The debate about the Euthyphro Dilemma has many varying points but I think that the idea that God loves things because they are good is the most plausible reason. Good and morality exists without God, just like Louise Anthony says in her article, but people are too consumed with the perception that all atheists are not moral or good. People connect that atheist connotation with there being no good or morality if one does not believe in God. She makes it a point to argue that the DIT (Divine Independent Theory) is more relevant and logical than the DCT (Divine Command Theory). Agreeing with the DCT, saying that something is good because God loves it has many falsities in it. For example, such as the example that Anthony herself uses, what if God says that it is good for one to kill its child, does it really mean that it is good and moral. If one depends on things only being moral and good if God loves it, then they truly aren’t a moral person in regards to the true meaning and characteristics of being moral (Goodness without God). God has the ability to change his mind, so what if he decides to change what’s moral and what’s not? Then, according to the DCT, one’s idea of morality is changing as well. According to DIT, morality and goodness is separated from God’s existence. This theory relates to the reader that morality is prevalent in the world even in people who aren’t God believing. Anthony argues that atheists are the most careful people in regards to their actions and trying to be the most moral and good people that they can. She claims that religion offers people a safety net in a way to make mistakes and believe that they’ll be forgiven. Atheists on the other hand are more careful of their actions and decisions because they have the live with them without the guarantee of forgiveness. This, to me, helps prove that morality and true goodness is fully capable of occurring with or without God. This also helps prove and support that God loves things because they are good. His love for something exists because of its internal and true goodness in regards to morality. Certain things are considered fundamentally moral regardless of one’s religion or one’s varying ideas of God. This, also, furthermore proves God loves things because they are morally good.
I think you make a great point, I felt the same way. To say that something is good just because God loves it is not very logical because the meaning of good can be interpreted in different ways. Additionally, its meaning could change over time, as you mentioned. On the other hand, the theory that God loves something because it is good is much clearer and more plausible because some actions are simply morally good from any perspective.
I totally agree with what you are saying in this post. I think one of the most profound points that Antony makes is when she mentions the fact that religion offers forgiveness while atheists must be accountable for all actions, something you also pointed out.
I definitely agree that God would not arbitrarily decide on what is good and what is not. If that were the case, our world could have become completely different than what it is now. Since morals differ from city to country to continent, the definition of “morally good” can be interpreted in many different ways, but I think most places and people see that killing other people or physically/mentally hurting someone is morally wrong. If God loves things that are morally good, then thiests and non-athiests both are able to love and forgive equally.
OTTOCEAN IPTV Pack delivers buffer-free and freeze-free streaming, ensuring high-quality viewing in 4K on any device, anywhere and anytime you choose : OTTOCEAN IPTV
Enjoy flawless streaming on all devices with CatchOnTV IPTV Pack, built to prevent buffering and freezing, delivering brilliant 4K image quality, no matter where you are or when you watch : CatchOnTV IPTV