The Morality Dilemma
Deriving the Morality Dilemma from the Euthyphro Dilemma
Consider the following: Is what is commanded by God good because it is good, or because it is commanded by God?
The Morality Dilemma
From here, we can infer that either: 1. God is not omnipotent, and must adhere to morals or 2. that for God and morals to be compatible, God must be an inferior being or 3. God has no basis for his actions and thus cannot act rationally and objective morality does not exist. This is the heart of the Morality Dilemma. How we reach these two conclusions can be seen in the following parts of this thread.
If the former, then God must be, in some aspects, subservient to morality. This means that God's sovereignty is compromised--morals are superior, at least in some regard, to his Will and power, and God's goodness depends on some independent standards, something that is unalterable. Clearly, this is a problem for those who consider God to be the most superior being, as even He is subject to something outside himself. If this is true, God cannot be omnipotent and all-sovereign.
If, on the other hand, morals are something created by God, morals must necessarily be inferior to him (lest he create morals only to have them rule over him, which takes us back to Implication #1). That means that if God chooses to follow such morals, he is following something lesser than what he is; this is a problem since that doesn't make God the greatest being as he is bogged down and controlled by something inferior than he is. Still, it doesn't seem like such a big deal, does it? A theist can merely answer that God exists outside of morals and be done with it, although some rather nasty questions must be answered about the nature of morality, but that is something that we will not discuss here.
Complications of Implication #2
When we combine Implication #2 with the Problem of Evil, serious complications arise for the Theist. The most popular response is that God allows free will to exist because it allows for some greater good to occur. To act with the purpose of achieving some greater good, however, implies following a moral system. If Implication #2 is to be followed, then that means that for God to determine that giving us free will and allowing evil to exist (two independent actions, mind you) will result in a greater good, he must have acted from morals. The complication here is that this means that at least for some time, God was not the most potent being, and was subservient to some lesser concept. That is, our world would be the creation of an inferior being than what God normally is. To complicate matters more, a Christian theist, who believes in an unchanging, omnipotent God would either have to admit that God changed into an inferior form of himself, contradicting his own theology OR admit that Free-Will Theodicy is not applicable to the Christian conception of God.
A. If the way God acts defines morality, then God has no basis for any of his actions. This is because God does not need to think about the consequences of his actions, as whatever they are, they must be inherently good. That is, it doesn't matter if killing someone infringes upon their free will, so long as God acts that way, it would be moral. This means there is no rational basis for morality, or any of God's actions. God could create a world were people can only make others suffer, and it would be moral. There would be no reason in the world why God would favor a perfect world over one full of suffering. Furthermore, the word "good" becomes a mere tautology (because God's Will=good) and there would be no difference between God and an all-powerful demon. In other words, God's rationality, goodness, and very identity is compromised.
B. Alternatively, if the Theist assumes that God was perfect and complete before creating or acting, then God was perfect without morals. That means that although we call God's actions "moral", to God they are merely his actions and he is not subject to them (if God decides not to kill, that would be called moral. If later he decides to kill, that would also be called moral, but God is not affected by any action, since morality is still dependent on him), and we are back to Implication #2.
This dilemma is by no means the be-all end-all question to Theism, let alone the question of "Does God exist". However, it seriously compromises the belief that God is omnipotent. Furthermore, it makes Free Will Theodicy tricky, as it is either the conception of an inferior God or a God that is not omnipotent, and for the Christian, it is not even an option.
Too lazy, didn't want to read it
Basically: If morals exist outside of God, at least in some regards, Morals must be greater than God. On the other hand, if morals are created by God, they are both arbitrary (a nasty little problem in and out of itself) and inferior to God, meaning that if God acts based on morals, he is an inferior being than what he was prior to subjecting himself to morality. This is a huge problem because Free Will Theodicy relies on God acting out of some moral system. It also implies that for Free Will theodicy to work, God's character and qualities must change, which directly contradicts Christian theology.
"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."
"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"
"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"