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

[ttruscott]

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.

I have decided: HIS morality is NOT merely HIS preferences NOR by some overriding moral law HE must meet but is decided by HIS very nature which seems to me despite all your rhetoric that you have dismissed.

You pretend to agree with me but then don't...what is that?

[2ndRateMind]

I have decided: HIS morality is NOT merely HIS preferences NOR by some overriding moral law HE must meet but is decided by HIS very nature which seems to me despite all your rhetoric that you have dismissed.

I am quite happy you have decided. As far as I am concerned, you are quite welcome to believe anything you want. Nevertheless, the idea that God's morality is a function of His nature still begs the question; does His nature conform to an external source of morality, or does His nature define morality? Are we just lucky God's nature is perfect, and could it have been otherwise, or does moral perfection demand a discipline on some grounds even more fundamental than God's way of being?

You pretend to agree with me but then don't...what is that?

I agree with you somewhat, but not entirely. Perhaps I have not completely understood you, or perhaps you have not explained your position, thoroughly. Whatever, I am sure our differences are detail, not substance.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Friedrich]

We argue that moral laws exist in the same way that laws exist in mathematics, physics or biology.

Morality can be expressed as a mathematical formula.

Morality = (Reward X Desire) ÷ (Risk X Aversion)

Crossing a residential street to pick a flower on the other side may be safe enough if you desire that flower, but crossing the King's Highway 401 at peak times does not justify picking a flower, but getting a briefcase full of money may be justified.

Killing granny for the inheritance may be justified if the chance of getting caught is small enough and the reward is big enough. And if she has a medical condition that makes life miserable for her, then her desire to not live may make the equation even more favorable. On the other hand, if one has claustrophobia, then going to prison may be intolerable and that aversion would swing the equation to the side of immoral.

For the rational mind, morality is simply a rational calculation. No god or gods needed.

[2ndRateMind]

Killing granny for the inheritance may be justified if the chance of getting caught is small enough and the reward is big enough.

Uh huh. But this is an entirely utilitarian (outcome decided) calculus. Many would argue that such considerations prove utilitarianism to be an insufficient account of morality. What if we loved our grannies, and wanted them to persist in good health for as long as possible, irrespective of how we might benefit our bank account balances, otherwise?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Friedrich]

What if we loved our grannies, and wanted them to persist in good health for as long as possible, irrespective of how we might benefit our bank account balances, otherwise?

If we love our grannies more than we love spending their estates, then by all means keep them alive.

But, keep in mind that wanting them to persist in good health for as long as possible may not be all that long for the good health part. So, when the time comes it may be necessary to make a cold rational decision to end the suffering and the unnecessary waisting away of their estates on hopeless medical and nursing home care. That may be the more moral option at that time.

I don't understand why that would be an insufficient account of morality. Morality is simply doing what we want to do in light of minimizing the negative consequences of our actions.

[Mr.Badham]

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

I think a lot of people, especially white male Christians, argue that genocide is somehow a "subjective moral behavior", because, for the most part, they have been on the winning side. What I have never seen is evidence that the people who actually took part on the winning side of a genocide believed that what they were doing was moral.

You might be able to show that some thought it was necessary.
You might be able to show that some thought it was beneficial to themselves.
But you'd be hard pressed to show proof that anyone believed what they were doing was moral. I'd also be willing to argue that if someone did use the word moral, that that person was mistaken in their understanding of the definition.

By definition, not even a rapist wants to be raped. It's impossible.
By definition, not even a murderer wants to be murdered.
By definition, not even a slave owner wants to be a slave.
Because of these things, I believe that "Universally accepted subjective beliefs" should be considered as important as "objective truths".

[Monta]

[Replying to post 11 by 2ndRateMind]

"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. "

Neither.

God is Good Itself and He is what He is.

God can do anything which is within His Order; He is Order itself.

As He is Good Itself, genocide can not also be part of what He is.

[Anomaly]

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

In my theology good is an effect of truth. God is pure Truth and He desires truth, His nature, because to desire or pursue the false is obviously 'not good'. Seems to make sense that God desires the cause (truth) over the effect (good). If followed logically, truth is the single greatest and defining attribute of God and the universe. therefore, the question should imo be answered thus:

God wills the good because goodness is the product of truth; He could will no other as truth is alone sufficient to the good and perfection.

Of course that goods follow from truth seems to be an unorthodox concept in modern thinking and not accepted by all, but I find it an intellectually and spiritually acceptable starting point in my belief system.

[agnosticatheist]

In my theology good is an effect of truth. God is pure Truth and He desires truth, His nature, because to desire or pursue the false is obviously 'not good'. Seems to make sense that God desires the cause (truth) over the effect (good). If followed logically, truth is the single greatest and defining attribute of God and the universe. therefore, the question should imo be answered thus:

God wills the good because goodness is the product of truth; He could will no other as truth is alone sufficient to the good and perfection.

How are the good and perfection relevant here? Shouldn't it just be "He could will no other because to do so would be contrary to His nature, and He cannot do anything contrary to His nature"? It seems like you shifted gears at the end there. I'm kinda confused.

If your answer to the question of why what is moral, amoral, or immoral is what it is, is what is because it is true that it is what it is, then another question can be raised. Why is it true that a given action is moral, amoral, or immoral?

You could express it like this:

Moral = A
Amoral = B
Immoral = C
Any given action = D

D = A or B or C because it is true that D = A or B or C

That's a tautology, is it not?

If God commands people to cut off a woman's hand after X happens (Deuteronomy 25:11-12), then what God commands is moral because it is true that what God commands is moral, correct?

Why is it true that what God commands here is moral?

[Anomaly]

[Replying to post 18 by agnosticatheist]

Truth as I’m using it here is taken from Aquinas’ citation of Avicenna in the Summa, that, "The truth of each thing is a property of the essence which is immutably attached to it."

Working outward—assuming truth inheres everything essentially—and that truth inheres some things immutably (i.e., natural laws) and others mutably (e.g., souls, “assigned� value as in currency, various values of minerals, oil, laws, etc.). In this view, a thing is good to the degree it’s true—or conversely, not good to the degree it’s falsified. Truth requires a perceiving creator, the creator sets standards of value. Even if there existed an uncreated material universe it could contain no value if there were no perceivers present.

For example a house can be said to be true to the degree it meets its design standards for comfort, safety, provides shelter from the elements, etc. A house that falls into a state of disrepair is thus falsified—eventually to the point of unlivability.

One more distinction is important, two kinds of truth,1) descriptive, pertaining to facts, is static and inheres non-organic matter; 2) prescriptive or normative, pertaining to animation (what Christians typically term “spirit�) in organics. The falsification of descriptive truth produces a mild, virtually inert ‘tension’ (e.g., 3 + 3 = 5) while falsified prescriptive truth presents a much more powerful ‘resistance’ (the torture of innocents is wrong). Reality [from the perspective of a perceiver] consists in a fluid complex of static (descriptive) and potent (prescriptive) currents.

For the record, in this view “morality� takes on a technical meaning as a measure of the degree prescriptive truth in a set of circumstances or entity is falsified. Higher degrees of falsification produce stronger moral pressure in the mind.

From this, a moral action is good to the degree the prescriptive value involved in the state of affairs defining the action or series of actions is true.

The amoral derives from a purely static (inorganic) state of affairs. Because most circumstances on earth involve degrees of organic-inorganic interactions, there are probably few actual amoral circumstances.

The immoral is (conversely to A) a judgment of the degree a prescriptive state of affairs is falsified. To this degree it’s less good or immoral to various degrees.

Thus, D almost always equals varying measures of A, B and C.

To cut off a woman’s hand would never be ordered by God because the loss of a hand would falsify the health, functionality and well being of the woman, parameters of her design. Truth is self-uniting, falsity produces tension and resistance. When God says, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!� in Isa 5:20 He’s really just saying woe to those who call truth falsity and falsity truth. On the other hand, God could create a universe in which the cutting off of appendages would be a true and good thing, but this won’t work in this one.

God’s nature is also the embedded nature of the created universe. He could hypothetically exit this universe and go on vacation in another and what is moral or immoral would remain because the truth intrinsic to essence is the standard to which humans inevitably strive either toward or against. The immutable truth of physical laws keeps the mechanics of the universe working as it does. The truth in intellectual operation in association with value in an external world causes us to continue maintaining [more or less] the standards of morality that have persisted from day one. We persist in seeking moral solutions—even in our fragmentally falsified states—as long as prescriptive truth isn’t falsified to chaotic (self-destructive) levels. One outcome of this view when followed out logically that caught me by surprise—given the Christian exclusivist teaching that only theists can be moral—is that morality, because it involves primarily the “spiritual mechanics� of the intellect’s union with or opposition to true or false prescriptive propositions and judgments, is available to all humans, atheist, theist or anyone in the middle.