The second reason is that he doesn’t want to suggest that the idea of a positive god can be
He does as such for a few reasons. In any case, he doesn't trust that one's obligation toward a perfect being ought to be viewed as something that is partitioned and particular from his obligation toward his kindred men. In actuality, he holds that the main genuine method for rendering administration to God comprises in doing what one can to advance the good and otherworldly improvement of people. Second, Socrates respects the reason and capacity of religion as something that is unique in relation to the view communicated by Euthyphro. Rather than religion being utilized as a sort of hardware or gadget for getting what one needs, as was valid for Euthyphro's situation, Socrates trusts the basic role of genuine religion is to carry one's own life into amicability with the will of God.
Euthyphro’s Dilemma is when Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Does God love goodness because it is good, or is it good because God loves it?” Euthyphro’s Dilemma is that God determines what is good and evil, right and wrong. This dilemma challenges the Divine Command theory because according to Euthyphro’s Dilemma we would be obligated to do something wrong because God commanded it. This conflicts with the Divine Command theory because it would imply that cruelty could be morally right if God told us to do so. The idea that cruelty can be morally right goes up against the belief in the Divine Command Theory because it proposes that an action's status that is morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God
In Plato’s, The Republic, Book I, Socrates tries to prove to Thrasymachus “whether just people also live better and are happier than unjust ones” (352d). He argues that everything has a predisposed proficiency at a function, and that this functions are performed well by the peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice (353a-353d) . The point of this paper is to present Socrates argument and evaluate it to the best of my ability. This argument can be categorized as an inductive generalization. Socrates states that the function of anything is what it alone can do or what it does best.
HUM2225 Dr. Hotchkiss September 30, 2016 Moral Insight Plato’s Euthyphro is based on a lesson between Socrates and Euthyphro outside of the Athenian court about the definition of pious or impious. Euthyphro was surprised to see Socrates there and even more curious to find out why he was there. Socrates explained that the court was persecuting him for impiety because Meletus was spreading rumors about him corrupting the Athenian youth. Euthyphro explains to Socrates that he was there to prosecute his father for murdering a farm worker named Dionysus.
Divine command theory states that an act is good if and only if it is loved by the gods. That is, to be loved by the gods and to be good are the same. An important challenge to this assertion, the Euthyphro
Questioning if God is not omnipotent, the entire idea of God creating the world can be called into question. Another issue is that if it is said that God is no longer entirely good there is the possibility to say that God has evil or bad intentions, and we should denounce him. Lastly, if one says that evil does not exist, then there is no possible way to separate those people who are considered to be deviants of society. This would mean that those who commit crimes that are evil in nature like murder and rape would be considered to be normal and acceptable.
Socrates asks Euthyphro “is the holy, holy because it is loved by the gods?” or “is something loved by the gods because it is holy?” Euthyphro was charging his father with murder. Not that he physically put his hands on one, but while another was awaiting the decision, his father left the man to die of starvation and lack of water. In Euthyphro’s eyes, his father was the murder of this man. The reason he is prosecuting his father is because he believes in the Gods and that no matter if someone is of kin if it is not right then it just isn’t right.
I lean less towards the second point simply because it creates a scenario where God is not the creator, which is the main idea surrounding God. With morality being above God as implied by the second point, there is a chance God does
God being good, His deeds are perfect. He acts according to His standards, which are beyond human understanding. The will of God should be the cornerstone upon which all actions are
Free-will is arguably the greater good; we would not be humans without it and we would not be a good creation without choice over our own actions. In protection of that greater good, God does not, and should not, get involved in dealing with moral evil and the suffering caused by it. Doing so would subvert our free-will, and ultimately take away our free-will. Since we have the choice whether to do good or evil, God should not be blamed for the actions that humans make. Following from this, God can still be omniscient (God knows that there is evil in the world), omnipotent (God has the ability to stop evil) and omnibenevolent (God does not want evil to exist, but ultimately allows it for our ability to have free-will).
Believers of God think that doing good deeds is being moral and thus these actions will save them from their sins. They believe that following God’s will, that is the 10 commandments and in the new commandments stated in the New Testament is the written and visible basis for these actions found in the Holy Bible. . Others believe that being moral is not just following the 10 commandments. Many instances already happened where people are already confused about what is good and what is not. Instances like doing an unethical action in order to save others or give justice; this example is best shown in the movie Robin Hood.
A lot of arguments have been known to prove or disprove the existence of God, and the Problem of Evil is one of them. The Problem of Evil argues that it is impossible to have God and evil existing in the same world. Due to ideal characteristics of God, evil should not have a chance to exist and make human suffer. In this essay, I will examine the argument for the Problem of Evil, a possible theodicy against the argument, and reply to the theodicy. First of all, to be clear, the Problem of Evil is an argument that shows that God cannot be either all- powerful, all-knowing, and/or all good.
Divine command theory has many weaknesses. The weaknesses of this theory are best shown by Plato’s dialogue, Euthyphro, which poses a question. Are actions morally good because they are approved by God or the gods, or whether God or the gods approve of action because they are morally good? If someone believes that morally good acts are good because they are willed by God, then God could command us to do anything, and it would be right for us to do it. Whatever God commands becomes the principle of moral rightness.
Socratic Dialogue The following conversation is one that takes place between Socrates and a Psychologist who believes that males are superior to women. John: It is quite unfortunate that we have tunnel vision when trying to achieve an egalitarian society in regards to males and females. Socrates: Before tackling your initial proposition, may I ask how you differentiate between male and female.
