Euthyphro dilemma is the regular plan on issues at hand that elevates the presence of God. There is the assumption that a person’s action will not rely on influence of God in a way that humans on this issues will be independent. In this way, dilemma is perceived to be distinct from God. This is with regarding the decision of people about doing well, which is out of their desire and not influenced by Gods. With respect to God, it is presumed that God loves things because they are and not that the love of God on things is as result of their being. This means that God is distinct from occurrences of the nature. A clear confirmation that God loves things the way they are and not because he wants to transform them. In another format to denote this is where we refer that, God’s will is good and just. Therefore, dilemma shows that the god(s) are not the most important thing for us to know in order to act rightly.
Dilemma as per philosophy directly contrasts with religion because philosophy believes in human-will while religion believes in God’s will. This dilemma is believed because of the wisdom of human beings. This is where human beings use their wisdom through realism and natural occurrences to dictate their behavior. It argues that the decision of whether to do good or evil is the decision of a person and not with influence from ethyphro dilemma. In many ways, it is derived from the concepts of conscience. In Haman, there is the concept of conscience; in other words, the voices that exist in human mind and heart. These voices are assigned to determine if one has to do good or evil.
In an instance where the conscience is positive about things or a certain environment, this will prompt him or her to do well. Therefore, many contrasts deprive religion to prevail. The religion concept of view about dilemma happens to be different from that of philosopher. This is seen where every thing is because of God’s will. Religion is very keen to emphasize that all human actions are influenced by the presence of God. This happens where the perception that much devotion in the religion will transform a person to be good.
In many occurrences, dilemma eliminated the presence of God. This is because it is not out of God’s presence that a human should do good or evil. In other words, God does not have relevance in our lives in determining good or evil. This leaves us with a question of who is responsible for our bad actions if in religion God aids in good. With Christianity, negativism is associated with devil while positivism is regarded with God. Religion behaves contrary to the way dilemma is viewed in Euthiphro. This dilemma is in diverse congruence with religion because there is a variance to whether moral or religious beliefs are given priority.
Warner (92) quotes that many people have chosen to follow the call of religion rather than the moral duty. This occurs where a minister of the religion whose family is faced with health problem would prefer to minister rather than attend to his family chores. A critic evolves in religion where there is appraisal of mare neglect in moral duty. The Euthyphro dilemma may be helpful in controlling those instances where moral duty is neglected. To some extent, religion is overpowered as its devotion leads to people forgetting to do good all the time. This is because there is an assumption that being religious brings a portrait of goodness. However, this is overruled in the contest where duty is prioritized much further than religious calling.
Much contrast and puzzlement comes with the issue of commandments. Theism refers to the Ten Commandments as laws of nature. It draws many crises to humiliate religious faith that at earlier stages was viewed supreme. In addition, it brings another controversy about the existence of God. This also brings an influence to the people to doubt about the presence of God. Living without God has been suggested though it is an ideal situation. The origin and existence of some theories of nature trace origin from God. This is because many extraordinary and amazing occurrences bring a clear hypothesis that confirms of subsistence of a supreme being. In this way, philosophers might not have achieved much but they brought up a sense of value and social obligation. Secular theories of morality also bring a wider understanding about dilemma.
The other point about dilemma is about voluntarism being enhanced to show continual life without God. The act of volunteering in whatever life chores brings about moral standards. Actions and behaviors of people are regulated and engulfed by life limits. In such an instance, everyone is presumed to be accountable for his actions. This theory has somehow proven the topic of guiltiness where people neglect their role in doing well. In the notion that every person wrongs, regardless of him being religious or atheist, experiences guilty at the end. This gives a loophole for the argument that, with or without God, everyone is independent in making either wrong or right decision. Intellectuals have also given view that life requires personal decisions. Therefore, good or bad in our lives is distinct from God. Individuals have the will and power to decide their life and shape life according to their capability. In this contest, more of human is manifested in order to emphasize the will power of human.
In all these theories, the will of God and that of man are said to concur because the will of man and his ability to decide gives him a higher rank in issues concerning his life. This way man is said to be living independently without God’s intervention. With the fact that every individual knows what is good and bad, humans have been given the mandate to guard their own life. This is because some may have critics that they have never seen God. This excuse makes people to be ignorant about the action and influence of God. Therefore, natural cause and rules of conduct are defined to be essential guidelines of human conduct.
Dilemma shows that right and wrong depends on God as according to religion. For this to be true, then the existence of God as the supreme creator has to be explained or argued out. God’s existence is evidenced by the subsistence of natural organisms. The best case on the existence of God is the teleological argument that argues that the sustenance of the universe’s order and complexity are indeed proof of the existence of God as the chief architect. The existence of a complex system and a harmonious order like the computer software is enough proof of the existence of a software designer. Goals are only known to occur in minds as inanimate objects like tables and desks have never been known to hold goals. The harmonious existence of the solar system and the digestion system in man are evidences of the products of an intelligent cause. Just as the computer software is coded with information on the commands to follow, so is the human mind. This is why humankind has a general agreement on the general moral standards and ethics such as stealing and lying are vices whereas honesty and generosity are moral virtues. The coder of these standards on the human mind can only be God. This is why religion dictates that right and wrong depend on God.
However, the issue surrounding influence of God, to my own view is contrast to religion. According to Landsburg (209), “there is moral obligation and right for each one in decision making”. This gives a point that if there were no humans that existed, then there would not be any moral obligation. Every one has a moral obligation regardless of influence by God. Therefore, human beings have their will and power to act either rightly without the influence of God. Though we might not recognize God, we should know that his will is for us to do well and be good. Therefore, dilemma shows that the god(s) are not the most important thing for us to know in order to act rightly.
Landsburg, Steven. The Big Questions: Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics, Economics, and Physics. New York, NY: Free Press, 2009. Print.
Warner, Martin. Religion and Philosophy. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1992. Print.