The first premise reiterates the similar question Socrates had brought up in the Original Euthyphro Question by demonstrating the two alternatives of the Divine Command Theory. “Either an action A is right because God makes it the case” is essentially saying that action A is the right thing to do because God commanded it. Studying for a test would be the right thing to do because it is what is commanded by God and what God expects you to do. Studying for a test in this case is not necessarily the right thing to do because it help you prepare for what questions might be asked which will increase your chances of receiving a good grade, which is what one may assume, but solely God said so according to this of the Divine Command Theory. Similarly, …show more content…
Similarly, cheating on an exam is wrong because (a) you are simply relying on someone who has worked hard in order to prepare for the exam which is extremely unfair and (b) you are defeating the whole purpose of taking classes and attending school, which is to learn, which is why God forbids you to do so. The second and third premise are purposefully crafted to lead to a conclusion that the Divine Command Theorist cannot accept, therefore deeming the theory in itself false. If the Divine Command Theorists accepts the second option in premise one, that entails that morality is independent of God’s will. Accepting the first alternative leads to the disturbing possibility that if God commanded murder or torture, those actions would be deemed moral. Plato structured the argument through Socrates dialogue with an intent to demonstrate that religion requires more depth than simply accepting arbitrary beliefs. He was purposeful and successful in attempt to create two possible options, with the acceptance of either leading to troublesome