Breaking Down the Apology and the Euthyphro

suggestion that what makes right actions right is that the gods love, or approve of them. First, there is the problem that since questions of right

It is impossible for many Greek gods to be true deities due to their unholy and immoral nature. Throughout Greek mythology, many gods are continually seen committing unholy acts such as adultery. For example, in ancient Greek mythology, Zeus, the king of the gods, was married to the goddess Hera but had many other divine consorts. Some of these included: Demeter, Leto, Maia, Dione, Themis, and Mnemosyne (Atsma, “ZEUS”). The adulterous acts exhibited throughout the Greek myths show that Zeus is able to sin. This sin portrays Zeus as unholy and reveals his immorality. Unlike the sinful gods of Greek mythology, the God of the Bible is without fault and sin. “Because God's nature is perfect and holy, He cannot sin, so His standard is objective” (Viet). Due to God’s inability to sin and His creation of mankind, God is given the ability to hold His people to His own moral standards. Being an unblemished deity, God provides laws and standards for his people to abide by. His morality is evident in the Ten Commandments

Traditional rhetoric is based on persuasion. According to Plato, rhetoric is the “art of enchanting a soul, and Aristotle defines rhetoric as “the faculty of discovering in any particular case all of the available means of persuasion" (Edinmiller 2017). Plato believed rhetoric and persuasion were extremely powerful but was very dangerous if used for personal motives. This led to his disagreements with the Sophists, who practiced rhetoric for a profit. Plato believed that for someone to be a true orator, they must be well trained in the art and have a love of wisdom and justice. For Aristotle, the goal of rhetoric was to see all sides of an argument and use rhetoric to connect with beliefs of the audience. This lead to the creation of the artistic proofs in rhetoric, logos, pathos and ethos (Herrick).

In addition to the logical limitations placed upon God, God’s omnipotence is also constrained by ethical limitations. To introduce this topic, Plato introduces the question of the piety in his Euthyphro. In this dialogue, Socrates asks Euthyrpho, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” Since that day, question has divided the theistic philosophical community into two factions: intellectualists and voluntarists. Intellectualists holds that morality exists outside of the mind and will of God, and that God’s commands are in accordance with his perfect reason, not his omnipotent will only. Likewise, voluntarists holds that an morality is moral by virtue that God has commanded

The divine command theory states that in order for something to be “morally right” it would have to be “commanded by God” and for it to be “morally wrong” it would be “forbidden by God” (Rachels, 2003). There are two interpretations to this theory; one is the author interpretation and the other is the reliable reporter interpretation. The author interpretation of the Divine Command Theory says what is right is right because God commands it. While the reliable reporter interpretation says God commands what is right because it is right.

The nature of morality is believed to have been heavily impacted by the enduring history of religion, yet philosophical conflict has arisen of over differing interpretations of Socrates question of whether ‘our moral virtues were designed as good by an omnipotent God, or whether they are good because God recognizes them as good.’

Even though different people have distinct convictions, those convictions do not affect God’s unchangeable rules. In Exodus 20, God gave the Ten Commandments to the nation of Israel as an ethical code to live by, a code in which reflects the character and nature of God. Although God offered them grace and mercy in abundance, His laws and standards did not change and remain unchanged, and even though Christ followers are not living under the weight of the Levitical Law today (Galatians 2:16), and are, therefore, living under grace (Ephesians 2:8), God’s character reflected in the Ten Commandments endures. It is this author’s opinion that God has chosen to work in various ways with different people across time, nevertheless, He has and will always have absolute, unchanging truth (Psalm 19:7b). Therefore, mankind cannot establish its own ethics because there is a higher authority to whom man is accountable. Furthermore, it remains inconsistent to recognize both ethical relativism and God’s word as true because the Bible expresses its supreme authority in various locations (Psalms 119:160, John 1:1, John 17:17, Galatians 1:1, 1 Peter 1:25, Revelation 22:18-19). Although ethical relativism cannot be proven true or false using human logic or reasoning, this author believes it contradicts the

The Apology by Plato chronicles the trial and sentencing of the philosopher Socrates. It reads as a firsthand account of the testimony from both Socrates and his accusers, more often than not Socrates has a rather strong rebuttal for the accusations however in the end it was still not enough to save him from conviction. This trail being the culmination of decades of teaching throughout Athens, to guide people to the truth that resides inside them.

First lets look at the doctrine of the Bible, this is were we get what God's

Thus, there is no cause of the justness of the divine will; rather, the divine will itself generates justness.” Accordingly, the two passages from Genesis and Exodus affirm for us that no moral bases exist outside of God’s sovereignty, nor does God change from one day to the next offering some capricious moral law, rather he is the Creator of all things and remains steadfast and immutable. HE IS WHO HE IS and from him – that is, his very nature – flows what is the definition of right and wrong.

Western philosophy, beginning with the dialogues of Plato, is premised upon both the rejection of the artform of tragedy and the rejection of experiences and events considered to be tragic. This general and far-reaching exclusion of the tragic originates from Plato’s dissension made in The Republic of the normative claims defined by nearly all tragic and epic poetry regarding the question of how a human being should live. Tragedy, merely by being tragedy, expresses the following evaluative commitments regarding human life: One, events beyond the agent’s control have the ability to play a major role in her ability to lead an ethical and moral life. Two, tragedy validates forming emotional attachments to people and objects beyond the agent’s control. And three, sympathy, fear, and pity for the tragic hero demonstrate the recognition of certain ethical truths, truths which may be applied to everyday life of the audience members. Plato flatly denies all three of these claims. The Plato of The Apology states that a good person cannot be harmed. The good person is self-sufficient. Both uncontrollable events and the fate of external objects or people have no effect on the virtuous person. She remains virtuous no matter the circumstances. Additionally, returning to The Republic, Plato denies the cognitive value of emotions. Thinking connected to the emotions necessarily focuses on the immediate, the finite, and the uncontrollable, and, therefore, the false. Poetry must be banned

The Divine Command Theory dictates that “An act is morally required just because it is commanded by God, and immoral just because God forbids it (Shafer-Landau 65).” This view is often accepted by religious people as the basis for morality; the morality of an action is determined by whether or not it is commanded by God. However, there are multiple problems presented by this line of thinking. One of the most common arguments against this theory is known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, derived from Plato’s account of Socrates questioning Euthyphro about the determinant of piety, albeit in relation to the polytheistic Greek system of belief. In this account, Socrates asks if “…the gods love actions because they are pious, or are actions pious because the gods love them?” This inquiry can also obviously be applied to the modern, monotheistic interpretation of the Divine Command Theory. As Euthyphro struggles to answer the question, Socrates details the premises that lead to the conclusion that the gods love actions because of their piety, and not the other way around. This refutes the Divine Command Theory, and lays out a rather logical argument that explains the flaws in accepting it. While the argument of the Euthyphro Dilemma is apparently logically sound, one potential objection is that it limits the nature of morality to two distinct options, and excludes the possibility that moral goodness is what corresponds to God’s nature: God did not arbitrarily designate morality to

When reflecting on the diversity of the world and the people that surround us it’s difficult to understand how we all compromise with one another. Everyone desires different things in life, for some its happiness and shiny objects, for others its Gods approval and moral intuition. Those that aim towards happiness are said to be a part of theories of the good, were as those that are more in tuned to the subject of God or gods and morality are regarded as theories of morality. With this in mind, we will be shifting our focus on theories of morality, specifically relating to the divine command theory. In concerns to this theory there is a division that one must choose between deep moral convictions and Gods absolute moral authority. Throughout, this intellectual argument concerning the divine command theory; I will be arguing that this is in fact a plausible moral theory, based off an answer that many religious individuals take on and that is God’s role inbeing superior over all.

Throughout human history, the topic of theology has been a central aspect of everyday life. A common denominator of all modern-day religions is that they provide a set of rules which one is to follow in order to live as a good, moral being. When a deity (or a group of deities) commands followers to abide by specific moral standards though a vehicle such as prophets, religious texts or otherwise, this is called Divine Command Theory (DCT). Those who accept this theory believe that moral action coincides with what has been ordered by the deities, and immoral action would occur when one deviates from these orders. Despite this theory remaining relevant into the twenty-first century, it has still yet to solve one age-old dilemma. The Euthyphro

Divine Command Theory states that the moral goodness of an act is based on religious authority. Hence, for