EUTHYPHRO'S DILEMMA
Is something good because God says it is or because it's the expression of a standard that holds even for God and is, by definition, greater than God?
Plato posed this question centuries ago, in the dialogue Euthyphro, that still defies response. When we consider morality, it's usually in objective, codified terms, i.e., laws, rules, etc. When we think of morality in this way, Euthyphro's Dilemma cannot be answered. Is there a way to reframe morality, a middle way, that transcends the limitations of the question?
Euthyphro's premise carries two implicit assumptions, both dualistic: a substantive distinction between divinity and humanity, and; the aforementioned perspective of morality as an object.
The first only holds power within a theological framework predicated on God and man being of an intrinsically different nature. In that case, what is subjectively desirable or appropriate for God may not be at all for people. Within Panentheism, on the other hand, humanity and the broader cosmos are a part of God. While the limited capabilities of human beings effectively cap our ability to manifest good, the process driving our collective discovery of what is good springs forth from a nature that's shared with the divine. God's subjective morality is ours as well, and we recognize and embody it in accordance with our evolutionary development - which continues to be an emergent quality of life that will continue for as long as life exists.
Much like the first assumption, the second is easy to understand and justify. After all, most morality is presented in the form of purity and ethical codes. Postmodernists have successfully argued that these are mostly social constructs. I happen to agree, though I would argue there is a genuine basis underlying the intent of these codes. Specifically, the basis is love - which is easy enough to lose track of when people don't correctly define what love looks like in the particular. When asked about commandments, Jesus indicated that love is the singular imperative. I would argue that love is not, in fact, a commandment, but an intrinsic part of universe. It's a part of who we are - though maybe we need to be reminded from time to time and called upon to recalibrate how we apply it within the behavioral framework we call morality.
So I am compelled to believe that morality - while relative - is derived from love and, such, from the very nature of God, the very fabric of reality, and the fundamental essence of who we are.