We originally got onto this by way of your post to me at #197, wherein you attempted to counter my comment from #67, "One can't derive morality or theology from science, as science is necessarily agnostic," with some commentary from Plato. I'll return to Plato in a moment, let's look at the attempt you cite of a deduced morality, the libertarian principle.
I suggested to lexcorp, at #191, that if one attempted to do so, they would "soon be making arbitrary and unscientific pronouncements."
When, in your libertarian principle, you cite "stated assumptions," you've done exactly that. Why are those assumptions, "that all people are equal with respect to morals; that morals apply equally to all persons; that individuals are sovereign," more valid than say, survival of the fittest?
Let me suggest that they are arbitrary, or else they wouldn't have needed to be assumed, you'd have deduced them.
Now, as for Plato...The link you provided suggests the following dilemma...
Why is the Euthyphro dilemma important for philosophy of religion? Although many believers consider God to be the ground of morality, what exactly does this mean in practice? Is it that God is the ground of morality in that what God wills is good and trustworthy? If so, then God's commands are arbitrary and it is perfectly reasonable to argue that one day God might decree that committing adultery is a good thing to do. Or is it? If one questions the viability of this possibility is it because of an innate sense that committing adultery is wrong? If so, God's commands are not arbitrary but are formed on the basis of what is good. But this implies that there is a moral standard greater than God to which God's decrees must conform. In other words, if God cannot decree adultery to be good it is because the notion that adultery is wrong exists outside the Divine realm. But if this is so then who, or what, has instigated this supramoral realm? Here the problem is clearly exposed. Is an act morally good because God wills it or is it good because God agrees that it is good? We place an enormous amount of trust in the character of God if the former is true (E.g. we assume God is all-good but we cannot know for sure), whilst we are led to question the status of God in the presence of the latter (E.g. God's Omnipotence).Let's break it down...
"Although many believers consider God to be the ground of morality, what exactly does this mean in practice? Is it that God is the ground of morality in that what God wills is good and trustworthy? If so, then God's commands are arbitrary and it is perfectly reasonable to argue that one day God might decree that committing adultery is a good thing to do."
It is an error to suggest that God's commands are arbitrary. The appropriate adjective is "sovereign." Whatever our inability to understand the basis of His commands, they are no more arbitrary than our command to a dog to stay off the sofa, though our reasons are well beyond canine understanding (we just don't want their hair on the furniture).
Therefore it is an error to suggest that "it is perfectly reasonable to argue that one day God might decree that committing adultery is a good thing to do," since it hinged on a belief that His will was arbitrary.
More...
"If one questions the viability of this possibility is it because of an innate sense that committing adultery is wrong? If so, God's commands are not arbitrary but are formed on the basis of what is good. But this implies that there is a moral standard greater than God to which God's decrees must conform. In other words, if God cannot decree adultery to be good it is because the notion that adultery is wrong exists outside the Divine realm."Here is the key to misunderstanding... "But this implies that there is a moral standard greater than God to which God's decrees must conform."
God doesn't require an external, supramoral standard by wich He must conform. God is eternal, irreducible Virtue. Morality is intrinsice to His nature. God is good, and good is God.
Isn't that a tautology? Sure, because that's the type of explanation we finite beings of four-dimensional space-time are going to get when trying to perceive the Eternal the Omnipotent, and the Omniscient. That's not due to God's limitations, but to ours.
For example, in the Bible, God said to Moses, "I am, that I am." (Exocus 3:14)
Yet He also said to Job from the whirlwind (Chapter 38)...
2 "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.
4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?Further (Ch. 40)...
1 And the LORD said to Job: 2 "Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it."
Most attempts to put God into a box, including Plato's Euthyphro dilemma, revolve around attempts to undermine God's nature... "Can God make a mountain bigger than He can lift? If no, He's not omnipotent, if yes, He's not Omnipotent."
This reduces to, "Can God make Himself not Omnipotent? If no, He's not Omnipotent, if yes, He's not Omnipotent." And...
"If Omnipotent, then not Omnipotent," and...
"If omnipotent, then not God."
And the paradoxes just keep coming, getting sillier and sillier. As with the earlier tautology, our inability to fully grasp Omniscience and Omnipotence is exactly that: our inability.
Not God's.
