can perhaps be answered. 74,"ng Idziak 634; see Wainwright 2005,. . In this early work, Adams's view is that it is logically possible but "unthinkable" that God would issue horrible commands: "the believer's concepts of ethical rightness and wrongness would break down in the situation in which he believed that God commanded cruelty for its own. For nonspecialists, Colaiaco 2001 and Waterfield 2009 offer analysis of the trial on the basis of the Apology and supply substantial cultural context. This parallel offers a solution to the aforementioned problems of God's sovereignty, omnipotence, and freedom: namely, that these necessary truths of morality pose no more of a threat than the laws of logic. "A Modified Divine Command Theory of Ethical Wrongness". That is, "being carried" is not an essential trait of the thing being carried but a condition, a state of that the object is currently. And this in turn means, Socrates argues, that the pious is not the same as the god-beloved, for what makes the pious the pious is not what makes the god-beloved the god-beloved. This is the view accepted by Socrates and Euthyphro in Plato 's dialogue.
Moore argued (with his open question argument ) that the notion good is indefinable, and any attempts to analyze it in naturalistic or metaphysical terms are guilty of the so-called "naturalistic fallacy." This would block any theory which analyzes morality in terms of God's will. There are also numerous general interpretations of the. As 17th-century philosopher Ralph Cudworth put it: "nothing can be imagined so grossly wicked, or so foully unjust or dishonest, but if it were supposed to be commanded by this omnipotent Deity, must needs upon that hypothesis forthwith become holy, just, and righteous." Moral contingency. As a result, the bibliography related to the. By Leo Strauss; edited with an introduction by Thomas Pangle, 3866. Euthyphro seems to be taken aback so Socrates reminds him the definitions he gave previously (10e).