Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Euthyphro Dilemma


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1    BuyMeAPony

BuyMeAPony

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2005

  • There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Posted 30 December 2005 - 11:04 PM

For those of you who donít know what the Euthyphro Dilemma is, itís a two horned problem presented by Plato. The following is a very watered down version of the actual dilemma. Feel free to take it up a notch higher than I have put here. Essentially the dilemma boils down to this:

Either:

God created Morality (also know as the divine command theory).

In this theory God is sovereign and there exists nothing that is not subject to God.
There are concessions that must be made with this side. They are listed as follows:

1. God made morality, and therefore the very concept of morality is based on what God deems moral. This means that if God created what was moral he could at any given time change his mind and deem new things moral. This means that morality is changeable and therefore not a stable concept.

2. God created morality and therefore the definition of all that is good. This puts God above morality as a whole. One cannot subject themselves to guidelines of that which they have created. God used him/herself as benchmark when saying what is moral. God cannot be more like God. Therefore, by using basic logic God cannot be a significantly moral being.

3. If God is not a significantly moral being than God is not actually good. Worshipping God implies that God is subject to morality and has chosen to lead a moral existence. According to the second concession God is not subject to morality therefore we do not worship God because he is good. The term usually applied to this concession is Might makes Right.

Or:

God is independent of Morality

In this theory Morality exists without interaction with God and that it is superior to God. The concession of this horn is that God is not sovereign and because of this he/she becomes subject to morality. This not only has morality define what is moral it is also stable and unchanging. God has received the guidelines of morality and in doing that becomes subject to the same guidelines that humans adhere to.

Using this statement to build on, worshipping God would then be worshipping of a moral being. Establishing that morality is independent of God and that God is subject to morality, then God has made the decision to be moral. This means that God is worthy of being called good because he/she has made a conscious effort to be moral and therefore is the essence of what is good.



So what horn are you on? Letís discuss! If you would like me to post the logic based refute of the Divine Command Theory I will. I have omitted it due to both space and I do not know if others are familiar with logic process. Also remember that this is a philosophical debate and therefore we cant use authority as a source (ie. my mum says so, or the bible says this)


Cheers! grin2.gif


Fy nerth a wywodd fel priddlestr  aím tafod a lynodd wrth daflod fy ngenau ac i lwch angau yím dygaist.

#2    Paranormalcy

Paranormalcy

    The Sum of All Bears

  • Member
  • 5,535 posts
  • Joined:04 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NE OK USA

  • "Friday, Friday, gotta get down on Friday."

Posted 30 December 2005 - 11:13 PM

Even taking the idea and all its associated issues as factual, for the sake of the question, its still not really a conundrum, to me.

God's NATURE is what He translated into "morals" for Man, so Man could UNDERSTAND and emulate the nature of God and God's "superior" behavior.

God is not subject to Morality because Morality is a mundane teaching concept developed for/by Man, to explain the Nature of God, and thereby also understand his own behavior and nature, as it relates to God.

I am also unfamiliar with a line of belief that indicates that if God were not classified as Moral, as Man knows the word, this would somehow change things. Man's perceptions are limited, in the Eyes of God - holding a yardstick up to the infinite and finding it lacking... a little egotistical?

UM Rules | Ouija/Ideomotor | Sleep Paralys./Hypnogogia | Ouija: 252hrs/4y+, View: Ideomotor



#3    BuyMeAPony

BuyMeAPony

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2005

  • There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Posted 30 December 2005 - 11:19 PM

Before I even start I am not for or against either horn. Im here for the discussion. So here goes it:


Quote


Even taking the idea and all its associated issues as factual, for the sake of the question, its still not really a conundrum, to me.



Everyone says that but alas it is.

Quote



God's NATURE is what He translated into "morals" for Man, so Man could UNDERSTAND and emulate the nature of God and God's "superior" behavior.



So God created morality.


Fy nerth a wywodd fel priddlestr  aím tafod a lynodd wrth daflod fy ngenau ac i lwch angau yím dygaist.

#4    Paranormalcy

Paranormalcy

    The Sum of All Bears

  • Member
  • 5,535 posts
  • Joined:04 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NE OK USA

  • "Friday, Friday, gotta get down on Friday."

Posted 30 December 2005 - 11:44 PM

I'm afraid I'm not on either, I guess. My above post would be my explanation if I went for the idea that God created Morality - this would remove the seeming contradiction of worshipping an amoral being. And if you went with the idea that Morality is seperate from God and God chose to BE Moral, then you can be content that way too.

For me, however, its not a conundrum because even if you believe this whole idea of God as an entity to be worshipped, to blithely ascribe something as mundane as Man's conception of what is and is not possible, to the Creator of All, is arrogance.

Exactly when did Man decide God had to be meat or cake, particle or wave, Republican or Democrat? And when did God agree to this?

This would be the risk of applying physical, analytical and rational scientific logic to some force or entity so powerful as to have been self-created (or ever-existing or whatever) and to have created everything else in existance, seen and unseen.

To presume that God falls under anyone's perceptions of Morality or adheres to the linear and limited concept of possibility and categories of experience and arbitrary levels of importance and if-then frameworks into which Man requires God to fall... well... that's equally laughable.

This is what I was referring to with my yardstick comments - to presume to tell the universe or God that it needs to fall in step with your perceptions of how things operate and make sure it doesn't overlap or fall outside your ideas in any way, since if you can't comprehend or understand it, its not valid.

"Sorry God, you're not valid because you appear to be either Amoral or are governed by Morality, which I see as meaning you're inferior. Nope, sorry, I'm really very firm on this issue. Please pack up your things and get your letter of recommendation at the end of the day."

UM Rules | Ouija/Ideomotor | Sleep Paralys./Hypnogogia | Ouija: 252hrs/4y+, View: Ideomotor



#5    BuyMeAPony

BuyMeAPony

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2005

  • There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Posted 30 December 2005 - 11:46 PM

That was fanatastic jpatt. I havent heard such a well thought out explanation in a long time.  grin2.gif

Fy nerth a wywodd fel priddlestr  aím tafod a lynodd wrth daflod fy ngenau ac i lwch angau yím dygaist.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users