Jason Thibodeau and Matt Flannagan are discussing the Euthyphro Dilemma in today’s live discussion. In brief, the Euthyphro Dilemma says that either God has reasons for his commands or He doesn’t. Take the second option. God has no reasons for His commands. Well then God’s commands are arbitrary–however, morality can’t be arbitrary. Now take the first option. God has reasons for His commands. Well then these reasons themselves are sufficient to give us moral obligations. No need for God. The Euthyphro Dilemma is meant to show that grounding morality in God is misguided.
The discussion goes live at 3pm Central (1pm Pacific/4pm Eastern) on Saturday, September 22, 2018. Here’s the link to view live and watch later:
Click Here to View the Live Event
Dr. Matt Flannagan
Matthew Flannagan (Ph.D., University of Otago) is a New Zealand based theologian and ethicist. He currently teaches Philosophy, Theology, Ethics, and Religious Studies, at St Peters College in Auckland, New Zealand. He co-authored (with Paul Copan) Did God Really Command Genocide?
 (Baker, 2014) and blogs with his wife Madeleine at www.mandm.org.nz.
Dr. Jason Thibodeau
Jason Thibodeau earned his PhD from the University of California, San Diego and is now a philosophy professor at Cypress College. His main philosophical interests are philosophy of religion and metaethics. He blogs about these topics at the Secular Outpost.
The Euthyphro Dilemma
As stated above, the Euthyphro Dilemma says that either God has reasons for his commands or He doesn’t. Take the second option. God has no reasons for His commands. Well then God’s commands are arbitrary–however, morality can’t be arbitrary. Now take the first option. God has reasons for His commands. Well then these reasons themselves are sufficient to give us moral obligations. No need for God. The Euthyphro Dilemma is meant to show that grounding morality in God is misguided. Jason will be arguing that the Euthyphro Dilemma is sound, Matt will argue it is not.
I would think this discussion constitutes the “word-wrangling” that Paul forbade in 2nd Timothy 2:14. I’m not an inerrantist, so i don’t see any problem with saying the aged apostle Paul here said something condemning his manner of discourse in his earlier Christian days (most older men look back on their former youthful manner of life with disdain, noticing it was geared more toward winning instead of wisdom), nor do I see a problem if my interpretation of this passage makes it contradict Jude 3. Bible inerrancy is not so obvious or clear that it deserves to be exalted in… Read more »