Talk:Euthyphro dilemma

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(What the hell does this mean?)
(What the hell does this mean?: Agreed. Delete!)
Line 54: Line 54:
: It does seem redundant. I'm in favor of deleting this section. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:34, 27 February 2010 (CST)
: It does seem redundant. I'm in favor of deleting this section. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:34, 27 February 2010 (CST)
::Agreed. Same with the "not unsolvable" section above. Both miss the point of what the dilemma is. --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 01:35, 28 February 2010 (CST)

Revision as of 02:35, 28 February 2010

I don't see the section on game theory as directly related to the Euthyphro dilemma. It is a useful jumping off point to talk about secular morality, so perhaps a new article on that subject should be started and the game theory section moved there.

Question: should there be two separate articles on "morality" and "secular morality"? Another question: are "morality" and "ethics" the same subject, or do they require different articles?

--Kazim 17:39, 13 August 2006 (MST)

Yeah, that was my attempt at rationalizing what the "external force" is from which God learns what is and isn't good. I agree that it doesn't really fit in well here, so feel free to move it (or delete it, if you want to obliterate my deathless prose :-) ).
Also, I have no idea what the difference is between "ethics" and "morality". I've added these to the "wanted pages" page, in hopes that someone will define them.
--Arensb 20:41, 26 August 2006 (MST)


Rolled back

The content of this article were removed as they were incorporated into the moral argument page. I've rolled this back to the pre-deletion state. At worst, this should have been changed to a re-direct and the moral argument page should include a section on the Euthyphro dilemma. However, it's also not unreasonable to have some nearly-duplicate content if the subject is one which we reference by name or where there is a potential difference. The moral argument page could reference this page, include it, etc. I haven't made up my mind on what the preferred solution should be - but before we go deleting content, let's see if we can figure out the best way to get to virtually-identical ideas to mesh. I'll be looking over both pages and encourage others to do the same - but, for now, let's keep this content available. Sans Deity 14:32, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

A better summary.

1. If god is the author of morality, then god himself cannot be said to be moral. In this case, god is not truly interested in morality per se, but merely obedience.

2. If god is not the author of morality, then belief in god is not necessary to be moral. It is still rendered questionable as to whether god even cares about morality, since he is uninvolved in the concept. --Yeahsurewhatever 10:12, 15 March 2009 (CDT)

Your point 1 seems to be a non sequitur. How does "God is not moral" follow from "God is the author of morality"? (Which I understand to mean "God made up the rules as to what is and isn't moral.) Couldn't God hypothetically decide that killing people is bad, then go kill a bunch of people in violation of his own rule? --Arensb 22:15, 15 March 2009 (CDT)
God can be the author of morality and be said to be moral if-and-only-if moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands. Keep in mind, however, that this means "God is moral" is an ontological statement, not a moral valuation; i.e., God is the final reference point in moral predication. -- Ryft 21:37, 23 August 2009 (CDT)
You sound like you are following the argument of Thomas Aquinas, who answered that morality is the nature of God and as such his commands are not themselves moral or immoral but are rather an expression of his moral nature. But all this does is answer the question - he chose one of the two options Euthyphro and Socrates gave (that is, he's saying that things are okay to do if God says to do them). He did not actually answer the dilemma. --Jaban 10:34, 25 August 2009 (CDT)

Not unsolvable

I disagree that this is a paradox, and it isn't circular either, here is why:

The fist paragraph states that whatever God commands is good (or moral) by definition (according to Christians). The second sentence is: things are good because God commands it. This is not circular reasoning, this is simply restating the definition.

Further, if you accept this definition, then there is no sense talking about an "external source" for morality, because by definition there is no such thing. So the answer to the dilemma is: Something is good because God commands it. And of course if you do something else, that's called immoral.

Now, in theory this could mean that God could command killing and stealing (as he did according to the Bible). But at that point it would not matter, because per definition that would be moral. If you "believe", you might trust that that act has some ultimate purpose for the benefit of humans or humanity as a whole, but that does not change anything, and does not cause a paradox either. Remember, with the "rape" argument, you are trying to use your current sense of morality to judge something that would be happening in a completely different moral value system, this is not a good argument.

As for the quote from Bertrand Russell. I agree with the conclusion, that in this case, it would be pointless to apply "moral" or "immoral" to God, since it is in fact defined as his wishes or acts. So what? It still makes sense for us to "hope" or "trust" that God's "plan" aligns with our best interests (this last bit might be another definition of what's "good", for us at least).

The conclusion is, that if you believe that God exists, define moral as his wishes/acts/commands, than this dilemma is not unsolvable.

--Robert 06:02, 19 August 2009 (CDT)

Morality versus Ethics

As I understand it (in this context), 'ethics' examines and/or compares theories of values and morals, while 'morality' examines the implications and applications of a specific theory of ethics. -- Ryft 21:30, 23 August 2009 (CDT)

What the hell does this mean?

"Theists will claim that because God's nature is supposedly eternal and unchanging, that God's nature was not "created" by himself or otherwise. To overcome the objection, it may be necessary to restate the dilemma as a true dichotomy: either (i) Morality is derived from God or (ii) Morality is not derived from God. The burden of proof remains with the apologist to demonstrate that (i) is a true claim, irrespective of whether such morality is dependent on God's fiat or God's nature. It falls to the apologist to justify the claim that God's nature is necessarily good, and therefore that the various immoralities of scripture may be considered moral."

This was added to the article. What does it mean? Is it even necessary?

'Is morality derived from God?'- is a question which is begging the question since it needs a god to exist for morality to be derived from him, even though God's nature is not created and morality is independent of a deity (this means premise 1 of the moral argument is refuted).

It does seem redundant. I'm in favor of deleting this section. --Arensb 17:34, 27 February 2010 (CST)
Agreed. Same with the "not unsolvable" section above. Both miss the point of what the dilemma is. --Jaban 01:35, 28 February 2010 (CST)
Personal tools
wiki navigation