Previously in our search for the foundations of morality, we explored moral relativism, which argues that morality is grounded merely in human-made codes we've chosen to live by. According to relativism, then, whatever we say is right, is right. That is, human commands lie at the foundations of morality. Hower, we most of these problems are generated from the fact that moral relativism takes morality to be subjective, in the sense that it is dependent opinion. then, an action is right only if God commands it, wrong only if God forbids it, and permissible only if God neither commands nor forbids it. However, despite its apparent advance over moral relativism in trying to account for the objectivity of morality, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato argued that puppies or torture babies merely for fun, not merely because you or I or God said so, but for the reason that it causes unjustified harm its victims. philosophers have called it the Euthyphro Dilemma. We can state the dilemma simply as follows: 1. Either something is morally right because God commands it, or God commands it because it's morally right. 2. If something is morally right because God commands it, then morality is arbitrary. 3. If God commands something because it's morally right, then morality is independent of God's commands. 4. Therefore, morality is either arbitrary (which is absurd) or it is independent of God's commands (in which case divine command theory is false). The heart of the Euthyphro dilemma is the idea that the roots of morality go deeper than the commands of gods and humans. They go in fact, to reasons. In this post: (i) State whether you think the Euthyphro dilemma refutes divine command theory.