Site Navigation

Table of Contents

Exposing Euthyphro's dilemma as a false dilemma

Introduction

Euthyphro's dilemma consists two choices (referred to as horns) each of which supposedly imply unwanted conclusions. The original dilemma referenced a plurality of gods and so the Christian equivalent would be expressed as follows:

Does God command it because it is right, or is it right because God commands it?— Euthyprho's Dilemma —

The dilemma in its form causes a divide and an asymmetry, the flow of origination is created and a direction is left wanting: which came first: the chicken or the egg? There can be various motivations to settle on a single horn, we will cover a basic one for each.

And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.— Revelation 13:11 —

The first horn — commands because right

It is evident that God is a righteous God, and so, the immediate question: wouldn't he command something of its righteousness, himself being righteous? A man may think of this creaturely and so relate: he may recall times when he has commanded things in the past because of his experiential foresight of their ends.

That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?— Genesis 18:25 —

You cling to this first horn but the jealousy of the second horn strikes you: "so God adheres to something beyond?"

The second horn — right because commands

If God commands something and we disobey it, it is sin in virtue of it being a commandment of God and so by nature whatever God commands is good. So perhaps then a thing is right because God commands it?

Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.— Joshua 1:9 —

Yet if you turn your back to the first horn and commune with the second, the first likewise despises you: "so morality is an arbitrary whim of God?"

The adversary has left you with this dilemma and nothing more, either the first horn or the second, the red pill or the blue pill, the chicken or the egg. What do?

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.— Proverbs 26:4 —

The beginnings of the resolution

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.— Proverbs 26:5 —

But could it be a false dilemma? If not, why not? Not that there could be another choice outside of these pertaining to the direction of the imagined arrow of contingency, but, rather, is there a direction to be made at all? Consider God's word.

My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness.— Psalms 119:172 —

God's word says that his commandments aren't righteous only but righteousness itself, so then the commandments aren't just seperate from what is right or wrong (then having these two play catch-up in whichever what way), but instead these two are one. Not only that, but Christ speaks of true righteousness as God's righteousness.

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.— Matthew 6:33 —

Even Daniel spoke the same.

O LORD, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee.— Daniel 9:7 —

So then this supposed moral framework isn't just free floating in space with no origin, but that it's God's framework; his righteousness.

According to his folly

Suppose a professor is explaining two dimensional geometry, talking about shapes with a non-zero area.

... and, now, because it is a circle, it is rotationally invariant—you can rotate it any which way and the result will display the exact same image ...

— hypothetical non-existant professor

An ordinary statement, no?

... and, now, because it is rotationally invariant, it is a circle—you can rotate it any which way and the result will display the exact same image ...

— alternative reality hypothetical non-existant professor

Now you see. Though different in terms and modes of thinking, they identify the same exact object, yet the word "because" was used and none raised an eyebrow: how will we then raise an eyebrow when it pertains to God?

Is it rotationally invariant because it is a circle or is it a circle because it is rotationally invariant?— a dilemma for Euthyphro —

THE END