Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
The euthyphro dilemma essay
The euthyphro dilemma essay
Euthyphro dilemma paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The euthyphro dilemma essay
The euthyphro dilemma essay
Euthyphro dilemma paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the Euthyphro debate we witness Socrates encountering Euthyphro outside of the Athenian court. Socrates has been brought to court for being charged of impiety while Euthyphro has decided to come to court to prosecute his own father. Socrates decides to make a game of this, stating that Euthyphro must be a master in all things religion if he has decided to prosecute his own father. Euthyphro agrees that he does know about all things holy and Socrates decides to listen, hoping that it may help him in his trial against Mellitus. While Euthyphro lends Socrates a few of his perspectives on what holy truly is Socrates has two main proposals against what he has to say.
Now that it is clear what the Keystone XL pipeline is and why people want it, I will argue that the XL pipeline is unethical. Before making an argument it is important to understand what moral behavior is and to be able to recognize it. The Summa Theologica written by Thomas Aquinas can help one understand and recognize moral behavior. According to Aquinas, there are four types of law. The first is eternal law, which consists of God’s governed guidelines.
Euthyphro, from the beginning seems as he knows everything and anything regarding the laws when he says he is prosecuting his father. Euthyphro is prosecuting his father for the murder since, it is considered a religious crime by Greeks. Euthyphro proudly claims that he is an expert in all religious matters, and this is what differentiates him and a common man. Euthyphro suggests that prosecuting those who commit injustice is holy and not prosecuting them is unholy. Euthyphro notes that his family is angry with him carrying out this prosecution on behalf of a murderer, but he assures them that he knows better than to ensure the position of divine law regarding what is holy and what is unholy.
In the Christians’ perspectives, everyone in this world has been sinful since the creation of humanity. However, they also advise people at least try to do good things in life because virtue is always welcomed to the Kingdom of Heaven while bad actions will only lead to the hand of Satan. The Holy Bible is a precious book teaching God’s children about how to stand against earthly depravity and follow God’s rules of morality. Remarkably, Romans 12 and the Sermon on the Mount teach people the most basic conducts to follow in the context of morality—that is speaking nicely, not judging other people, and having mercy to the enemy.
During his discussion with Socrates, Euthyphro agrees with much of Socrates reasoning. One of these many concessions is that “the gods love the pious act because it is pious”. This concession ultimately leads to Socrates defeating Euthyphro’s claim. Therefore, Euthyphro should have answered slightly different than just a defeated “yes”. However, because of Euthyphro’s definition of the pious, equating the pious to the god loved, the statement is circular in understanding, but it remains a true statement.
By using Euthyphro’s Dilemma as an argument against the authority of the Divine Command Theory we can begin to question whether or not it is an acceptable account for morality. Euthyphro’s dilemma questions
Caleb Stephens April 15, 2017 Introduction to Philosophy The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Philippa Foot’s objection, raised to her own argument against utilitarianism, is correct. Her initial thesis is that benevolence, while the foundation of utilitarianism, is an internal end of morality, rather than the ultimate end of morality. The possible objection to this that there must be some overarching reason behind morality, which must imply a form of consequentialism. The response she offers is that there should be some other form of morality, which is a weak argument, as it does not provide an alternate conception of morality itself.
The deductive problem of evil defines omnipotence as having no bounds to power and being all-good as having the will to prevent and stop any evil that one possibly can. Furthermore, Adams presents how much this problem is amplified when considering horrendous evils that would push the average person to “doubt the positive meaning of their lives”(Adams 300). Adams acknowledges that this definition of God’s qualities alongside the definition of horrendous evils hinders the existence of the Christian God. God is one who is supposed to hold love for all of his creations, but allowing for his creations to suffer needlessly doesn’t align with this love. This problem causes people to question not only God’s love for them but also God’s reasoning in their suffering and their living.
This is so because it becomes difficult to know whether moral goodness is independent of the will of God or if it is as a result of His will. The Euthyphro dilemma offers two intensely differing sides. On one side of the argument, theorists are of the opinion that morality is whatever God wills. This position then brings into question the goodness of God’s will if His command vindicates what is wrong. Arguing that goodness is the determined by God shows that what is rights is so because God wills it to be right.
Philo’s argument starts off with two premises: A “Deity” has unlimited power and knowledge, and anything that he wills, he will receive. Cleanthes and Demea both accept the premises to be true. Philo carries on by stating that since a “Deity” always receives what he wants, then he must not want neither man or animal to achieve happiness. Philo concludes his argument by stating that a “Deity” cannot be humane or compassionate because a man understands these phrases to show sympathy and concern for others. (p.63).
(Muncaster – Religion Lecture, 2016). Meanwhile, Christianity states there is only one god oppose to other religions that state the opposite. Due to the various amounts of moral disagreements between religions, it makes it quite difficult to believe in universal truths as everyday we encounter contradictions that exist within religions in explaining the meaning of good and
The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories. The divine command theory says that what is morally right and what is morally wrong is determined by God and God alone. People who follow the divine command theory believe that God is the creator of all things, therefore, he must also be the creator of morally right and wrong acts.
On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).
Plato had a great expectation of humans to purely seek the good and righteous. However, human nature has flaws that create cracks in Plato’s ideal
The Problem of Evil “Evil has no positive nature but the loss of good has received the name of evil” said St. Augustine. The problem comes from the fact that if there is a deity that is all good, all knowing and all powerful, how can evil exist? The problem of evil (or argument from evil) is the problem of reconciling the existence of the evil in the world with the existence of an omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) and perfectly good God. The argument from evil is the atheistic argument that the existence of such evil cannot be reconciled with, and so disproves, the existence of such a God. Therefore, the “problem of evil” presents a significant issue.