Absolute and relative morality

The Euthyphro Dilemma – moral absolutism

In Plato’s book ‘Euthyphro’, Euthyphro states:

“Well, I should certainly say that what’s holy is whatever all the God’s approve of, and that it opposite, what all the Gods disapprove of, is unholy…”

Socrates responds:

“We’ll soon be in a better position to judge, my good chap. Consider the following point: is the holy approved by the Gods because it’s holy, or is it holy because it’s approved?”

Euthyphro

If we side with Euthyphro then whatever the Gods command becomes obligatory just because they command it. God could then command vicious acts which to us would seem wrong and we would be forced to call these good (e.g. in the Old Testament when God commanded the slaughter of women and children). God then becomes a supreme figure. Euthyphro is supporting The Devine Command Theory of Ethics.

Euthyphro is a realist (moral statements are either be true or false) and supports correspondence. Thus, if x corresponds to the absolute moral order then it is right. However, if it does not, it is wrong.

Socrates

If we side with Socrates and claim that there is a standard of Goodness independent of God, God no longer becomes the ultimate standard of morality. One can see that Plato’s Form of the Good could now become the absolute standard of goodness, which God’s commands can be measured against. This is good since there is a reason for worshipping God – he is worshipped because he is good judged by the independent standard. However, God no longer becomes supreme.

Socrates is also a realist and supports correspondence. However, the absolute moral order by which morality is judged is not God but the Form of the Good.

‘Theatetus’ – moral relativism

In the ‘Theatetus’, Plato sets out an alternative view of morality through Protagorus. Protagorus argues that all knowledge is relative to the observer and all morality is also relative. Protagorus famously says:

“An individual human being is the measure of all things.”

Protagorus

Protagorus is an anti-realist (believes that moral statements can not be described as true or false) and supports coherence. Thus, if x coheres to culture or city you are in then it is right – this is called Cultural Relativism. Another type of relativism is Personal Relativism, where it is held that whatever I perceive to be right is in fact morally right.

Plato goes on to defeat Protagorus. Since Protagorus maintains that what ever is true to the observer is in fact true, he finds that his relativist theory is impossible to prescribe to other people since whatever they believe in is in fact true. Plato proves that Protagorus is beaten by his own theory.