As for the street level….I think it’s a mix. Humans are among the ranks of creatures that have developed cooperative traits for survival (group selection theory, etc.), and yet functioning societies also have to employ restrictions and punishments to help keep people in line when their self-interest outweighs their empathy and desire to see others in the group succeed, etc. You’re right that this is “where it gets interesting,” but I think that’s a discussion for another thread.

Are one’s morals sourced from outside, or are they sourced internally?

While I acknowledge that different theologies might provide internally consistent ways to circumvent the incarnation of the dilemma that I presented, I haven’t heard one yet that makes sense. T Tennent’s claim, for example, that God IS morality, doesn’t seem distinct from the second option in the dilemma when considering humanity’s moral source.

I agree that the nature of the ‘I AM what AM’ statement and the relationship of the Christian god to morality is not dinner table conversation in most places. I have been over the ground frequently with some of my friends who are deep thinkers in regard to Christianity (Roman Catholic flavor), so within that circle, and apparently with T Tennant we have niche consensus on that point.

It is of course, but a niche consensus, and your milage may vary…

Thanks for the discussion.

As the question is a theological one, however, it is difficult to determine exactly how many choices we may have in the dilemma. Differing understandings of who or what god/gods is/are will naturally change the way you approach the question, and more “complex” theologies will present third or fourth options which skirt the dilemma by adding on more contorted explanations.

As none of these various theologies have more evidential support or validity than any other one, I chose the one that I felt was the most common in contemporary Christian circles and went with it so that the article would appeal to what I subjectively felt would be the highest percentage of readers. I recognize that not all Christians will view the Euthyphro dilemma as a true dichotomy.

This is, of course, a particular application of the dilemma that, as we agreed, is legitimate for discussion. Perhaps I should have been more explicit, as you suggested, about presenting it as a certain application of the dilemma for a specific modern theological context. I agree that by bringing up the origin of the dilemma, I do have a responsibility to acknowledge my source and the cultural framework jump that is taking place to phrase the question in a new context; and I agree that I should have taken some time in the article above to discuss the matter more thoroughly before jumping into an analysis of one approach to the Christian understanding of morality.

Consider: What are the differences between the two frameworks and what impact do those differences have on the nature of the question?

Consider: When making the jump between the two frameworks, is there a burden on the writer to announce or acknowledge the jump?

The question you cite is flawed. There are but two choices being presented leaving the misleading impression that those choices encompass the whole of the potential outcomes. This is being done reflexively as it was the structure of the original question, however it is problematic within the framework of the Christian god as it assumes, perhaps incorrectly, that these are the only two outcomes within that framework. As T.Tennant has suggested, and I agree, the reason for the seeming disconnect is not an inconsistency in the nature of morals and the Christian god, but in the flaw of the transposed and limiting question.

You are right to point out the philosophic/cultural framework under which the Euthyphro dilemma was originally posed. However, using the dilemma as a starting point for a discussion of modern Christian moral theology isn’t invalid.

The question, “does God command what’s moral because he recognizes that right and wrong exist objectively outside himself, or does he define right and wrong as simply whatever his own nature dictates?” can be asked and discussed separately from an analysis of the pantheon that originally framed Socrates’ question–even if Socrates’ distinct question is used as a starting point to formulate my own.

To me, the whole point of the dilemma is to stimulate the qustioner to contemplate where morals reside. There are many who have no internally sourced moral code, and there are those whose morality is sourced from within. Which is more effective? How does this schism occur? It is an interesting study.

The tension in the analysis of Euthyphro dilemma in this blog is that the philosophical question has been taken out of the framework which supports it, and artfully shoved it into one that does not, with some cognitive dissonance resulting.

In the original post this passage does it very seamlessly:

“Euthyphro tells Socrates, “Piety is that which is dear to the gods, and impiety is that which is not dear to them.” Socrates responds, “The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.” In other words, “does God command what’s moral because he recognizes that right and wrong exist objectively outside himself, or does he define right and wrong as simply whatever his own nature dictates?” Neither of the two answers is acceptable.”

We enter the paragraph in a polytheistic framework peopled by well documented capricious and ‘specialist’ gods, and leave it in a monotheistic framework occupied by a universal god.

To apply the question to Christianity is legitimate, but one can not do it without acknowledging the differences between the two frameworks and examining the impact of those differences on the question.

Either way, the biblical account blows all this to pieces by portraying a capricious megalomaniac who outlaws killing one day and wipes out thousands (of children, no less) the next. If this is the “embodiment” of morality in your mind, I think I’ll have to pass.