Euthyphro Dilemma: Argument for Non-Theistic Morality

[MattusMaximus]

A couple of years ago I got into a conversation with a Mormon friend of mine about religion & morality (I'm an atheist). When he argued that religion was a component necessary for morality, I answered him with the Euthyphro Dilemma:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_Dilemma

I basically worded the argument thusly:

1. Is all that God does good by definition?
- or -
2. Is God only able to do good?

I was able to, at length, convince him that morality doesn't require religion - and he conceded the point!

The way I did this was to ask him about point #1 - he said "Yes" in response the that question. I then said, "Okay, suppose God murders defenseless children - is that okay with you?" He then responded that we couldn't know the mind of God, so we couldn't judge the goodness/evilness of his acts. Then I had him when I pointed out that he cannot have it both ways: he can't first say all God does is good and then say that we have no way to judge his goodness.

He conceded my point, which led us to point #2 - this constrains God to only commit good acts.

He first had to wrestle with the contention that if you accept #2, then you accept limits on God's omnipotence. This wasn't a big issue for him, so I let it slide, but then came the kicker...

I said: "So you acknowledge that there is something called 'good' which is a standard of morality to which God aspires, right?"

He said "Yes" to which I responded: "Fine. Then if there is a standard above God called 'good' and I can reach that standard without belief in God, why do I need the middle man?"

His response: "You've got me man, it's a fair cop."

I couldn't believe that I'd won this argument with him. But I did - big time. It wasn't something that would turn him away from his religious beliefs (not my intention, anyway), but it did give him something to chew on concerning the "atheists cannot be moral" claptrap.

I'm wondering what others on the Forum think of the Euthyphro Dilemma and my conversation with my friend in particular. Are there points to the discussion that were missed? Anything to add? Criticism?

 

[quixotecoyote]

I think he could have made you work harder for it, but thanks for teaching me a new argument.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I think he could have made you work harder for it, but thanks for teaching me a new argument.

Thanks. Oh yeah, he made me work for it - I did leave out plenty of filler, for the sake of brevity, but what I listed was the general gist of the conversation.

One thing he did say at the end was that he believed that while there were people like me who could both be moral and non-theistic, he felt that religion was something that many people needed in order to be moral.

I wasn't sure how to react. On the one hand, I felt he was trying to wiggle out of his concession, while on the other hand I felt that he'd given me a huge compliment.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Thanks. Oh yeah, he made me work for it - I did leave out plenty of filler, for the sake of brevity, but what I listed was the general gist of the conversation.

One thing he did say at the end was that he believed that while there were people like me who could both be moral and non-theistic, he felt that religion was something that many people needed in order to be moral.

I wasn't sure how to react. On the one hand, I felt he was trying to wiggle out of his concession, while on the other hand I felt that he'd given me a huge compliment.

Maybe I'm prone to hear the worst in what people say, but I think that statement of his was deeply demeaning to humanity. People need to be lied to about God and religion in order to be good? Even if that were true, who gets to do the lying? That's merely building up an edifice of lies which it is not permitted to question, lest the ignorant, morally weak people inside get crushed when the whole thing collapses when someone chips away the buttresses with reason, or when the head liar can't recognize the truth anymore.

For my money, let's not have with that.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I guess it's fine to use this argument, but does that not commit you to some form of Platonism -- that there *is* some defined core essential *good*? I'm not sure I want to go there.

Why not just use the old chestnut from Hitchens -- "You mean to say that the Israelites, before they made it to Sinai and received the 10 commandments considered murder, lying, and coveting their neighbor's ass permissible?"

There are really two issues here -- does morality depend on religion? Well, no, unless we want to argue that killing and rape were fine before the 10 commandments. And does morality depend on the existence of God? The Euthyphro argument can help with this second question, but the only way Plato could really make his point was because he lived in a polytheistic community. I'm not sure the argument work against monotheism. There, one can simply state baldly that what God wants is what is good and who are we to judge God -- Job and all that.

Of course, if we look at God's actions in the Old Testament, good seems to be pretty bad. The best argument that we can make against all this is that we clearly pick and choose from the Bible those things that we think are moral and jettison those we think immoral -- in other words, we choose, we have the internal sense of morality. And this seems to be the case whatever the underlying religion or belief or unbelief in God.

 

[Huh-What?]

Thanks. Oh yeah, he made me work for it - I did leave out plenty of filler, for the sake of brevity, but what I listed was the general gist of the conversation.

One thing he did say at the end was that he believed that while there were people like me who could both be moral and non-theistic, he felt that religion was something that many people needed in order to be moral.

I wasn't sure how to react. On the one hand, I felt he was trying to wiggle out of his concession, while on the other hand I felt that he'd given me a huge compliment.

He can wiggle all he wants; he just admitted his initial argument was false.

"...When he argued that religion was a component necessary for morality"

Your existence proves it is not necessary.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I guess it's fine to use this argument, but does that not commit you to some form of Platonism -- that there *is* some defined core essential *good*? I'm not sure I want to go there.

And why not? I'm just curious to know your reasoning.

Why not just use the old chestnut from Hitchens -- "You mean to say that the Israelites, before they made it to Sinai and received the 10 commandments considered murder, lying, and coveting their neighbor's ass permissible?"

Not a good one for me to make, as I have been guilty of coveting my neighbor's ass in the past. Boy, she was hot

There are really two issues here -- does morality depend on religion? Well, no, unless we want to argue that killing and rape were fine before the 10 commandments. And does morality depend on the existence of God? The Euthyphro argument can help with this second question, but the only way Plato could really make his point was because he lived in a polytheistic community. I'm not sure the argument work against monotheism. There, one can simply state baldly that what God wants is what is good and who are we to judge God -- Job and all that.

Tell that to my friend the committed Mormon, whom I convinced with this argument. I was stunned that it worked, but he's basically a pretty intellectually honest guy, so perhaps that's it.

Of course, if we look at God's actions in the Old Testament, good seems to be pretty bad. The best argument that we can make against all this is that we clearly pick and choose from the Bible those things that we think are moral and jettison those we think immoral -- in other words, we choose, we have the internal sense of morality. And this seems to be the case whatever the underlying religion or belief or unbelief in God.

Precisely my point. Goodness exists independently of belief or non-belief in a deity. This is why, I think, the Bible is such a lousy handbook for morality, and anyone who has really read it would be a fool to defend it as such.

 

[MattusMaximus]

He can wiggle all he wants; he just admitted his initial argument was false.

"...When he argued that religion was a component necessary for morality"

Your existence proves it is not necessary.

True, but I don't beat him over the head with it - there's no need. He knows he conceded the argument, and he knows I'm basically a good guy without God. I think he's just trying to make it all fit theologically in his own head.

As for he and me - we're cool

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

And why not? I'm just curious to know your reasoning.

Postulating the existence of 'goodness' skirts awfully close to the idea that there is an essential "good", otherwise, what does it mean to talk about goodness being separate or above some entity like God? That was certainly Plato's move. Now, one can easily just switch to Aristotle mode and say that "goodness" doesn't have some sort of separate existence but is a generalization based on every instance of the good. Then we just have to define "good", not that that's hard or anything.

Or are you asking why I don't want to go there? Because it is a form of dualism that ultimately doesn't make sense -- that goodness exists independent of beings who think. I got angry with dualism for eating crackers in bed years ago. Threw her ass out the door and turned my back on her years ago.

Tell that to my friend the committed Mormon, whom I convinced with this argument. I was stunned that it worked, but he's basically a pretty intellectually honest guy, so perhaps that's it.

But, if he thought about it more, there was no reason for him to accept the second premise. That idea permeates our culture, but if one is a committed monotheist it isn't necessary. Good job making it work, though.

Precisely my point. Goodness exists independently of belief or non-belief in a deity. This is why, I think, the Bible is such a lousy handbook for morality, and anyone who has really read it would be a fool to defend it as such.

Well, we think that goodness exists independent of belief (not in some form of ultimate "goodness" but in a moral framework from our evolutionary heritage), but a theist needn't commit him or herself to that idea if they want to be absolute literalists. They could potentially argue (being monotheists) that God is good and whatever God does is good (or whatever He tells us to do is good). Of course they are stuck with a rabidly misogynistic jingoistic homophobic psychopath, so whatever.

 

[Earthborn]

Are there points to the discussion that were missed? Anything to add? Criticism?

I think a counterargument could be that while perhaps there may be a standard of morality above God, that does not mean that knowledge of that standard can be gained through any other means than God. If that's true, then you still need the middleman as only God might know what is above Her/Him/It.

Another important issue that is left out of the argument is that you and your friend both assume that there must be an absolute objective standard of morality. But if morality is a social construct that is relative to one's culture, decided upon intersubjectively, then the whole argument falls apart. It would mean that no human moral standard ever applies to God, whether She/He/It exists or not.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I think a counterargument could be that while perhaps there may be a standard of morality above God, that does not mean that knowledge of that standard can be gained through any other means than God. If that's true, then you still need the middleman as only God might know what is above Her/Him/It.

Another important issue that is left out of the argument is that you and your friend both assume that there must be an absolute objective standard of morality. But if morality is a social construct that is relative to one's culture, decided upon intersubjectively, then the whole argument falls apart. It would mean that no human moral standard ever applies to God, whether She/He/It exists or not.

I don't think so. As long as the two parties agree on a standard of morality, there's no need to raise the question of its (lack of) objectivity.

 

[westprog]

I don't think so. As long as the two parties agree on a standard of morality, there's no need to raise the question of its (lack of) objectivity.

But as soon as two parties disagree - one person thinks that, say, firebombing labs that experiment on animals is justifiable. The other thinks that animals, as unaware beings, are inherently subservient to human needs.

When morality is considered relative, and a matter of choice, how do you resolve such arguments?

In practice, I suppose, you do it by majority vote. But the problem remains.

 

[westprog]

I don't think so. As long as the two parties agree on a standard of morality, there's no need to raise the question of its (lack of) objectivity.

But as soon as two parties disagree - one person thinks that, say, firebombing labs that experiment on animals is justifiable. The other thinks that animals, as unaware beings, are inherently subservient to human needs.

When morality is considered relative, and a matter of choice, how do you resolve such arguments?

In practice, I suppose, you do it by majority vote. But the problem remains. The problem isn't solved by assuming a fixed moral standard either.

 

[quixotecoyote]

But as soon as two parties disagree - one person thinks that, say, firebombing labs that experiment on animals is justifiable. The other thinks that animals, as unaware beings, are inherently subservient to human needs.

When morality is considered relative, and a matter of choice, how do you resolve such arguments?

In practice, I suppose, you do it by majority vote. But the problem remains.

Fair enough. But frankly, if you're talking to a arsonist/terrorist then the existence of god-based morality should be way down the list of conversation topics. "Excuse me while I call the cops," would be closer to the top.

 

[sphenisc]

1. Is all that God does good by definition?
- or -
2. Is God only able to do good?

As it stands, this looks like a false dichotomy.

Isn't it possible that God could be capable of doing no-good, but consistently chooses to do good, without good being defined as what God does?

He said "Yes" to which I responded: "Fine. Then if there is a standard above God called 'good' and I can reach that standard without belief in God, why do I need the middle man?"

If, however, there is a standard above God called 'good' and you canNOT reach that standard without belief in God, then you need a middleman.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'm wondering what others on the Forum think of the Euthyphro Dilemma and my conversation with my friend in particular. Are there points to the discussion that were missed? Anything to add? Criticism?

I think your friend lacks the courage of his convictions, else he would have quashed this debate here...

Okay, suppose God murders defenseless children - is that okay with you?

...with a simple yes.