The concluding premise of Plato's argument is: Therefore, even from a religious point of view, a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will must be accepted.
How should we evaluate Plato's concluding premise?
Premise 1. This premise does two things:
a. It assumes the three claims about God implid by Divine Command Theory (which all compiled together claim, "God commands us to do what is right")
b. It takes this assumption to imply that either Horn 1 (Divine Command Theory is true: right conduct is right because God commands it (or approves of it) and wrong conduct is wrong because God forbids or disapproves of it.) or Horn 2 (Divine Command Theory is false: God commands or approves of right conduct because it is right and forbids or disapproves of wrong conduct because it is wrong.) is true.
Premise 4: This premise is a conclusion that is supported by premises 1, 2, and 3.
Premise 6: This is a further conclusion, supported by 4 and 5.
With this overview of Plato's argument in mind, we should now ask, "Is this a sousnd argument?" This call for assessment breaks down into two distinct questions:
1. Is the argument value?
Examine the form of the argument. The form consists of the following:
Step 1:
1) Either (a) or (b)
2) If (a) then (c)
3) If (b) then (d)
Step 2:
4) Therefore, either (c) or (d) [supposed to follow from 1, 2, and 3
5) Not (c)
6) Therefore, (d) [supposed to follow from 4 and 5]
Notice that there are two distinct steps or inferences in Plato's argument:
Step 1: From 1, 2, and 3 to 4 (premises 1, 2, and 3 are supposed to imply line 4)
Step 2: From 4, 5, to 6 (premises 4 and 5 are supposed to imply line 6)
If both steps are valid, then the entire argument is valid and the fact is that both steps of the Platonic Argument are valid, so the entire argument is valid. If there is anything wrong with the argument, it must be that one of its premises is false.
2. Are the premises all true?
To answer this question we ask whether lines 1, 2, 3 and 5 are true (Remember that lines 4 and 6 are conclusions that definitely follows from the other premises. In other words if 1, 2, 3, and 5 are true then 4 and 6 have to be true as well.)
So the question arises as to whether 1, 2, 3, and 5 are true?
It has been concluded that at the very least, this argument shows that there is potentially a serious problem with Divine Command Theory. If Divine Command Theory is to be salvaged there must be some way of "going between the horns of the dilemma." In other words, there must be some way of accepting Divine Command Theory without having to accept that god's commands are morally arbitrary and without giving up on the doctrine of the goodness of God. In order to do so this, you must be able to give good reasons for thinking that premises 1, 2, 3 and/or 5 are false.
