Euthyphro dilemma
May. 29th, 2007 02:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackIntroduction
Is it good or bad when you discover something you thought of is a famous thing?
I used to think I was soooo clever for hitting Christian evangelizers with the Euthyphro dilemma. And I discovered Plato had it four hundred years before Christianity was even invented.
For those following along at home, the question is (as I phrased it) "Is God subject to morality, or did he create morality?" or (as Plato phrased it) "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
the little list
I mean, not nice, but it did work beautifully. When I chatted with friends, we were generally on the same page, but anyone trying to convert my out of the blue was generally incapable of *understanding* the question, let alone familiar with it, let alone having an answer, let alone having an answer that would satisfy me.
To make everything fair I made a little list of questions I wanted to ask anyone before they could convert me. But this was #1, and I never got any further because everything stalled perfectly well here.
I mean, seriously. Before asking someone to do whatever person X says, you better have thought of "what if I disagree with it", right? But that did not seem to be the case.
The dilemma
Leaving aside the fact that at a minimum I'd like to know which, regardless of which you actually settle upon. And the fact that the answer depends on whether or not there's an absolute morality, which is an unsolved dilemma in itself.
The dilemma is that if God is by definition good, then I'm abrogating my moral sense to someone else. What if he tells me to do something I think is wrong? I don't think I can.
And if God is independent of good, he might in theory do something that wasn't good, even if he never does. Well, that seems ok, but most people have difficulty articulating it.
Resolutions
Of course, old famous dilemmas are generally still up in the air. There are a variety of conceptions of God that avoid this dilemma, that obviously other people are more familiar with than me, but for the sake of balance I'll try to describe.
1. The trust-father metaphor. God if father. I don't necessarily understand everything, but I trust him, because I love him, and he's always come through in the past, so I do what he says, even if it seems wrong at the time.
2. The higher-order-of-being metaphor. Imagine *you* created and ran a universe. What would morality be inside that? Well, whatever it is, maybe our universe is like that to God.
3. Good has an independent existence, that God chooses to conform to.
4. Good is by definition what God wants. I know this makes sense to some people, but I'm afraid not to me. I know I'm not very good myself, but if God said "kill everyone in that city" (unless I believed there was some overwhelming reason it was good in the long run) I'd still think it was very wrong.
Is it good or bad when you discover something you thought of is a famous thing?
I used to think I was soooo clever for hitting Christian evangelizers with the Euthyphro dilemma. And I discovered Plato had it four hundred years before Christianity was even invented.
For those following along at home, the question is (as I phrased it) "Is God subject to morality, or did he create morality?" or (as Plato phrased it) "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
the little list
I mean, not nice, but it did work beautifully. When I chatted with friends, we were generally on the same page, but anyone trying to convert my out of the blue was generally incapable of *understanding* the question, let alone familiar with it, let alone having an answer, let alone having an answer that would satisfy me.
To make everything fair I made a little list of questions I wanted to ask anyone before they could convert me. But this was #1, and I never got any further because everything stalled perfectly well here.
I mean, seriously. Before asking someone to do whatever person X says, you better have thought of "what if I disagree with it", right? But that did not seem to be the case.
The dilemma
Leaving aside the fact that at a minimum I'd like to know which, regardless of which you actually settle upon. And the fact that the answer depends on whether or not there's an absolute morality, which is an unsolved dilemma in itself.
The dilemma is that if God is by definition good, then I'm abrogating my moral sense to someone else. What if he tells me to do something I think is wrong? I don't think I can.
And if God is independent of good, he might in theory do something that wasn't good, even if he never does. Well, that seems ok, but most people have difficulty articulating it.
Resolutions
Of course, old famous dilemmas are generally still up in the air. There are a variety of conceptions of God that avoid this dilemma, that obviously other people are more familiar with than me, but for the sake of balance I'll try to describe.
1. The trust-father metaphor. God if father. I don't necessarily understand everything, but I trust him, because I love him, and he's always come through in the past, so I do what he says, even if it seems wrong at the time.
2. The higher-order-of-being metaphor. Imagine *you* created and ran a universe. What would morality be inside that? Well, whatever it is, maybe our universe is like that to God.
3. Good has an independent existence, that God chooses to conform to.
4. Good is by definition what God wants. I know this makes sense to some people, but I'm afraid not to me. I know I'm not very good myself, but if God said "kill everyone in that city" (unless I believed there was some overwhelming reason it was good in the long run) I'd still think it was very wrong.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-29 03:32 pm (UTC)If God is the eternal being, that set the universe in motion, then God in some sense set evolution tumbling such that morality eventually comes about.
Why would morality come about? to govern the interactions between human beings. That which promotes love, peace and harmony should by definition be "Of God" - manners are not manners because someone says so, they have evolved out of altruism, which evolves out of enlightened self-interest.
So Morality is "Of the universe", and to some extent is thus "Of God."
But it doesn't entirely work. We do not have a perpetual motion machine. We need some Court of Appeal, some sort of sense check. So Christ chooses to live as human, created by God. We are therefore paradoxical in it - Out of God comes morality, not by creation specifically, but evolution of ideas. Morality is an efficient way of living, at some level, as long as we keep sense-checking it against the universe.
In order to provide some sort of benchmark, we then have Christ who chooses to live in the evolved system. Being human, however, he chooses, as we all choose - No one is compelled to be moral, no one is subject to morality.
Asking 'either/or' is a false dichotomy - why can't it be both? I create a society, and rules emerge from within that society. In order to have a relationship with that society, thus I choose to engage with their rules. I cannot compel them to be a certain way, however I can make it that if they act in the slipstream, then I will be more deeply involved - gradation rather binary.
Good is not by definition what God wants, unless there are serious caveats. That which we worship is in some sense some idea of what we hold dear. Whether or not that conforms to the reality of the Creator of the universe is slightly different. We can't simply conform, we have to use the whole of self, to look critically at that which we value, if that makes sense?