To start with a quick paraphrase of the reading Euthyphro written by Plato, Socrates meets a young prophet by the name of Euthyphro in Athens Greece. Socrates and Euthyphro are at the courthouse due to their actions that relate to being devout, which turns out to be the central theme of the story. In the reading, we see that Euthyphro is prosecuting his dad for behaving immoral because he allowed a murderous slave who the father had thrown in a ditch and bound, he left him to die from neglect. Socrates is there responding to an accusation that he was spreading false ideas on the Athenian Gods by Meletus.
Socrates suggests that Euthyphro educate him on what he knows about piety, that way he can help himself better in court. But what happens instead is a conversation with Euthyphro, he suggests the 5 possible definitions for piety. The majority of Euthyphro's definitions fail into the claims that connect piety with the God’s actions, wishes, and desires. Euthyphro is not able to put into detail what these might be or why some things do not fill his criteria, and he ends up going in circles with his argument. Euthyphro soon sees that Socrates contended him into a corner by pressuring him into admitting that the essence of piety does not change, and in the end, Euthyphro can not come up with a logical definition for piety, he becomes upset and walks away leaving Socrates unsatisfied.
The Divine Command Theory is the idea of morals that are right of God’s commands and which are not of God's commands and what is wrong is forbidden to God. The idea of this theory is that religion and morals are tied together, this way is the most comfortable for people because it allows for an easy solution in arguments such as moral relativism and ethics. The question, Is something right because God commands it, or does God command it because it is right? The implication of ethics in this argument is suggesting that the connection between religion and morality may not be as clear-cut as thought. If the person who is taking part in the conversation or dialogue accepts either part of the question He/she is forced to draw conclusions that may affect others he/ shes other beliefs that they may have, which then creates a logical dilemma. When God instructs it because it is the right thing and is of him and his wisdom, and avoids the irrational of the previous option, but allows for more problems and leads us back to the start; if God instructs something because it's the right thing, then in an argument it becomes acceptable to for a person to ditch the concept of right and wrong, which then weather it is right or wrong God instructed it.
I think this example could send the believer of the divine Command theory into a space of being uncomfortable. I think the issue with Divine Command is if Jessica said that God spoke to her But Justin said that God also talked to him, but did he say something different? Who should we believe.. of course, we would pick the person who is right but in this case that does not get us anywhere. With this, I think that this theory may not be as omnipresent as we think. I think this theory should be looked at as a deeper thought into issues rather than an anti-religious argument. Aquinas pushed away from the idea of Divine command because of the analytical dilemmas presented.