Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
When I was a Muslim I believed God is the source of goodness.
When I quit, one of the most frequent questions that I think about and I couldn't find an answer for is
OR
How has this conundrum been solved by various philosophers?
You are asking a very fundamental question. Its original formulation in the West was in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro in which Socrates asks Euthyphro:
Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods? (10a)
Consequently, that fork has received the name Euthyphro's dilemma. Is has been discussed throughout history, under the aspect of philosophical theology. See the link to the Wikipedia article above, for a survey of arguments and views on the subject.
Roughly speaking, there seem to be three main positions on the subject:
1. pagan/rationalist: the standard of the Good is separate from God. This was the view of Socrates and of Plato.
2. voluntarist: whatever God wills is the Good, even when His will is arbitrary.
3. essentialist: God and Good are one. God's essence is the essence of the Good. God's will flows from His essence, and cannot be arbitrary.
The most influential school of thought to hold that The Good is the same thing as God is Neoplatonism, a philosophical school founded by the Greco-Roman philosopher Plotinus, based on his interpretations of the work of Plato.
In Neoplatonism, all things are emanations of a single perfect entity consisting of the unity of all perfections --perfectly good, eternal and beautiful. Things are good because they partake in the essence of the One --there is no goodness apart from that essence.
Neoplatonism was highly influential on both Muslim and Christian theology, achieving a presence in official doctrine in the latter through the work of early Christian theologian Saint Augustine, and influencing the former through the Isma'ili movement.
Matter and form; two separate words; however, in this world, the world we dwell in, matter never comes without form; and form never comes without matter... (Aristotle calls this hylomorphism 'from, hule - wood, timber; morphe, shape and form').
So, the world is there in its sturdiness, in its shapeliness...both at the same time - inseparable.
But when we refer to them by signs, that is words, we can separate them; this in Aristotles Categories, is called separation by definition; that is by defining or signifying them by words, signs or pictures, we can tease apart the signification in a way we can't with the thing signified.
And we can do this because the sign and the signified are always separated; and it's also separate from signification or signifying.
In Plato, the Good, is the highest good - the most perfect; we can say in Western monotheism it is not separable from our notion of what God is: where God is found, there goodness is found; where goodness is found - there is God.
Can God not be God ... is a sentence we can write, like other sentences ... like: can God not be Good; but this is to take one of the attributes of God and separate it from him, when the attribute is intrinsic or essential to him.
Our notion of the Good is only a shadow of real Good; like our notion of what God is only a shadow of the real God.
A stone is something you can pick up and hold in your hand; what then is a stone that cannot be held? The word 'stone' is not a stone, but merely sign of one, and by being a sign separable into its parts; you cannot take apart an actually existing stone in this way: a stone in virtue of its stoniness is something that can be picked up and held; how then, to separate a stone from its stoniness and to deny altogether the possibility of holding it?
Take a photo of a stone, or draw or paint one; and then erase it, leaving only the bare outline of one; the mere hint of a stone.
And then look at the really existing stone and do the same ... one could take a hammer to it; hammer it down to dust; so the question turns, revolves and turns away from this to another; which is merely the same under another guise - can you take away the dustiness from dust? Etc, etc, etc till:
Can you take matter away from matter?
Can you subtract from subtraction?
Can Logic be illogical?
So you can: in the imagination - the imagination being the theatre of the possible and impossible; for the world is, and what is cannot be otherwise in its thisness (haeiccity).
We can place God on a page and put him under erasure; likewise we can place the World on a page and place it too under erasure; but look up - away from what was erased: the world is still there - it shines forth - there it is, standing in its sway - the act of erasure was only to erase a word that you yourself wrote; the word is not the world but merely refers to it; it's not the first word, but merely your word; likewise with God, and the signs (ayat) of God and the signs of the signs of God - ie the letters, words, sentences, pictures ...
It's worth noting that all this is in line with the third option outlined in @Tobolski's answer - the essentialist reading.
From the viewpoint of Christian theology the question has been discussed by Thomas Aquinas. In the following all references are from Summa Theologiae, Part I (highlighted by me)
Aquinas claims that God is good.
His arguments are embedded in the theological thinking of medieval religious philosophy, its premiss, and the accepted philosophical principles. Two of his main arguments:
I answer that, Every being, as being, is good. For all being, as being, has actuality and is in some way perfect; since every act implies some sort of perfection; and perfection implies desirability and goodness, as is clear from A. 1. Hence it follows that every being as such is good. (Q 5, Art.3)
I answer that, To be good belongs pre-eminently to God. For a thing is good according to its desirableness. Now everything seeks after its own perfection; and the perfection and form of an effect consist in a certain likeness to the agent, since every agent makes its like; and hence the agent itself is desirable and has the nature of good. For the very thing which is desirable in it is the participation of its likeness. Therefore, since God is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness belong to Him [...] (Q 6, Art. 1)
For the whole issue see also Reichenbach, Bruce: Why is God Good? The Journal of Religion, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Jan., 1980), pp. 51-66
Aside: I doubt that many Christians can be convinced by this kind of argumentation - not to mention non-Christians. For me the argumentation puts in doubt that the original question can be handled in a philosophical manner at all. Here we are beyond the limits of Christian philosophy.
God is consistently good. Others can be good some of the time, but non as consistently as God. God has his own free will and could choose to be not good, but always chooses to be good.
but always chooses to be good.; what about hell, is that a good? if yes, what's good in burning people just because they don't follow some certain rules?
When you state "God is good," "God follows the good," and "God is the good," I think you are asking less about the lexical ambiguities present and more about objective axiological (moral) truths in general.
Religions attempt to provide an objective axiology, as outlined in their respective religious text. This concerns what behavior is morally right or wrong.
The truth is there are no objective moral truths, only the objective manner in which we each develop our own subjective moral truths. That is from birth, every wave of light to hit our eyes, every wave of sound to hit our ears, every force and particle to interact with our bodies have altered the molecular structure of our nervous systems, deriving the totality of our identities and what beliefs we hold. Our environments fundamentally sculpt who we are, some people's environment just so happens to contain religious indoctrination.
Think less about what is universally good, think more about what is good for you and good for others. Think less about belief validity, think more about broadening your understanding of the environmental contexts through which people form different beliefs: everything from what is beautiful, to what politics one has; from what is moral, to what one considers socially acceptable, etc.
You stated you were a Muslim, i.e., following unconditionally an "objective" array of morals; now you need to be a moral relativist, so you can fathom the unfathomable objective conditionality that exists within the human condition.
