Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 3:39 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A few thoughts on the Euthyphro dilemma
#1
A few thoughts on the Euthyphro dilemma
I've been thinking about the Euthyphro dilemma lately and I made a response a few days ago to an atheist on YouTube named TheoreticalBS and his comments on the Euthyphro dilemma (if you want to watch it, it's here: /watch?v=IO0iVxIXnPk). In this thread I'd like to elaborate on some of those ideas and discuss my solution to the dilemma.


The Euthyphro dilemma is as follows:

“Is something moral because God commands it or does God command it because it is moral?”

It is asserted that both of these possibilities are problematic. One objection to the first possibility is that this opens up the possibility of abhorrent commands. In one possible world, God would command that we should love our neighbor, but what is to prevent him from commanding that we should torture innocent babies for our pleasure?

It is said that the second possibility would be problematic because that would mean that morality is independent of God. If morality is independent of God, then you don't need theism for morality.

The typical apologetic response to this is that neither of these options are accurate. Instead, something is moral because it is in God's nature. I would agree that this is more accurate. If we were to say that something is moral BECAUSE God commands it, that would imply that God's commands are the ultimate standard of morality. But from a Christian worldview, God bases his commands from his nature.

Some have claimed that this does not free us from the Euthyphro dilemma. They have argued that a new Euthyphro dilemma can be proposed:

“Is something moral because it is in God's nature or is it in God's nature because it is moral?”

Of these two, I accept the first option. Things are moral because they are in God's nature. This option is still subject to the objections raised against the proposal that things are moral because they are commanded by God, but I don't any of them convincing problems.

In this thread, I will mainly cover one objection, the one that I previously mentioned. That is, if things are good solely because they are in God's nature, then why couldn't God have had a different nature, one which would obligate us to torture innocent babies, for instance?


Arbitrary morality in different worlds

I have two problems with the claim that the first option of the Euthyphro dilemma leads to arbitrary morality (in this sense).

My first problem is that this claim relies upon the assertion that moral facts remain the same in every possible world. If this assertion is false, then a world in which we are morally obligated to torture innocent babies for fun would be possible, and thus choosing this first possibility of the Euthyphro dilemma would not really be problematic. Personally, I don't see a lot of problems with moral facts varying in hypothetical possible worlds, except that we may feel that this couldn't be true.

The second problem that I have is that this makes morality arbitrary only in the case of a God who has a nature that could vary in different worlds. In other words, this first option wouldn't be a problem for Christian morality because if Yahweh's nature was different, then we simply wouldn't define him as Yahweh. In every possible world in which morality is dependent upon Yahweh's nature, moral facts will stay the same.

So let's say that Yahweh's nature is the same in every possible world in which he exists. Another potential objection would be that if this were the case, then God's nature wouldn't really be the ultimate source of morality, but it would be the things that God's nature is based upon (like love, forgiveness, etc). If this were the case, then God wouldn't be necessary for morality. This is a bad argument though. Yes, you can describe God's nature in a different way by figuring out what the criteria are for 'being in God's nature', but if God's nature were different or if God didn't exist, then those criteria would be meaningless. It would no longer be true that love, forgiveness, etc are objectively moral (unless we're considering a Platonistic world with the same moral facts). The only reason why love, forgiveness, etc are considered moral is because that's what God's nature is.

Arbitrary standard

Is there a reason or justification for God's nature being the way that it is or is it simply arbitrary? In this case, I would say that God's nature must be arbitrary and this isn't a problem. Any objective moral standard must be arbitrary, actually. If there was a further explanation of the ultimate standard for morality, then we would have to ask what the reason for that standard is...on and on into infinite regress. It has to stop somewhere and no matter what, the standard will be arbitrary in this sense. This is true regardless of whether we hold a Christian view of morality, a Platonistic view of morality or whether we simply reject the idea of objective morality altogether. In Christianity, the ultimate standard would be God's nature. In Platonism, the ultimate standard would be whatever moral facts happen to exist eternally. Without objective morality, the standard is whatever the person decides it to be (least amount of suffering, for example). The main difference between objective morality and subjective morality is that if we lived in a world with objective morality, it would actually be true that our actions were morally right or wrong.
Reply
#2
RE: A few thoughts on the Euthyphro dilemma
Quote:“Is something moral because God commands it or does God command it because it is moral?”

Irrelevant until you provide actual evidence that your silly concept of a 'god' actually exists.

We'll wait for you to do so.
Reply
#3
RE: A few thoughts on the Euthyphro dilemma
(April 27, 2012 at 5:58 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:“Is something moral because God commands it or does God command it because it is moral?”

Irrelevant until you provide actual evidence that your silly concept of a 'god' actually exists.

We'll wait for you to do so.

Except the goal of this thread isn't to prove God's existence.
Reply
#4
RE: A few thoughts on the Euthyphro dilemma
If your premise fails we are under no obligation to play your silly jesus games.

We're waiting.
Reply
#5
RE: A few thoughts on the Euthyphro dilemma
Exactly. It's like asking the question "Which is correct: the yolk of an egg is white, or the yolk of egg are white?"

As long as we fail to spot that the yolk of an egg is actually yellow, we can go round and round in pointless circles for the rest of time.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
#6
RE: A few thoughts on the Euthyphro dilemma
(April 27, 2012 at 7:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote: If your premise fails we are under no obligation to play your silly jesus games.

We're waiting.

(April 27, 2012 at 8:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Exactly. It's like asking the question "Which is correct: the yolk of an egg is white, or the yolk of egg are white?"

As long as we fail to spot that the yolk of an egg is actually yellow, we can go round and round in pointless circles for the rest of time.

The Euthyphro dilemma is a dilemma proposed to theists. Both options of the argument are argued to be unacceptable for a theistic worldview, and thus we must accept some other worldview (like atheism).

It's kinda funny. I'm responding to an atheistic argument, and you're criticizing the atheistic argument because you think it blindly asserts that God exists....



ROFLOL
Reply
#7
RE: A few thoughts on the Euthyphro dilemma
Quote:Except the goal of this thread isn't to prove God's existence.

You don't get to set the goal or control anything in thread. If people get bored it will get derailed very quickly

Your question makes the existence of God a given, which it is not something with which the average atheist will agree.

At the Catholic school I attended I was taught ''A thing is not wrong because God says so,he says so because it is wrong" .OF course most of my teachers were pretty stupid,shown by the fact that they had become monks.Tiger


Quote:The Euthyphro dilemma is a dilemma proposed to theists.

No shit.
Reply
#8
RE: A few thoughts on the Euthyphro dilemma
(April 27, 2012 at 5:51 pm)shinydarkrai94 Wrote: ...

Arbitrary standard

Is there a reason or justification for God's nature being the way that it is or is it simply arbitrary? In this case, I would say that God's nature must be arbitrary and this isn't a problem. Any objective moral standard must be arbitrary, actually. If there was a further explanation of the ultimate standard for morality, then we would have to ask what the reason for that standard is...on and on into infinite regress. It has to stop somewhere and no matter what, the standard will be arbitrary in this sense. This is true regardless of whether we hold a Christian view of morality, a Platonistic view of morality or whether we simply reject the idea of objective morality altogether. In Christianity, the ultimate standard would be God's nature. In Platonism, the ultimate standard would be whatever moral facts happen to exist eternally. Without objective morality, the standard is whatever the person decides it to be (least amount of suffering, for example). The main difference between objective morality and subjective morality is that if we lived in a world with objective morality, it would actually be true that our actions were morally right or wrong.

I will actually try to respond to the content of what you wrote instead of being lazy like the other atheists here. Tongue

I don't understand why you're not bothered by the problem of infinite regress of objective morality. I would think that would be a major blow to the concept of objective morality. God is supposedly suppose to be the source of everything, but in this case, you seem to be saying you're fine with morality not actually coming from him. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.
My ignore list




"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
Reply
#9
RE: A few thoughts on the Euthyphro dilemma
(April 27, 2012 at 8:51 pm)padraic Wrote: No shit.

Hahaha yeah it's fairly obvious but I don't think that Stimbo and Minimalist understood that, or the fact that I was arguing "If God exists, it doesn't cause problems for morality..." rather than "God exists coz I sayz so and there aren't any problems for theistic morality..."
Reply
#10
RE: A few thoughts on the Euthyphro dilemma
Quote:The Euthyphro dilemma is a dilemma proposed to theists.

You posted it on an Atheist forum. You are lost.

Buy a GPS.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Thoughts on Courtly love (aka platonic love) Macoleco 16 1162 September 11, 2022 at 2:04 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  Thoughts of Reason Foxaèr 22 1639 October 25, 2020 at 6:26 pm
Last Post: Sal
Lightbulb Some thoughts I felt compelled to share with anyone willing to listen, entheogen 22 2758 September 17, 2018 at 1:38 pm
Last Post: entheogen
  How our thoughts are formed? givepeaceachance 29 4133 May 24, 2018 at 5:27 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  Euthyphro dilemma ignoramus 198 18682 October 28, 2017 at 9:12 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  What will you do? (Ethical dilemma question) ErGingerbreadMandude 91 9963 October 22, 2017 at 5:30 pm
Last Post: Foxaèr
  My thoughts on the Hard problem of consciousness Won2blv 36 5448 February 15, 2017 at 7:27 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Thoughts RozKek 17 2454 April 25, 2016 at 7:18 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution. Mystic 78 23524 February 2, 2016 at 12:40 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Ethics Class Homework Assignments: Critiques, Thoughts... Thanks! Mudhammam 6 2615 July 5, 2015 at 7:35 pm
Last Post: Mudhammam



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)