The Euthyphro dilemma challenges the idea that moral obligations are grounded in God's commands, raising concerns about the contingency, counterintuitive possibilities, and arbitrariness of divine command theory.
God's commands are differentiated from commands of other entities by being grounded in reasons that promote human flourishing and justice, making them a more plausible candidate for identifying with moral obligations.
While concerns about arbitrariness in divine command theory exist, it is argued that God's commands are not arbitrary but rather based on reasons that resemble moral obligations, such as factors like human welfare and justice.
Deep dives
The Euthyphro Dilemma and Divine Command Theory
The Euthyphro dilemma questions whether God commands something because it is good or if something is good because God commands it. This dilemma challenges the idea that moral obligations are grounded in God's commands. The first problem is the contingency of moral truths if divine command theory is true, as morality appears to be contingent rather than necessary. The second problem is the counterintuitive possibilities that could occur if God's commands were different, such as the obligation to rape. These possibilities challenge the coherence of a moral theory that depends solely on God's commands. The final problem is arbitrariness, as it appears that God's commands could be arbitrary, lacking reasons or justification. These three concerns raise doubts about the viability of grounding morality in God's commands.
The Relationship Between God's Commands and Moral Obligations
God's commands and moral obligations have a complex relationship. According to divine command theory, God's commands are identified with moral obligations. When God commands something, it is considered morally obligatory. However, this raises the question of why God's commands have authority in determining moral obligations. One possibility is that God's commands are grounded in reasons that promote human flourishing and justice. God, being fully informed and rational, considers these reasons in his commands. This differentiates God's commands from those of other entities, as they are based on different attributes. The content and goals of God's commands align more closely with moral demands, making them a more plausible candidate for identifying with moral obligations. On the other hand, commands of other entities, like a sura, lack the same content and attributes, disqualifying them as property identity candidates for moral obligations.
The Arbitrariness Problem and Reasons
The arbitrariness problem in divine command theory raises concerns about whether God's commands can ground moral obligations. It suggests that if God's commands constitute moral obligations, then God could have chosen different commands without any reason. However, it is argued that God's commands are not arbitrary, as they are based on reasons. If God has compelling reasons for his commands, it follows that we also have reasons to follow those commands. These reasons might involve factors such as human welfare, justice, and the flourishing of sentient beings. The strength and nature of these reasons can closely resemble moral obligations. While reasons can give rise to compelling motivations for action, it is important to note that divine command theory primarily addresses the relationship between God's commands and moral obligations rather than actions based on compelling reasons.
The Role of Reasons and Deontic Status
Considering the role of reasons in divine command theory raises questions about the deontic status of actions independent of God's commands. It is argued that reasons involving welfare and the welfare of persons can give rise to deontic properties. These reasons may involve strong motives or considerations for action. The deontic status of actions can be influenced by the demands made by persons and the strong reasons related to their welfare and life. However, it is important to differentiate between the existence of compelling reasons and the concept of moral obligations. While these reasons can contribute to a sense of duty or obligation, divine command theory focuses on the unique authority and nature of God's commands as the ultimate source of moral obligations.
The relevance of moral reasons and prudential reasons
The podcast discusses the distinction between moral reasons and prudential reasons in relation to the decision to hire a hitman. The speaker argues that while the murderer may have prudential reasons for killing, moral reasons outweigh them. This implies that although the murderer has reasons to support killing, moral reasons to not kill are stronger. The concept of good is explored, distinguishing moral goodness from welfare as the concept of goodness. The speaker suggests that divine command theory can accommodate the existence of non-moral goodness.
The relationship between God's commands and moral obligations
The podcast delves into the inference that if God has reasons to command something, then we have reasons to do that thing. The speaker argues against this inference, using examples from utilitarianism and coordinated behavior to highlight situations where reasons to support a rule may not coincide with reasons to perform the action. Additionally, the distinction between supererogatory actions (going beyond moral obligations) and obligatory actions is discussed. The speaker points out that strong reasons to act may not automatically lead to obligations, but rather supererogatory actions. Ultimately, these points challenge the common arguments made in favor of divine command theory.
The Euthyphro Dilemma says that either God has reasons for his commands or He doesn’t. Take the second option. God has no reasons for His commands. Well then God’s commands are arbitrary–however, morality can’t be arbitrary. Now take the first option. God has reasons for His commands. Well then these reasons themselves are sufficient to give us moral obligations. No need for God. The Euthyphro Dilemma is meant to show that grounding morality in God is misguided. Jason argues that the Euthyphro Dilemma is sound, Matt argues it is not.
Link to the YouTube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_M19Rv52Og&t=99s
Our Website: www.capturingchristianity.com
Our Patreon: www.patreon.com/capturingchristianity
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
