• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Euthyphro's Dilemma

arthwollipot

Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
arthwollipot
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
102,609
Location
Ngunnawal Country
Euthyphro's Dilemma is essentially this:

Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?

The first case implies that there is a morality independent of God - that God follows what is moral just like we do. The second implies that morality is arbitrary - God simply decides what is moral and what is not.

Thoughts?
 
Here's a link to the original dialogue, for those who haven't read it:
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

There are a couple of very easy ways out of the dilemma. The first is to wipe God out of the equation, after which the remaining pieces of the dilemma no longer contradict each other. But that wouldn't be any fun, would it? The second is to admit, as the Jews do, that Yahweh can be a major dick when he wants to be. He's got emotions, mood swings, a nasty temper, and a jealous petty streak a mile long. But hey, at least he tries to do a good job most of the time.

The third option, which I guarantee you some apologist will eventually try to argue, is that human free will and/or Satan's demons are to blame for undermining God's original plan and causing all the evil in the world. God usually gets defined as incapable of doing anything evil, so we need a scapegoat (see Leviticus 16) to get him off the hook and explain where evil comes from. The problem with this is that it contradicts the idea that God created everything and knew precisely how it was going to behave.
 
arthwollipot said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...


The dilemma hinges upon a supressed premise - that we are supposed to behave morally. If "moral" behavior is not the aim of human existence (even though God exists and has set out certain moral rules), then what is it?

Perhaps we were created by God for no reason other than to follow his will. Life is a test of how well we worship God and do whatever he wants us to.

This leads to some problems such as why God would do something like that. But it's not really much more of a quandry than why God would care if people behave morally to begin with.

I don't believe any of the above. I just offer it as a logical solution.
 
arthwollipot said:
Euthyphro's Dilemma is essentially this:

Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?

The first case implies that there is a morality independent of God - that God follows what is moral just like we do. The second implies that morality is arbitrary - God simply decides what is moral and what is not.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

If we're talking about an eternal God, then we also have the possibility that morality is a reflection of what God is, therefore making morality also eternal.

This would mean that neither of your suggested implications are necessarily correct. Morality would not be independent of God nor would it be a matter of arbitrarily deciding.

God would command it because it is a reflection of what God is and is therefore moral.
 
Egg said:
If we're talking about an eternal God, then we also have the possibility that morality is a reflection of what God is, therefore making morality also eternal.

This would mean that neither of your suggested implications are necessarily correct. Morality would not be independent of God nor would it be a matter of arbitrarily deciding.

God would command it because it is a reflection of what God is and is therefore moral.
Click to expand...
Huh? You're basically arguing the second point, just using different words.
 
Just a quibble: The dilemma in Euthyphro is the nature of piety, not morality.
 
Egg said:
Not really. I see the second point as suggesting that the command is the cause.
Click to expand...
Actually, you are suggesting that God is morality therefore anything that occurs via God's command/decision/action(whatever arbitrary decision that may be) is moral.

This essentially makes morality arbitrary since morality changes as time passes and with differing civilizations and continues to be arbitrary even if it is written down(as in the Bible) since anything that god does such as kill millions via a plague is still considered moral.
 
paximperium said:
Actually, you are suggesting that God is morality therefore anything that occurs via God's command/decision/action(whatever arbitrary decision that may be) is moral.

This essentially makes morality arbitrary since morality changes as time passes and with differing civilizations and continues to be arbitrary even if it is written down(as in the Bible) since anything that god does such as kill millions via a plague is still considered moral.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing the connection you're making to differing civilizations. That humans might have differing understandings of what is moral doesn't exclude the possibility of an absolute morality.
 
Egg said:
I'm not seeing the connection you're making to differing civilizations. That humans might have differing understandings of what is moral doesn't exclude the possibility of an absolute morality.
Click to expand...

Judging by his usual output such subtleties of perception are a bit beyond poor old Paxo. :(
 
I spoke about the Euthyphro Dilemma with a good friend awhile back - for reference, he is Mormon and I'm atheist.

I framed the question slightly differently...

1. Is whatever God does good, by definition?

- or -

2. Is God confined to doing only that which is good?

If #1 is true, then by our human standards of morality, the God of the Bible is quite the dick. So much for the all-loving God.

If #2 is true, then this means that God is not omnipotent because God is limited in what he/she/it can do. It also defines a moral ideal above/beyond God called "good".

My friend chose #1, which I lambasted by asking what the supposed good was when the Indian Ocean tsunami killed thousands of innocent children. He responded with the usual "God works in mysterious ways" nonsense.

As I pushed him on this line of argument, he accepted that #2 would be more appropriate (the idea of worshipping a putz didn't sit well with him). Once he went that direction, I told him that if it were true then there is a moral ideal above God ("good"). And if some people can achieve or aspire to this moral ideal without God, then what need of worshipping God (or even acknowledging his/her/its existence)?

He thought about it for a moment, and then - to my amazement - he admitted I had a valid point. He agreed then, based upon my argument, that godless people can be moral and good. I find this interesting because one of the oldest and strongest arguments in favor of religion is that it teaches one must believe in God to be moral, yet here he was flatly rejecting that sentiment.

Nice, eh?
 
Last edited:
Silentknight said:
Here's a link to the original dialogue, for those who haven't read it:
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

There are a couple of very easy ways out of the dilemma. The first is to wipe God out of the equation, after which the remaining pieces of the dilemma no longer contradict each other. But that wouldn't be any fun, would it? The second is to admit, as the Jews do, that Yahweh can be a major dick when he wants to be. He's got emotions, mood swings, a nasty temper, and a jealous petty streak a mile long. But hey, at least he tries to do a good job most of the time.

The third option, which I guarantee you some apologist will eventually try to argue, is that human free will and/or Satan's demons are to blame for undermining God's original plan and causing all the evil in the world. God usually gets defined as incapable of doing anything evil, so we need a scapegoat (see Leviticus 16) to get him off the hook and explain where evil comes from. The problem with this is that it contradicts the idea that God created everything and knew precisely how it was going to behave.
Click to expand...

The second option doesn't solve the dilemma. In fact, it is addressed in the dialogue (the Gods quarrel amongst each other over what is best/just/good, etc). A capricious God does not solve the dilemma of how we are to know what pious actions are. Euthyphro can't know that prosecuting his father is a pious act if God is an unpredictable jerk. And that gets us no closer to understanding piety qua piety.
 
Last edited:
True, I was addressing that more towards the dilemma of morality, not piety as it appeared in the original dialogue. The modern form of the dilemma has recontextualized it to cover morality. I would have raised the same objection Socrates did if addressing piety. This is why I included the first option, which was to chop God or the gods out of the picture.
 
Egg said:
I'm not seeing the connection you're making to differing civilizations. That humans might have differing understandings of what is moral doesn't exclude the possibility of an absolute morality.
Click to expand...
So you've made a claim that there is an "absolute morality" because you cannot exclude an "absolute morality"? Notice how illogical it sounds?

Can you even name one absolute morality that is similar between civilizations?
 
plumjam said:
Judging by his usual output such subtleties of perception are a bit beyond poor old Paxo. :(
Click to expand...
Still sad and pathetic.
Still waiting for you in the multitude of different threads that you have cowardly ran away from.
 
Egg said:
I'm not seeing the connection you're making to differing civilizations. That humans might have differing understandings of what is moral doesn't exclude the possibility of an absolute morality.
Click to expand...

In order for an absolute morality to exist all actions it takes must be absolutely moral.
 
paximperium said:
So you've made a claim that there is an "absolute morality" because you cannot exclude an "absolute morality"? Notice how illogical it sounds?
Click to expand...
I made no such claim.

Egg said:
If we're talking about an eternal God, then we also have the possibility that morality is a reflection of what God is, therefore making morality also eternal.
Click to expand...
 
Egg said:
I made no such claim.
Click to expand...

Egg said:
I'm not seeing the connection you're making to differing civilizations. That humans might have differing understandings of what is moral doesn't exclude the possibility of an absolute morality.
Click to expand...
Sounds like
paximperium said:
..."absolute morality" because you cannot exclude an "absolute morality"?
Click to expand...
to me.

Would you care to give an example of an "absolute morality" that is shared by all civilizations and humans?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom