious institutions have instituted and that members of society need to live in peace and harmony despite their diversity, the dilemma requires one to approach situations pragmatically. The dilemma is escalated by factors such as the belief in punishment if one does not uphold particular rules and the need to tolerate other members of society.

Lastly, a lady in Houston believed that God told her to drown her kids in the bathtub. The command was divine. Some people are not religious command theorists; hence, their arguments will be based on why God would do that because it is not right to kill an innocent life. The Euthyphro dilemma is subjective since it depends on one’s perspective emanating from characteristics such as religious beliefs. An individual sharing the same beliefs as the lady in question will have to choose a trade-off between possible spiritual punishment and protecting the lives of the babies. The dilemma is disastrous when particular governments enact religious codes and laws. The lady who drowned the babies in Houston, for instance, was imprisoned despite her explanation that her actions would save the victims from eternal fire in hell. The public's reaction to the case on platforms such as social media varied significantly depending on the respondents' perspective. The judicial punishment that the lady was sentenced to did not change her perspective on the matter, thus making it ineffective in controlling society.

Work Cited

Alican, Necip Fikri. "EUTHYPHRO." Rethinking Plato. Brill Rodopi, 2012. 207-250.

Miller, Christian. "Euthyphro Dilemma." International Encyclopedia of Ethics (2013).

Rabbås, Øyvind. "Piety as a Virtue in the Euthyphro." Ancient Philosophy 25.2 (2005): 291-318.