I was interested to read your article on the Euthyphro dilemma. In stressing the common stance of moral realism between conflicting views, the author seeks to assert that we have a sufficient basis for ‘campaigning for a better world’ whatever our particular viewpoint.1 While generally true, I do not think the meta-ethical question can be avoided forever, especially when deep tensions between views obtain. For example, I as a theist feel a moral duty to raise my children to know God, whereas a well-known atheist would consider this tantamount to child abuse.
Whose ‘better world’?
In these discussions it is all too easy to confuse moral ontology (its’ ultimate grounding) with moral epistemology (how we come to know moral values). Do you need to believe in God to live a moral life? Of course not, the Bible says as much (Romans 2:14–15). There are many ways to become aware of morality that don’t involve religion. Rather, what you actually need is a transcendent ground of morality to have any objective values whether you believe in God or not. And please, please note that the Euthyphro dilemma won’t help you as a disproof of a theistic God as the ground of objective morality. It isn’t a true dilemma for a start as the theist has recourse to a third option, namely that God IS the good, it is His nature, and thus neither decided arbitrarily by his will nor external to him.
- © British Journal of General Practice 2013
REFERENCE
- 1.↵