God as omnibenevolant

all loving. God is perfectly good and has all perfections and doesn’t lack any perfections

2 understanding of ‘good’

• the 2 understandings of good: good in a moral sense, good in a functional/metaphysical sense

• the 2 understandings of ‘good’ are linked by Plato and Augustine: What is perfect includes what is morally good. If God is perfectly good then he has all perfections (metaphysical goodness) and cannot lack or fall short of perfection (moral goodness)

The Euthyphro dilemma

dilemma- a situation where you have to make a choice between 2 option but both are undesirable

t is agreed that whatever God commands is morally good but this creates a dilemma with 2 horns

Horn 1: Morality is whatever God wills

• what is morally right is right because God wills it

• therefore, what God wills will be good be definition but this seems to make morality arbitrary as there is no reason why God wills as he does

Horn 2: God wills what is morally good because it is morally good

• this implies that morality is independent of God and instead God follows an external moral code

• also implies that God couldn’t change what is morally good so it challenged his omnipotence

• If God’s omnibenevolence is dependent on something external then it is the external moral standard that is supremely good not God

The conclusions of both horns are undesirable

It must be true that either God’s commands are good because he commands them or his commands are good because they conform to an external source of moral goodness. However, both lead to undesirable implications

Therefore, God’s omnibenevolence is incoherent and must be rejected

Solution: is morality subjective?

• The dilemma assumes that morality isn’t subjective and this assumption is justified because if God exists then it is highly unlikely that morality is subjective

• If it is logically impossible to change morality then morality is no limitation on God’s omnipotence which solves this issue with horn 2