This is a rough draft of a 1000 word essay I have to do for my philosophy unit at university. It's to do with the Euthyphro Dilemma.
I think I have been able to show why it can't be that something is good because God commands it, but I'm not sure if I fleshed out the idea entirely.
Feedback would be most appreciated from theists and atheists alike.
I have chosen to evaluate Mortimer’s view on the Euthyphro Dilemma. I will be showing that his reasoning can be shown to fit my explanation of something I call the Two Trees. This explanation will demonstrate that if something is good because God commands it then morality cannot seem arbitrary like how this choice in the Dilemma makes it seem. Therefore because morality would indeed seem arbitrary it shows that something is not right because God commands it.
Before I commence I would like to define a few key words that I will be using. Whenever I speak of ‘God’ I’m explicitly referring to the Christian god and not the general concept of a god. This is because Mortimer’s argument is based on the Christian god as if it is the god that determines what is morally right. Whenever I mention ‘man’ I am referring to humanity and ‘person’ I shall use for an arbitrary individual who belongs to humanity. Lastly, the ‘Will’ is everything that is good and bad according to God’s commands.
To begin with I will first establish a couple of Mortimer’s key points. He begins by stating this:
(1)God made us and all the world.[1]
So man’s existence was caused by God. By definition this implies that God designed every last detail about man. Mortimer’s next point states how man should see morality as a result of man being created by God:
(2)A thing is not right simply because we think it is...it is right because God commands it. This means that there is a real distinction between right and wrong...it is rooted in the nature and Will of God.[2]
So according to Point 2, man can only know what right and wrong is if man knows and does the Will. In other words morality is arbitrary. Man cannot evaluate something as being right or wrong without knowing the Will. This is exactly what Mortimer says:
(3)When a [person’s] conscience tells [them] that a thing is right, which is in fact what God wills, [their] conscience is true and its judgement correct; when a [person’s] conscience tells [them] a thing is right which is, in fact, contrary to God’s will, [their] conscience is false and telling [them] a lie.[3]
We can conclude that the Will must be an arbitrary choice by God of rights and wrongs because according to Mortimer man’s own judgement of right and wrong seem to be contradictory at times with the Will. In other words, man can’t seem to justify the Will based on man’s perception of what right and wrong is.
A contradiction seems to arise at this stage. If Point 1 tells us we are created by God then why does our perception of right and wrong not match the Will of the one that created us out of his own will? The explanation of the Two Trees shows us it should match, as you will see.
Point 1 tells us every aspect of man is entirely created by God. So let us define this relationship by defining God as a tree and one aspect of man, man’s morality, as the fruit. In this case we’ll say man’s morality is an apple.
So if we think of different type of fruits it can be said that their properties are arbitrary. One fruit is no better than the other. This seems to be logical if something is right because God commands it. That is, out of all the fruits God arbitrarily chose our morality to look like an apple. Now a question arises. If we are the fruits of this tree, then why does morality start to look arbitrary according to the Will? Naturally the Will should look and feel like the apple our morality is but instead our perception of right and wrong, which was designed by God, does not match the Will. Did the apple not come from the apple tree?
If the Will seems so arbitrary and not natural then aren’t we in fact talking about a different fruit altogether? The implication that must be noted with respect to the tree and fruit is that the fruit defines what type of tree it is. One cannot tell the species of tree unless one sees its fruit. So by definition God must be an apple tree. So if his Will i.e. fruit seems arbitrary i.e. a different fruit then this can only mean one thing. We are talking about a different god altogether who could not have created the apple but must be an e.g. orange tree.
The Two Trees makes it clear that although something might only be right because God commands it, man should be able to naturally know what right and wrong is, without morality beginning to look arbitrary as if it is the will of a different god who couldn’t have created us. In other words, the values of God which are found in the Bible should in fact resonate with all of humanity if Mortimer’s argument is true. This is clearly not what we see in reality, as there are many definitions of god.
In conclusion, I think the solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma can’t be the Horn that says something is right because God commands it because of my reasoning above.
I think I have been able to show why it can't be that something is good because God commands it, but I'm not sure if I fleshed out the idea entirely.
Feedback would be most appreciated from theists and atheists alike.
I have chosen to evaluate Mortimer’s view on the Euthyphro Dilemma. I will be showing that his reasoning can be shown to fit my explanation of something I call the Two Trees. This explanation will demonstrate that if something is good because God commands it then morality cannot seem arbitrary like how this choice in the Dilemma makes it seem. Therefore because morality would indeed seem arbitrary it shows that something is not right because God commands it.
Before I commence I would like to define a few key words that I will be using. Whenever I speak of ‘God’ I’m explicitly referring to the Christian god and not the general concept of a god. This is because Mortimer’s argument is based on the Christian god as if it is the god that determines what is morally right. Whenever I mention ‘man’ I am referring to humanity and ‘person’ I shall use for an arbitrary individual who belongs to humanity. Lastly, the ‘Will’ is everything that is good and bad according to God’s commands.
To begin with I will first establish a couple of Mortimer’s key points. He begins by stating this:
(1)God made us and all the world.[1]
So man’s existence was caused by God. By definition this implies that God designed every last detail about man. Mortimer’s next point states how man should see morality as a result of man being created by God:
(2)A thing is not right simply because we think it is...it is right because God commands it. This means that there is a real distinction between right and wrong...it is rooted in the nature and Will of God.[2]
So according to Point 2, man can only know what right and wrong is if man knows and does the Will. In other words morality is arbitrary. Man cannot evaluate something as being right or wrong without knowing the Will. This is exactly what Mortimer says:
(3)When a [person’s] conscience tells [them] that a thing is right, which is in fact what God wills, [their] conscience is true and its judgement correct; when a [person’s] conscience tells [them] a thing is right which is, in fact, contrary to God’s will, [their] conscience is false and telling [them] a lie.[3]
We can conclude that the Will must be an arbitrary choice by God of rights and wrongs because according to Mortimer man’s own judgement of right and wrong seem to be contradictory at times with the Will. In other words, man can’t seem to justify the Will based on man’s perception of what right and wrong is.
A contradiction seems to arise at this stage. If Point 1 tells us we are created by God then why does our perception of right and wrong not match the Will of the one that created us out of his own will? The explanation of the Two Trees shows us it should match, as you will see.
Point 1 tells us every aspect of man is entirely created by God. So let us define this relationship by defining God as a tree and one aspect of man, man’s morality, as the fruit. In this case we’ll say man’s morality is an apple.
So if we think of different type of fruits it can be said that their properties are arbitrary. One fruit is no better than the other. This seems to be logical if something is right because God commands it. That is, out of all the fruits God arbitrarily chose our morality to look like an apple. Now a question arises. If we are the fruits of this tree, then why does morality start to look arbitrary according to the Will? Naturally the Will should look and feel like the apple our morality is but instead our perception of right and wrong, which was designed by God, does not match the Will. Did the apple not come from the apple tree?
If the Will seems so arbitrary and not natural then aren’t we in fact talking about a different fruit altogether? The implication that must be noted with respect to the tree and fruit is that the fruit defines what type of tree it is. One cannot tell the species of tree unless one sees its fruit. So by definition God must be an apple tree. So if his Will i.e. fruit seems arbitrary i.e. a different fruit then this can only mean one thing. We are talking about a different god altogether who could not have created the apple but must be an e.g. orange tree.
The Two Trees makes it clear that although something might only be right because God commands it, man should be able to naturally know what right and wrong is, without morality beginning to look arbitrary as if it is the will of a different god who couldn’t have created us. In other words, the values of God which are found in the Bible should in fact resonate with all of humanity if Mortimer’s argument is true. This is clearly not what we see in reality, as there are many definitions of god.
In conclusion, I think the solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma can’t be the Horn that says something is right because God commands it because of my reasoning above.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
