There are millions of people all around the world who believe in God, the creator and ruler of the universe, the supreme mortal being, the source of all moral authority. Amongst the massive amounts of people who do believe, the diversity lies to what extent each believer thinks God has control, and what is claimed to be right and wrong. Are human being’s moral values accurate because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right? The Divine Command Theory plays a very important roll in answering these types of questions, however is disproved by the Euthyphro Dilemma. In this essay, a plausible argument will be proposed solving the Euthyphro Dilemma, but will then be objected for criticism. I will then offer a solution as to why this objection towards the Euthyphro Dilemma can be disproved.
The Divine Command Theory purely states that God's commands are what “is morally right,” and what God forbids, “is morally wrong.” According to this view, what makes an act right is God’s wish for it to be done. The Divine Command Theory is this impression that moral actions are those that are compatible to God's will because he is omnipotent. According to this theory, we are morally required to do certain things, and not to do others simply because God commands us, thus there would be no other reason why we should act morally. As a consequence, if you do not believe in God, you cannot have any moral values or commitments and everything will be permitted. The problem with Divine Command Theory is not explaining what it is, but how credible the theory actually is (Austin, Divine Command Theory).
This leads us to the most prevalent argument in opposition of The Divine Command Theory.&nbs ...