The Two Trees

[Shell B]

Okay, after reading the thread (not your essay . . . yet), my only advice right now is to chop some of what you have right now. 100 words is not enough to refute any argument, unless you already have your closing. You will need, at minimum, 50 words for your closing paragraph and that is a brief paragraph. Edit and, while you are editing, come up with your argument. I'll be back with a better analysis in a few shakes.

---

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.

Okay, involving my above advice, you can get more room out of this paragraph. Instead of "I have chosen to evaluate," try to go with "I will be evaluating" or "I am evaluating." The latter is stronger, as it does not rely on the passive voice. Go with "I will show" rather than "I will be showing." This will eliminate the passive voice as well. I suggest you do this wherever else possible for the entire text. It should give you more room. Sorry for the technical advice, but that is what I have to offer.

Before I read on, I really hope you describe how god's choices are not arbitrary. Because, if god's choices are arbitrary, which is not something easily proven or disproven, then you still have arbitrary morality.

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.

I would do away with the explanation of human terms. Go with mankind or humanity in the rest of the essay, as it needs no explanation and refer to individuals as individuals or a person and dispense with the explanation for that. The concepts should not be difficult for the reader to understand if the essay is written well. "Will" should only stand god's commands. The good and bad part you have there does not apply. God's will is God's will. Therefore, I would say, "Will" refers to "God's will." That too is an easy enough concept. If it requires further explanation, go with "Will" refers to "What god wants, commands or made happen."

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]

Good, but I think the focus on person, them and their is distracting as hell.

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.

How do we know if god's choices are arbitrary, though? I mean, I'm an atheist, so I'm coming from a suspension of disbelief standpoint, as it is, but I still don't see how that can be assumed. "Morality is god's will" is not equal to "God's will is arbitrary" or "Morality is arbitrary." In my opinion, you fail to explain how you can conclude such a thing without knowing how god decided what is moral and what is not.

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.

This is good. There is a contradiction, but does that contradiction really arise at this stage? Does it not arise at an earlier point?

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?

I have to say, the argument starts to fall apart with all of this use of the word arbitrary and assumptions of how god makes choices.

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 skipped a lot because my critique still had to do with the term arbitrary and its apparent misuse or the assumptions required for its proper use. Given that you are at an early stage in this subject, I would say tweak this as much as you can to make it a tighter, more cohesive argument and go ahead and pass it in. Good or bad, you will learn from it.

Really good go, though. I hope I was able to help in some way.