Euthyphro: it's a Row!

Skip, I'll choose to ignore your non-baiting baiting.

Drowning kittens is at the very least a reprehensible activity, I'll agree with you there. The realization of the morality of that decision is within the moral frame of reference that we exist in now. If that frame of reference were to change, would we notice? I would wager not. The way that we view what is right and what is wrong seems to be generally common, and one could argue that it derives from an outside source, which is where we do agree (in the context of this issue, good and bad are not relativistic in the quotidian sense here). This standard that we inherently recognize, this moral standard, would come from God, in that by being good, all good is a reflection of His actions and nature.

Does it matter whether or not we would notice if this frame of reference were to change? Perhaps it does, but in order to realize good and bad, we must predicate it with some other underlying assumptions that I am sure will bring us into further debate. For example, we must needs have the assumption of free will, and that good is good and bad is bad through choices that people make. Things can get complicated in specific cases such as criminal insanity, but generally I think that with regards to Euthyphro, this is a safe assumption to make.

In order to recognize and to adhere or not to a standard, we must have the capacity to recognize, and the ability to adhere to morality. I think that is safe to say that most, if not all people are able to do both.

With the inherent contradictions of all-powerful God kowtowing to an outside morality, we are left with a God defined standard. In short, we are left with the question of the frame of reference (of morality) and the question of the awareness of the moral participant within the frame of reference and if the frame of reference were to change.