The Euthyphro Dilemma, and a tentative approach...

[2ndRateMind]

So, I'm new around here, so please be gentle!

Anyway, the most potent formulation of Plato's conundrum seems to be:

Does God will the good, because it is good, or is the good, good, because God wills it?

If the former, God is not supreme, but subject to some external moral law. We could justifiably dispense with God, and pledge our allegiance directly to the good.

If the latter, then God is supreme, but morality is arbitrary. God could will anything, even genocide, and it would be good.

So, for the Christian, neither of these options are exactly desirable. Most Christians would want a reconciliation that leaves both God supreme, and morality systematic, comprehensible and accountable, as opposed to a mere matter of whim, however divine that whim might be.

I'm thinking aloud here. Maybe morality exists because God exists. Maybe God's morality, objective ethics, total righteousness, perfect goodness, exist all only because God exists, and would not exist if God did not exist, in the same way as your morality (assuming we all have subtly or substantially different moralities) would not exist if you did not exist. God's will though, absolute virtue, is perfect because He is, and He, being God, gets to disseminate it world-wide.

Or is morality, for you, simply a matter of social consensus?

Just trying to gauge the temper of the forum. All responses welcome and valued.

Best wishes, 2RM

[bluethread]

Does God will the good, because it is good, or is the good, good, because God wills it?

If the former, God is not supreme, but subject to some external moral law. We could justifiably dispense with God, and pledge our allegiance directly to the good.

If the latter, then God is supreme, but morality is arbitrary. God could will anything, even genocide, and it would be good.

So, for the Christian, neither of these options are exactly desirable. Most Christians would want a reconciliation that leaves both God supreme, and morality systematic, comprehensible and accountable, as opposed to a mere matter of whim, however divine that whim might be.

Arbitrary is not the right term. It presumes caprice, which defines the deity as chance. That is an oxymoron. It has been repeatedly argue that morality is subjective. Yet, when it comes to good and evil, not only do theists argue for an absolute objective dichotomy, but so do non-theists. The non-theist just falls back on the fallacy of "common sense", thus presuming consistency on chance.

If one discards a deity in favor of "the good", what is one choosing? What is "the good"? Is it not a personal or agreed upon standard? How is this not just a matter of whim? It may not be the "whim" of a deity, but it is still the whim of the society. As history shows us, societies can will anything, including genocide. One may say, "We are enlightened" and would not do such a thing. However, every society has considered itself "enlightened", even those that have instituted genocide. Therefore, though the question does threaten the security of the theist, it does not ensure the security of the non-theist. So, one can not look to the concept of an absolute "good and evil" for security.

Rather than succumb to the use of subjective morality as a threat, I embrace it. Yes, morality is subjective. Therefore, when speaking of "good and evil" one must establish the prospective from which one is speaking. One must ask to what "good and evil" relates. If it is human behavior, then it does not necessarily apply to dogs, cats, or deities.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

I think your third option is the way forward. God is good. Morality is not God's decree nor is it an external standard but it is God.



http://creation.mobi/what-is-good-answe ... ro-dilemma

Thus the dilemma can be shown to be a false one. God indeed commands things which are good, but the reason they are good is because they reflect God’s own nature. So the goodness does not come ultimately from God’s commandments, but from His nature, which then results in good commandments. As Steve Lovell concluded in ‘C.S. Lewis and the Euthyphro Dilemma’ (2002):

‘The commands of an omniscient, loving, generous, merciful, patient and truthful Being would not be issued without reason, and that since these characteristics are essential to God, His commands possess a strong modal status. It was also observed that God’s possession of these attributes is sufficient to give significant content to God’s goodness.’

[McCulloch]

Does God will the good, because it is good, or is the good, good, because God wills it?
If the former, God is not supreme, but subject to some external moral law. We could justifiably dispense with God, and pledge our allegiance directly to the good.
If the latter, then God is supreme, but morality is arbitrary. God could will anything, even genocide, and it would be good.
So, for the Christian, neither of these options are exactly desirable. Most Christians would want a reconciliation that leaves both God supreme, and morality systematic, comprehensible and accountable, as opposed to a mere matter of whim, however divine that whim might be.

Arbitrary is not the right term. It presumes caprice, which defines the deity as chance. That is an oxymoron. It has been repeatedly argue that morality is subjective. Yet, when it comes to good and evil, not only do theists argue for an absolute objective dichotomy, but so do non-theists. The non-theist just falls back on the fallacy of "common sense", thus presuming consistency on chance.

Arbitrary is the correct term. If you take the second branch of Euthyphro, then morality is nothing more than hermeneutics. "God is good" is a meaningless tautology. Non-theists who argue for objective morality do not do so on the basis of anything so poorly defined as common sense. We argue that moral laws exist in the same way that laws exist in mathematics, physics or biology. As in these other disciplines, the principles of morality may defy common sense. And a belief in a deity is not a requirement to their discovery.

If one discards a deity in favor of "the good", what is one choosing? What is "the good"? Is it not a personal or agreed upon standard? How is this not just a matter of whim? It may not be the "whim" of a deity, but it is still the whim of the society.

There is emerging consensus regarding human rights. The the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are all expressions of that emerging consensus. It would be a gross understatement to describe this as a mere whim.

Rather than succumb to the use of subjective morality as a threat, I embrace it. Yes, morality is subjective. Therefore, when speaking of "good and evil" one must establish the prospective from which one is speaking. One must ask to what "good and evil" relates. If it is human behavior, then it does not necessarily apply to dogs, cats, or deities.

Of course, human morality is relevant to humans. Canine and feline morality is only relevant to scientists in those fields. And until a deity can be shown to actually exist, divine morality is only hypothetical.

[bluethread]

Arbitrary is not the right term. It presumes caprice, which defines the deity as chance. That is an oxymoron. It has been repeatedly argue that morality is subjective. Yet, when it comes to good and evil, not only do theists argue for an absolute objective dichotomy, but so do non-theists. The non-theist just falls back on the fallacy of "common sense", thus presuming consistency on chance.

Arbitrary is the correct term. If you take the second branch of Euthyphro, then morality is nothing more than hermeneutics. "God is good" is a meaningless tautology. Non-theists who argue for objective morality do not do so on the basis of anything so poorly defined as common sense. We argue that moral laws exist in the same way that laws exist in mathematics, physics or biology. As in these other disciplines, the principles of morality may defy common sense. And a belief in a deity is not a requirement to their discovery.

Thank you for your well thought out response. My objection to arbitrary is not to assert that deistic decisions can not be arbitrary, but that if they are, the deity is not acting as a deity, but subjugating itself to chance. Yes, I understand that "God is good" is a meaningless tautology. However, Adonai defining what is tov(the good) is not. What we may call good does not bind an actual deity. Regarding, your argument regarding moral laws, I do agree I was not truly accurate by referring to it as the "common sense" fallacy. However, applying the logical/scientific use of the term law to morality does not resolve the Euthyphro dilemma. It only makes the concept of "the good" a meaningless tautology without a deity.

If one discards a deity in favor of "the good", what is one choosing? What is "the good"? Is it not a personal or agreed upon standard? How is this not just a matter of whim? It may not be the "whim" of a deity, but it is still the whim of the society.

There is emerging consensus regarding human rights. The the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are all expressions of that emerging consensus. It would be a gross understatement to describe this as a mere whim.

The fact that there is much human activity involved in the regulation of genocide of late, does not change the fact that consensus could not just as easily approve of genocide and define how it is to be used. That is no different from what the poster was using as an accusation against a deity. Your allusion to constitutions, treaties and charters, is to my point. I am making the argument that constitutional theists do the same thing.

Rather than succumb to the use of subjective morality as a threat, I embrace it. Yes, morality is subjective. Therefore, when speaking of "good and evil" one must establish the prospective from which one is speaking. One must ask to what "good and evil" relates. If it is human behavior, then it does not necessarily apply to dogs, cats, or deities.

Of course, human morality is relevant to humans. Canine and feline morality is only relevant to scientists in those fields. And until a deity can be shown to actually exist, divine morality is only hypothetical.

Yes, however, contrary to the requirements of many on this site, hypothetical or not, divine morality can not be derived from human morality. However, presuming the non-theist position, if there is consensus regarding a constitution, that constitutes the existing morality. If some claim that constitution is derived from divine revelation does not change that principle. So, if you truly believe in consensus morality, then HaTorah, the Koran and other such moral codes are no more invalid or whimsical in principle than the Constitution of these United States, the Queen's Charter, the UN Declaration of Human Rights. A good example of this is the morality of "hate speech". In these United States, free speech is sacrosanct, and personal offense is not a valid cause of action. However, in Canada that is not the case. I understand that is a simplistic comparison, but the point is that, based on the principle of consensus neither is inherently superior to the other. It is the same with theistic constitutionalism, it is no more a matter of "whim" than humanistic constitutionalism. Both are at least dependent upon what I call the "benign consent of the masses".

[ttruscott]

Does God will the good, because it is good, or is the good, good, because God wills it?

I contend that GOD does not will what is good. GOD IS good and what conforms to HIM is good and what doesn't conform to him is not good. HIS will is always in conformity to who HE is (righteous) and HIS attributes (goodness), HIS will does not create these things.

[2ndRateMind]

I can't say how pleased I am that my post, which some may consider provocative, has generated this polite discussion.

I ought to state where I am coming from, just because I am new here, and it may turn out to be relevant, as the conversation continues.

Centrally, it would be my contention that objective morality exists, but that humanity does not yet know what it is. Instead we make do with our own subjective moralities, or an aggregate consensus of them. For me, social progress consists primarily in the approach of that consensus toward that supposed, perfect, objectivity. It is not necessary, in this model, for humanity ever to reach moral perfection, only to come ever closer to it, which I think it will, barring catastrophe, as we learn from our own errors and those of previous generations.

Such progress might best be illustrated by the analogy of the graph of some mathematical function, which may tend ever closer to it's asymptote, but without ever reaching it in finite space and/or time.

You may well appreciate that this conception of morality leaves me firmly stuck between two stools; between the atheist/agnostic position that all morality is relative, and finds a degree of objectivity only in political consensus, and the naive Christian position that all morality is determined by scripture, which is asserted to be the inerrant Word of God.

So, as the thread progresses, I shall be watching carefully to discover any glaring flaws in my thinking. Meanwhile, I will be taking advantage of the best of both worlds; the existence of a perfect, objective morality, without discarding the possibility of human progress, and some reason for us to live out our lives, that being the pursuit of the absolute good.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

You may well appreciate that this conception of morality leaves me firmly stuck between two stools; between the atheist/agnostic position that all morality is relative, and finds a degree of objectivity only in political consensus, and the naive Christian position that all morality is determined by scripture, which is asserted to be the inerrant Word of God.

Thank you for the background and I can understand your position. I would just like to clear something up. It is an extreme minority of Christians that hold that ALL morality is determined by scripture. Even in those cases, many moral decisions require stretching the context of a passage. For me, the Scriptures do not micromanage morality, but provide a framework which seems to me to better match up with actual human behavior. Most secular humanist constructs appear to me to be designed for an idealistic society and often micromanage behaviors to insure that ideal. Secular libertarians are the refreshing exception.

[ttruscott]

...the naive Christian position that all morality is determined by scripture, which is asserted to be the inerrant Word of God.

Morality is NOT determined by Scripture but by the nature of GOD. Humans trying to find HIS moral nature in a sinful world are encouraged to seek it in the Scriptures, His word which reflects HIS moral nature.

[2ndRateMind]

...the naive Christian position that all morality is determined by scripture, which is asserted to be the inerrant Word of God.

Morality is NOT determined by Scripture but by the nature of GOD. Humans trying to find HIS moral nature in a sinful world are encouraged to seek it in the Scriptures, His word which reflects HIS moral nature.

Yes, I would tend to agree that God's morally perfect nature determines objective morality. I am less sure that the scriptures describe such perfection. The gospels excepted, I rather think they describe the moral state of the art of their time, and I think humanity has made ethical progress in the 1600 years or so since they were compiled into the Bible.

Nevertheless, so far as the thread theme is concerned, we still need decide whether God is perfectly moral because of some overriding constraint of moral law, or whether His morality, and therefore ours, is simply a matter of His preferences, which might perfectly well have been otherwise.

The scriptures offer us several pictures of God, ranging from the tribal warrior king, through dispenser and arbiter of adamantine law, to Jesus' loving father. So we can, without ever leaving Christianity, assess these differing versions of God, and decide whether they are truly good, and whether they suggest God is constrained by ethical absolutes to be truly good, or free to define true goodness however He wants.

Best wishes, 2RM.