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: 2007-05-31 05:19 pm (UTC)-God is not (always, and as much as possible) good. This would be like greek/roman gods(to my understanding). Gods are not good, merely powerful. This is not widely accepted by many people at the moment, to the best of my knowledge.
-God is always, has always been, and will always be good. If this is true, then god would seem to lack free-will. Even if you say he *could* be bad, but chooses not to, if he is intrinsically good (as well as omniscient & omnipotent), then he must only have one possible course of action, without losing his goodness (which would be a defining god-quality). This seems to reduce God to a goodness-computer, which (to my mind) is less than human, rather than more so (depending on what you look for in a god).
-God always has been good, and tries to be good, but will not necessarily be so in the future. This seems (to me) the most sensible answer, and like the Jesus part of God in Christianity (he was tempted, and could have fallen, but didn't). This does provide some uncertainty about the future of the world, however.