Plato's Euthyphro: In Defense of God

Plato’s famous dialogue Euthyphro chronicles a conversation between Socrates and a man named Euthyphro and concerns the nature of “good” and is widely applied to question the existence of God. Socrates asks Euthyphro a number of questions concerning piety and its relation to the Greek pantheon of Gods. In the end, the dilemma Euthyphro faces is this; Is a thing good because it is loved by the gods or do the gods love something because it is good? This is the takeaway that many philosophers who disagree with those who subscribe to theistic (I will be focusing on Christianity) teachings use to attempt to discredit the existence of an ultimate being or creator.

The principle use of Euthyphro’s dilemma to attack believers relies on a false dilemma. The two choices are thus: What is good is arbitrary and solely relies on the will of some being; God is bound to some moral code like the one humans tend to agree on. If one adopts the view that right and wrong is solely based on the whim of an unknowable God, then the morals that our laws and practices are based on are essentially worthless. This presents a problem for many who face this quandary as we “know” that certain acts such as theft, murder, arson…etc. are wrong and immoral but according to the dilemma, God could simply choose that those acts are actually righteous and morally above board. This is especially worrying to the believer as God is taught to be all powerful and to be obeyed in all things, however, the alternative is just as unfavorable. If one chooses that God is indeed all good and bound to the same moral standards as us, this gives peace of mind to those concerned with the side-effects of a bi-polar creator but, it presents a profound problem that seems to undercut the foundations of Christian teachings. God is believed to be omnipotent--or all powerful—and above all things; if God is able to be influenced by set moral standards then this belief is categorically false. To many who wish to defend the existence of the Christian God this decision is perplexing and indeed there is no correct answer. However, it does have its own problems that lead me to suppose that Euthyphro’s Dilemma presents no reason to doubt the existence of God and in fact, there is more reason to believe than not.

Euthyphro’s Dilemma is structured in a way to offer only two possible options that are both detrimental to Biblical teachings. However, these are not the only options to choose from; hence why it is fallacious. The fundamental problem with the Dilemma is that it misrepresents the connection between good and God according to Christian beliefs. The believer should claim that first, there is in fact a moral standard and that morality is not arbitrarily decided by God. Secondly, that moral standard is not above God but is intrinsically an extension of his nature. In this way can Euthyphro’s Dilemma be worked around. A critic might argue that this answer’s reasoning is circular in that by claiming that goodness is a quality of god, one is just claiming that God has the nature of “good” that God has; essentially redefining good in transcendent terms. This counterargument is groundless as the statement “a characteristic of God” is not the same as defining God or “good”. God is not good in the way that a woman who gives birth is a mother; God is good in the way that a mountain is solid. Just like how the quality “solid” and a mountain are not the same thing—as something need not be a mountain to be solid—“goodness” is simply an essential quality of God.

Now, after successfully defending against Plato, the believer feels vindicated and justified in their beliefs. However, Euthyphro’s Dilemma and the discussion of the root of moral goodness illuminates another problem with an all-powerful, all-good God; evil. The very existence of evil seems to debunk the theory of a righteous God as the idea of a being, who is the embodiment of goodness, allowing evil to run rampant through the world seems contradictory. A delve into Christian theology may yet again help provide an explanation for the problem of evil. The first part of the believer’s rebuttal is based on “Soul-Making”, a concept spoken about at length by John Hick in his famous work Evil and the God of Love. Soul-making is essentially the prosses by which people come to believe in God, specifically by going through hardships and experiencing worldly evils. This is a core pillar of the Christian faith as the ultimate goal of our finite existence is to develop a personal relationship with God which cannot be done in a paradise world, devoid of evil and pain, where humans only experience the most profound pleasures. The only way for humans to truly overcome their selfish nature and develop the most desirable qualities that exhibit goodness is to undergo stress and pain. In other words, a world in which soul-making is possible must share many of the qualities present in our world, evil and all; as Hick says, a world must have, ”obstacles to be overcome, tasks to be performed, goals to be achieved, setbacks to be endured, problems to be solved, dangers to be met.” This belief is not only held by Christian Dogma but by ancient and modern pop culture. Think of the many fairytales and epics where the hero must endure great trials and tribulations to develop certain virtues that build them up to be righteous and of great moral character. Remember how many super-hero stories depict a young hero developing through painful experiences. This further substantiates the possibility that a world that contains evil and an all-good creator can co-exist.

The idea of soul making leads to another basis of Christian belief that supports the duality of good and evil; free will. The belief that man was created with free will is a hotly debated topic among atheists and believers alike. Let us assume that humans do have free will and that our actions are not deterministic; to argue effectively we must first define what free will is. Avoiding specifics—as there are a multitude of definitions that vary in minute ways—free will can be defined as a cause and effect relationship; I think therefore I do—to play on the words of Descartes. So, if humans are truly free, then each individual is in command of their own actions which cannot be determined by any external law or being unless willed by the individual. This means that humans are not bound by the intrinsic characteristics of God and due to the selfish nature of man, it is inevitable that some humans choose to exercise their free will in ways that cause detriment to others.

One famous argument in favor of believing in God is Pascal’s Wager where Pascal argues that it’s is in one’s self interest to believe in God. On one hand we have the believer who—if God exists—will go to heaven and enjoy all the pleasures therein and the atheist who risks eternal damnation by rejecting God. Pascals wager relies on his supposition that an atheist risks nothing by believing in God as it costs nothing and the potential rewards are limitless, and in the event that God exists one would rather have been a believer than not, While it is cited as a good reason for non-believers to convert, it is a weak and counter-intuitive argument for inducing piety. From a logical standpoint Pascal’s wager seems sound and reasonable to believe but from a Christian standpoint this argument is directly in opposition to Biblical principles. A Christian does not believe in God based off of chance and does not make wagers as to his existence. Does a gambler bet on cards because he truly believes in a set outcome? Or, does he bet based off a chance and the promise of a reward? Suppose the atheist adopts this viewpoint, proclaims Christ, and attends church regularly; if they do not truly believe what they are claiming to then they in fact gain nothing. Acting in one’s self interest in accordance to Pascal’s Wager does not promote soul-making and is rather an example of human’s misuse of free-will. Furthermore, as we’ve shown that one of Pascal’s premises is false, we can reject this argument all together.