Euthyphro Dilemma Easily Solved

InterestedAtheist said:

This is something of a pattern with Philo. Faced with an argument he probably won't be able to defeat, he retreats into a mist of etymological and literary analysis, which means he doesn't have to answer a straightforward question.

Click to expand...

No, it's called being moderately educated with a B.A. in Philosophy and with an M.A. in Education and Social Science. And by this qualification, I KNOW that I don't have to play your philosophical game here. As an Existentialist myself, I'll refuse it since I know that your consistent insistency is a rhetorical smoke-screen and I have the resources by which to sit down with anyone on this website and study the various (many) aspects that go into our Hermeneutics and how politics play into our epistemological, ontological and axiological preferences.

As a Christian who accepts the position of Philosophical Hermeneutics, I know that your seemingly simple act of asking is toned and tempered with certain ideological commitments. Other Christians here should know that the apologetics process isn't one involving the notion of "the simple inquirer." Not all acts of questioning about the Chrisitan faith or about Christian theology come at us through some kind of neutral medium of human intention. No, especially where antagonists to Christianity are concrened, this goes way beyond merely discerning if a person is Democrat or Republican...

So, the rules of this forum should reflect these fuller aspects of social and human perceptual Reality.

2PhiloVoid said:

I have engaged it.

Click to expand...

No you haven't.

I don't really feel the need to elaborate on that. I invite anyone reading along to see for themselves.

2PhiloVoid said:

Oh really?

Click to expand...

Yes, really. Of everyone I have ever engaged with on this subject, you alone seem to be incapable of grasping the extremely basic idea that philosophical concepts may be applied generally, outside the precise context in which they were originally composed.

2PhiloVoid said:

So, which Jewish theologians would accept your understand? And which one's wouldn't, mr. expert?

Click to expand...

What a bizarre question.

Eight Foot Manchild said:

No you haven't.

What a bizarre question.

Click to expand...

No, my question wasn't bizarre. I guess you missed the part where I offered the following (introductory, overly basic) Wiki article. Read secton 2.3, please and then just keep telling me I'm bizarre ............................... thank you!

Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia

2PhiloVoid said:

As a Christian who accepts the position of Philosophical Hermeneutics, I know that your seemingly simple act of asking is toned and tempered with certain ideological commitments.

Click to expand...

Philo, you think I'm a Marxist because I live in China. I'm not sure your views on ideological commitments should be regarded as authoritative.

2PhiloVoid said:

As a Christian who accepts the position of Philosophical Hermeneutics, I know that your seemingly simple act of asking is toned and tempered with certain ideological commitments. Other Christians here should know that the apologetics process isn't one involving the notion of "the simple inquirer."

Click to expand...

Ah, so you think I'm setting a clever trap with my "simple question" and you're wary of falling in! In a senze, you're right. But the trap is nothing but logic and reason. If you're wary of confronting them, that's quite a telling admission.

2PhiloVoid said:

So, the rules of this forum should reflect these fuller aspects of social and human perceptual Reality.

Click to expand...

Not that I'm accusing you personally, Philo. It's just that sounds exactly what someone who had lost one too many debates before and didn't want to risk defeat again would say.

I believe this is relevant.

God Is Not A Moral Being and the Moral Argument Is Often Wrongheaded

True Counterphobia said:

I believe this is relevant.

God Is Not A Moral Being and the Moral Argument Is Often Wrongheaded

Click to expand...

Good piece for thought, bro! Thanks for add it and bringing it into this discussion.

This runs along the lines of a thread I did here on CF several years ago:

Tree of Life said:

Hopefully this thread will put this tired old dilemma to bed once and for all. Somehow I doubt it will .

The Euthyphro Dilemma (ED hereon) seeks to show that there is an absurdity or paradox in the idea of God and his relation to the good. It poses a question, assuming that there are only two possible answers. The question is: "Where does good come from?" In relation to God, the only two possible answers are:

1. "Good" is a standard outside of God to which even God must submit. God calls something good because it really is good.
   
   
2. "Good" is simply what God decides to be good. Something is good only because God calls it good.

The problem with (1) is that it suggests that there is something superior to God - a standard which even he must submit to and which he does not control. This would appear to diminish his divinity.

The problem with (2) is that it suggests that goodness is arbitrary. God says that murder is wrong. But he could have just as well said that murder is good. This makes morality fairly meaningless.

The theist doesn't have to submit to this dilemma because there's a third option. The third option is that "good" is what coheres to God's eternal character. God is good. God is love, he is patient and kind, he is generous, he is beautiful, he is powerful, he values life (he is life), etc... Everything we would normally call "good" really is just some derivative attribute of God and his eternal, unchanging character. God's commands, then, are an expression of his character. They are not based in a standard outside of himself. The standard is himself. And they are not arbitrary because they are based in the most meaningful and enduring reality that there is - the character of the eternal one.

If someone wants to claim that the dilemma has not been solved, I suppose they must show how commands based on God's character are arbitrary. Or they must show how God's character is something outside of himself. Or they must admit there is no dilemma at all.

Click to expand...

Ok my thoughts on the matter hopefully it makes sense.
From the beginning of God's creation He created a realm outside of His realm. All creation lives outside His realm. Though His realm is incorruptible and always good, He created a perfect realm that could potentially be corrupted. Corruption came through one act of disobedience which caused "goodness" to be corrupted. God created all to be good and confirmed that at every stage of His creation. Once the act was activated all corruption seeped into this realm, not by God's choice, but by man's choice . God made us in His image which includes free will given to us for a purpose. So once corruption was unvelied goodness never changed . What changed is the corruption of that goodness.
Whew!
Blessings.

Tree of Life said:

Yes. His character or nature.

Click to expand...

Okay, that's an overly broad usage of the word "character" in my opinion, but that isn't important. You say that God's character is what it is necessarily. God necessarily must be just, for example, He necessarily, ontologically, and logically can't be unjust. Why not?

2PhiloVoid said:

No, my question wasn't bizarre. I guess you missed the part where I offered the following (introductory, overly basic) Wiki article. Read secton 2.3, please and then just keep telling me I'm bizarre ............................... thank you!

Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

This is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not philosophical concepts can be applied generally in everyday conversation, such as, exchanges on a Christian message board. So yes, it was indeed a bizarre non-sequitor of a question, as it had nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Section 2.3 covers the the "God's nature" answer to the dilemma. I'm already familiar with it, and the response to it, which I've summarized in this thread, and which can be found in the article you're linking to.

Got anything else?

Eight Foot Manchild said:

This is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not philosophical concepts can be applied generally in everyday conversation, such as, exchanges on a Christian message board. So yes, it was indeed a bizarre non-sequitor of a question, as it had nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Section 2.3 covers the the "God's nature" answer to the dilemma. I'm already familiar with it, and the response to it, which I've summarized in this thread, and which can be found in the article you're linking to.

Got anything else?

Click to expand...

Yeah.

I do have something. That something else is that I never said philosophical concepts can't be taken from one older frame or model (i.e. abstracted from) and applied within another frame of reference or model of thought.

[2PhiloVoid paces, waiting franctically for the impact of the countermeasure...]

2PhiloVoid said:

Yeah.

I do have something. That something else is that I never said philosophical concepts can't be taken from one older frame or model (i.e. abstracted from) and applied within another frame of reference or model of thought.

Click to expand...

You've sure been behaving this whole time like that's exactly what you believe. But OK.

In that case, what is your response to Euthyphro's dilemma, as applied to the Christian god? How do you split the horns of arbitrariness vs independent standard?

Eight Foot Manchild said:

You've sure been behaving this whole time like that's exactly what you believe. But OK.

In that case, what is your response to Euthyphro's dilemma, as applied to the Christian god? How do you split the horns of arbitrariness vs independent standard?

Click to expand...

Usually, I just tear the horns off whatever they're poking off of, break them in half, throw them to the ground, and stomp on them vociferously while saying, "2PhiloVoid SMASH !!!" And then I stomp on them one more time for good measure.

...I suppose though in one of my more amiable moods, I might back up and take a look at your vid you posted earlier.

Eight Foot Manchild said:

You've sure been behaving this whole time like that's exactly what you believe. But OK.

In that case, what is your response to Euthyphro's dilemma, as applied to the Christian god? How do you split the horns of arbitrariness vs independent standard?

Click to expand...

Ok. I've hit the first 2 and a half minutes of SisyphusRedeemed's vid that you provided, and here he comes with his 'yardstick' analogy. A yardstick? As an inanimate object (one that is also a known artifice of human work), is this manufactured item supposed to somehow capture the nuances that an Eternal, Holy, Creative, All-Knowing (or almost All-Knowing), Almighty God wold inherently have?

If so, I'm going to have to stop and ask the following question: "SisyphusR, are you kidding? Like am I supposed to take this overly simplistic and arbitrary example seriously for the sake of ontological comparison?"

I mean, I'm not sold on the 'Tri-lemma' that this Epidemic guy came up with, and I think it can be avoided. But starting with a yardstick as an example is a weak beginning in explaining the idea of inherent properties which may serve as a standard. I do agree that we don't need a trilemma to get us out of the [supposed] dilemma. But, I'll trudge on now and watch the rest of the video. I can tell you right now, though, that the first horn of ARBITRARINESS can just be ripped off and thrown into the Abyss, forever to disappear. Bye-bye first horn!

Now, let's see what goodies SisyphusRedeemed has in store for us since I thought I caught that he's a teacher of the Philosophy of Religion. I'm hoping to learn something new ... let's see if I do.

[And the wife says we need to go to the store. So this will have to wait till later. ...]

2PhiloVoid said:

Ok. I've hit the first 2 and a half minutes of SisyphusRedeemed's vid that you provided, and here he comes with his 'yardstick' analogy. A yardstick? As an inanimate object (one that is also a known artifice of human work), is this manufactured item supposed to somehow capture the nuances that an Eternal, Holy, Creative, All-Knowing (or almost All-Knowing), Almighty God wold inherently have?

Click to expand...

It's not an "ontological comparison". It's also not a complete analogy, and isn't meant to be. No analogy is complete. If it were, it wouldn't be an analogy. It's an arbitrary example meant as a specific point of illustration about the attempt to split the horns of the dilemma.

2PhiloVoid said:

I can tell you right now, though, that the first horn of ARBITRARINESS can just be ripped off and thrown into the Abyss, forever to disappear. Bye-bye first horn!

Click to expand...

Yeah, you can just tell me that, if you want to. If you want to be taken seriously though, you'll have to provide some kind of reasoning behind it.

Eight Foot Manchild said:

It's not an "ontological comparison". It's also not a complete analogy, and isn't meant to be. No analogy is complete. If it were, it wouldn't be an analogy. It's an arbitrary example meant as a specific point of illustration about the attempt to split the horns of the dilemma.

Click to expand...

Ok, I'll let this slide for now. I listened to SR's 'yardstick' analogy again, and it seems he's only attempting to (all too briefly I might add) parse out the qualities of 'will' versus 'judgment' which some moral agent might have.

So far, so good. Horn one, horn two.

Yeah, you can just tell me that, if you want to. If you want to be taken seriously though, you'll have to provide some kind of reasoning behind it.

Click to expand...

That's all fine. I don't mind in the least to be asked to provide reasoning on this. I'd make the same request of Skeptics when citing that they need to avoid conflating the Modern Monotheist Moral Dilemma with the older polytheistic dilemma found in Plato's Euthyphro.

So, why isn't the Biblical God's recognition of moral good not arbitrary? In short, and first of all, the term arbitrary itself typically denotes a choice made randomly, whimsically or capriciously. We can all just admit that if we take the Biblical details into account, then we don't see a representation of God evincing these moral deficiencies. He isn't random, but He may amend a rule; He isn't whimsical, but He may still feel pain over unfulfilled intentions which humanity fails to act upon; and He isn't capricious in His moral dealings, but He can still be deadly in judgment.

Secondly, I'm going to assert, along with sister @Maria Billingsley of late [here], that God's role as Creator plays into the qualities of the moral good He expects US to act upon while living in our world. As Oliver Barclay has commented, if God has in some way 'created' humanity AND is omniscient, then "He knows exactly how human nature works best" (p. 42 in Clark & Rakestraw), and it is this tact that I'll take in dealing with this dilemma. This angle regarding moral human function isn't one that typically is used by Divine Command Theorists and it instead comes via what has been called 'Creation Ethics' (by Oliver Barclay, maybe some others too).

In this way, we surmise that God isn't arbitrary with His moral recognition of the moral contexts humanity needs in order to live at any given time, contexts connected to the social structures of His creation. This means the criticism regarding moral arbitrariness on the part of God can be dispensed with.

As for the rest of SR's video beyond the 2nd minute, I'll have to get to later and comment upon it when I can.

Reference
Clark, D. K., & Rakestraw, R. V. (Eds.). (1994). Readings in Christian Ethics: Theory and Method (Vol. 1). Baker Academic.

Tree of Life said:

I am saying that God is the foundation of justice. So "unjust" simply means "a violation of God's justice". God cannot logically be unjust. Just like there cannot be a square circle.

Click to expand...

What does it mean to be "the foundation of justice"? And why do you call it "God's justice"? Are there different kinds of justice?

Tree of Life said:

On one level it makes no sense to judge God’s nature or ask whether or not it is good. God’s nature is the standard of goodness. It’s like asking “how do you show that a yard stick is a yard?” Although even that metaphor breaks down.

Click to expand...

Indeed it does. Think about what you just said. How do you know that a yard stick is a yard long? Because what a yard is has already been decided on. All we have to do is measure the yard stick to see if it fits its name or not.
How, on the other hand, do you determine if God is good or not? Since you have stated that God's goodness is based on his own character, saying that God is good means nothing more than "God is God." This is a tautology, and therefore meaningless.

Tree of Life said:

But on another level perhaps we can give a different answer. “Good” can have several colloquial meanings which we can discuss. What do you mean by “good”? Do you mean “promoting human well-being” or something similar? Maybe you’re asking “does God promote human well-being”? We might give a different answer to that question.

Click to expand...

"Promoting human well-being" would be quite close to it, but a rather narrow definition. Perhaps we should say that "good" means "knowing and doing the right thing."
Of course, the question then becomes, right for what? And that leads us to consider: what is the highest goal we can have? And I would say, it is to decrease the suffering of the human race and increase the happiness of the human race.
Now it's true, that looks very much like "promoting human wellbeing," but stated like that I think it could easily be misunderstood - for example, as referring to one single human.

What about you? What would your definition of good be?

public hermit said:

So, when I identify God and the good, I am making a connection between the good I experience in the world and the actual entity I reference as "God."

Click to expand...

Interesting answer. What is this "good" you experience in the world?