A few thoughts on the Euthyphro dilemma

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

Arbitrary standard

Is there a reason or justification for God's nature being the way that it is or is it simply arbitrary? In this case, I would say that God's nature must be arbitrary and this isn't a problem. Any objective moral standard must be arbitrary, actually. If there was a further explanation of the ultimate standard for morality, then we would have to ask what the reason for that standard is...on and on into infinite regress. It has to stop somewhere and no matter what, the standard will be arbitrary in this sense. This is true regardless of whether we hold a Christian view of morality, a Platonistic view of morality or whether we simply reject the idea of objective morality altogether. In Christianity, the ultimate standard would be God's nature. In Platonism, the ultimate standard would be whatever moral facts happen to exist eternally. Without objective morality, the standard is whatever the person decides it to be (least amount of suffering, for example). The main difference between objective morality and subjective morality is that if we lived in a world with objective morality, it would actually be true that our actions were morally right or wrong.

I will actually try to respond to the content of what you wrote instead of being lazy like the other atheists here.

I don't understand why you're not bothered by the problem of infinite regress of objective morality. I would think that would be a major blow to the concept of objective morality. God is supposedly suppose to be the source of everything, but in this case, you seem to be saying you're fine with morality not actually coming from him. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.