Euthyphro dilemma

[The Grand Nudger]

"A little something" is all it takes to understand the problem.  Any form of voluntarism is an explicit affirmation of the second proposition in the dilemma. Of will creating the good. Explicitly affirming one of the two options already present is hardly what I'd call a third option, lol. In any case, doing so presents an issue of meaningful arbitrarity.

[Ignorant]

In the sort of theism I subscribe to, sure?

That's the problem with theism. The crap in their doctrines are premises rather than conclusions that were reasoned to.

? Come on Ham that isn't fair. We both know that conclusions from other arguments can serve as premises for this one.

---

Notice how the term consistently refers to the thing itself?  This is all I mean when I say that whatever goodness is inherent to a thing is apart from god.  It's intrinsic, innate, in-built, indwelling, inborn, etc.  It wouldn't matter if billy, bob, steve, god, or no-one in particular made it the way it is, the way that it is is what makes it good...and this is whats being asked by the first horn.

Lol. So you agree that these two things can SIMULTANEOUSLY be true:

1) Someone/something (e.g. billy, bob, god, no-one in particular) can be created "the way it is"

AND

2) "The way it is" has own goodness.

?

It is possible that billy-bob makes a thing AS having its own inherent goodness <= option 3

---

"A little something" is all it takes to understand the problem.  Any form of voluntarism is an explicit affirmation of the second proposition in the dilemma. [1] Of will creating the good. [2]  Explicitly affirming one of the two options already present is hardly what I'd call a third option, lol. [3] In any case, doing so presents an issue of meaningful arbitrarity. [4]

1) I am no voluntarist.

2) Voluntarism is the primacy of will over the other faculties. In that view, the goodness of creation is not necessarily related to the goodness of God.

3) See my post to your previous comments.

4) Arbitrary decisions of will! That's voluntarism! I reject it! Yay!

[Whateverist]

But there are many aspects to "acting human", some we call morally good, some bad. [1] If no one else had a hand in our creation then isn't it correct to say that God commands the bad just as he commands the good? [2]

Welcome back by the way. [3]

1) I would say that "morally bad" actions are actions which make us "less human" (i.e. they lead us away from being the best sort of human).

2) Well, I would say that God's "command" that we "be the best sort of humans" is the SAME as his creating us as human. What-humans-are includes this teleology/purpose/goal/end.

Yeah that makes sense - at least if you come at it looking to find how humans were created. Even if we set aside the issue of created with a purpose vs evolved for a number of purposes, I can appreciate that you are communicating something subtle and elusive. For we secular oriented types, we can still ask are there activities/mindsets/ways of being which accentuate the best in us. I think we should be able to give that question serious consideration, and I'm inclined to say there probably are.

We may not agree on what those are, but I'm happy to have the conversation.

God creates us as agents who participate in our own development and fulfillment. The definition of a "good" human agent is a developed and fulfilled human agent (whatever that may consist of). If an action is morally good, it MUST be because it helps us become the best sort of human according to the humanity god creates. Actions are morally good because they lead the agent toward becoming the best sort of human.

I notice that you haven't anywhere here implied that what is best for humans is to be an obedient lackey of the divine. I appreciate that. What is good or best is what it is and whether we're created or evolved, we certainly are "agents who must participate in our own development and fulfillment".

Do you think this question deserves it's own thread?

3) Thanks! My time is still limited, so I need to try and keep my posts short. It's been too long!

I enjoy your posts so approach them in whatever way works for you in a manner that allows you to still pursue an excellent RL.

[Ignorant]

...Even if we set aside the issue of created with a purpose vs evolved for a number of purposes, I can appreciate that you are communicating something subtle and elusive. [1] For we secular oriented types, we can still ask are there activities/mindsets/ways of being which accentuate the best in us.  I think we should be able to give that question serious consideration, and I'm inclined to say there probably are. We may not agree on what those are, but I'm happy to have the conversation. [2]

...

I notice that you haven't anywhere here implied that what is best for humans is to be an obedient lackey of the divine.  I appreciate that. [3] What is good or best is what it is and whether we're created or evolved, we certainly are "agents who must participate in our own development and fulfillment". [4]

Do you think this question deserves it's own thread? [5]

I enjoy your posts so approach them in whatever way works for you in a manner that allows you to still pursue an excellent RL. [6]

1) Thank you for saying this!

2) YES! It is a challenging conversation worth having, and I am glad that we agree on these basic even if abstract ideas. We need not begin with whether or not human life is created by god. We can just begin with the fact of human life.

3) Lol. I'm sorry that such an image of living out religion has been so reinforced by us. It is my hope that one day you may come to understand that such an image falls far short of the experience of religion, especially my own.

4) Preach it!

5) Well of course! Like I mentioned, my own involvement will be limited, and possibly spotty, but I would enjoy reading what others have to say about it.

6) Thanks!... but what is an RL?

[ignoramus]

Real Life

[Ignorant]

Lol! Funny on multiple levels that I didn't know what that is.

Thanks, ignoramus!

[ignoramus]

No dramas matey. One day I'll get myself a RL.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Is Socrates a rational animal because he is human or is he human because he is a rational animal?

[Angrboda]

Is Socrates a rational animal because he is human or is he human because he is a rational animal?

Fail. There is no dilemma here. The two forks have independent and unrelated resolutions. I've heard people state a Euthyphro for rationalism, but this isn't it.

Socrates is a rational animal because his brain implements the behavior known as reason.

Socrates is human because he has certain properties which collectively are specific to being human.

What are you trying to say, Neo?

[Mystic]

Jo, I think he is arguing by an analogy and arguing "morality" and "loved by God" means the same thing.

You define a human as a rational animal, or you can define a rational animal as a human. There is no real dilemma.