Euthyphro Dilemma Easily Solved

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm afraid that wasn't the answer you should have given. But that's between you and your conscience.
Goodnight.

The answer I "should" have given will depend upon which ethical system any one of us independently thinks is the "right one."

 

[Amoranemix]

Out of laziness I only read till post 60.

The dilemma is that either God's morality originates somewhere else or morality originates from God. There may be other options (e.g. morality may not originate) and Christians are free to present some if they think that would help their case.

The problem with the two option is that it put God in the same boat as everyone else. Human morality also works that way. Hence, God's morality is no more authoritative than anyone else's.

God allegedly has two advantages over humans though :

• He is supposed to be wiser. So he may serve as a source of advice for someone who adheres to a morality similar to God's.
• He supposed to be mightier, which is great for God if he likes might makes right morality.

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.

The first problem with the third option is that it is merely a combination the other two. The god humans invented has some desirable attributes, like being loving and kind. So God's nature is decided by a standard decided by humans. Why else would God have such attributes in stead of others ?
Then somehow God's nature decides a moral standard. How that is supposed to happen is unclear. I imagine something like this : God doesn't rape children for fun. Therefore, raping for fun is immoral. The problem is that God hardly does anything, including many things we would consider good. Anyway, whatever method one would devise to extract morality from God's nature, it would be a man-made method. So God's morality is actually man's morality.
Of course, it could be that God is the one deciding how one gets morality from his nature, but that's the second branch of the dilemma and morality would be, at least in part, dependent on God's whims.

The second problem is that God's supposed nature is not evidenced. One could argue that humans did not determine God's nature, as the real god did not care how humans decided to invent him. Indeed. The god who is loving, patient, kind, generous, beautiful and values life, is merely the god humans would have liked to have. The god they really got, if any at all, may be a very unpleasant character.

In summary, we have :
[some desirable attributes] ---> God's nature ---> Morality

Why not skip God alltogether and base morality on desirable attributes directly ?

I'm happy saying that God is the standard of good. Happily, he always meets that standard. Am I missing something?

What you are missing is that saying something does not make it so. Would Adolf Hitler be the standard of good if a neonazi said he is ?

I am confident a neonazi would also claim Adolf Hitler met his own standard of goodness.

The talking head in the video says that if God doesn't determine his own nature, then something other than God determine's God's nature. I wonder if he can demonstrate that. What is this other thing that would be determining God's nature? He has not considered the possibility that God's nature is not determined at all. It exists eternally.

Something that is not determined is arbitrary, in which case it would be determined by chance. How could something exist without being determined ?

The reason God has desirable attributes is obviously that humans prefer a god with those attributes. Understandably, Christians dislike that explanation. Why according to them does God have those attributes in stead of some other ones ? Whatever the explanation they come up with would be what determines God's attributes. If what you claim in post 21 is true, then God necessarily has the attributes he is claimed to have. One can imagine for example that one could prove from mathematical axioms that the Christian god is the only one possible. In that case it would be those axioms that determine God's attributes. Again, one could skip God and base morality directly on those axioms.

I’m saying that God himself is the standard. We can come to know God through his revelation in Scripture and also our own moral sense (we are made in God’s image).

I doubt it is even possible for God to be a standard. What you probably mean is that that somehow God generates a moral standard. How that could happen without relying on opinions no one knows.

Keeping my response pithy for now because I’m on my phone. You’re asking the Christian theist to conceive of the inconceivable. It’s both ontologically and logically impossible for God to be cruel. It’s like asking me to suppose that 2+2=5 or to imagine a square circle. Such a state of affairs is not only unreal, it’s impossible. Not even possible to imagine.

There are good reasons to disbelieve that 2+2=5 and that circles are not squares. However, we have no evidence that God could not have other attributes.

Sure, take your time to respond.
A pithy answer is probably best. Let's cut to the point, shall we?
You say it is impossible for God to be cruel.
Why? Is being cruel bad?

Let’s be a little more specific. It’s impossible for God to approve of murder because this would be contrary to his nature. His nature is eternal, unchanging, and necessary to his being.

If I understand, something's nature is the collection of all it's attributes.
Barack Obama is 185 cm tall. His height is part of his nature. What if he were only 180 cm tall ? That would be impossible because that would be contrary to his nature. It would not be Barack Obama. His nature is to be 185 cm tall. Correct ?

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.[1]

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.[2]

[1] A yardstick could have had a different length and we could still have called it a yard. There is no necessity of using the yardstick that is used now.
[2] The meaning of good is decided by people, not God. People can decide that good is whatever God's nature happens to be, just like they can decide it is whatever Adolf Hitler's nature happened to be.

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?

I am saying that God is the foundation of justice.[3] So "unjust" simply means "a violation of God's justice". God cannot logically be unjust. Just like there cannot be a square circle.[4]

[3] [Also asked in post 57, but with passive formulation] How does on do that, found justice ? Of course, God could slam his fist on the table and roar that he commands what is just, but Christians would dislike that.
If I understand correctly, God conforms to the external standards of patience, love, kindness, generosity and beauty, while he founds the standards of justice and moral goodness. Why is there that distinction ? Are there other standards God founds ?
[4] A circle conforms to a man-made definition of what a circle is. A shape conforming to that definition has no angles. The non-sequareness of a circle derives from attributes external to the circle, like equidistance. Does God also conform to a man-made definition such that a god conforming to that definition is not unjust ? If not, your analogy is poor, as it would not explain why god cannot be unjust.

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 you object to the man-madeness of a yardstick, you could consider the yard in stead.
Skeptics prefer belief in reality. Understanding promotes reality-belief. Simplicity helps with understanding.
No, the yardstick is not supposed to do all that. It is supposed to serve as an analogy for something that has a defining attribute.

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.[5] 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.

[5] No, we can't agree on that. Some people do see that and some people don't. You are also being too limiting on the definition of arbitrary.

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.

If you are free to define God the way you like it, then you can define him with a morality that does not originate from him and hence is not arbitrary, but where does God get his morality from then ?

 

[Tree of Life]

Don't you think the honourable thing to do here might be to concede?
You don't always get to win arguments, you know. Sometimes you lose. nothing wrong with admitting it.

Yes I do think it would be honorable for you to concede.

 

[Moral Orel]

ED is solved.

Viagra did that years ago. Hahahahaha! Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes I do think it would be honorable for you to concede.

Well, that just about sums it up really. You started quite well, with an interesting yet unoriginal argument. Then it was rebutted, and you descended to claiming that what you said was just true and we would have to accept it. And now the thread seems to be over.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, that just about sums it up really. You started quite well, with an interesting yet unoriginal argument. Then it was rebutted, and you descended to claiming that what you said was just true and we would have to accept it. And now the thread seems to be over.

Yeah. That's a bummer. We can't win them all, and I'll concede that post #69 has apparently been thoroughly bounced, trounced, renounced and utterly disabused of any of possible benefit it could ever have to any additional readers.

You atheist guys win! And you didn't even have to try to do so. You're THAT good!

Enjoy the victory!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yeah. That's a bummer. We can't win them all, and I'll concede that post #69 has apparently been thoroughly bounced, trounced, renounced and utterly disabused of any of possible benefit it could ever have to any additional readers.

You atheist guys win! And you didn't even have to try to do so. You're THAT good!

Enjoy the victory!

It's not that we're that good. It's that Christian arguments are so poor, it's easy to disprove them.
The difficult part is getting the Christians to admit they've lost.

 

[Amoranemix]

Now, back to your perfectly worthwhile question. How can I say what good is? Well, if we are going to try to construct a system of morality, we need some constants of human nature to base them on. Are there any such? I think we could all agree that all humans wish to increase their happiness and decrease their suffering. Happiness is good because it makes us feel good; suffering is bad because it makes us feel bad.

In my opinion, morality should not be limited to humans.

But isn't this a different meaning of the word good? It's sounds more like pleasure than morality. They're both valid meanings, but I thought we were discussing the latter.

Good question. I would say the two uses of good are intimately related. Morality is good (as a means) in that it contributes to flourishing life, which is good (as an end). That which is evil works against life, that which is good works in favor of life. To not steal is good because it does not take what others have to secure flourishing life. To not murder is good because it does not take away life, which is good in itself. So, we can speak of those things that are good in that they contribute to the persistance of things that are good in themselves.

(1) Are all these things part of God's nature because they are good, or (2) are these things good because they are part of God's nature ?
So, you claim these things are good for other reasons than because they are part of God's nature. So there is a standard external to God that determines what is good and God conforms to that standard. Hence, God is not required for such standard. It is the standard that is a requirement for God.

SR hasn't fully explained 'why' he thinks there is a collapse back into a dilemma from a proposed 'third alternative X.”

Many Christians haven't fully explained how it can be certain that God exists.

I declare I am the standard of good in the universe by my nature. Why is God the standard and not me?

God’s nature is the standard because he created everything else.

What is the difference between 'a standard' and 'the standard' ?

How does it make him good just because he created everything?

Because there is nothing higher than God or more fundamental than God, God himself is the absolute standard of judgment. There’s nothing superior to him in any way that could serve as a standard of judgment whereby God is judged.

How can one establish God's height and establish that he is indeed the highest ?
Superior presumably refers to some quality, let us call it X. In what quality is God the greatest and how would one establish that he indeed is the greatest ?
I suppose we could make him fundamental by defining God to be necessary and eternal. That something with abilities can be necessary has yet to be proven.
Suppose we are indeed able to establish God is the highest and the greatest in a particular quality and that God is possible. You seem to then be relyling on the following argument :

P1. God is the highest.
P2. God is the greatest at quality X.
P3. God is fundamental.
P3. An entity that is the highest, fundamental and the greatest at quality X, is the standard for morality.
C. Therefore, God is the standard for morality.

Is that indeed your argument ?

If we are speaking in meta-ethical terms and not colloquially, then it makes no sense to ask what makes God good. He is the standard by which everything else is judged. He cannot be judged at all.

We can understand this by way of analogy. Everyone has in mind an absolute standard when making moral judgments.[5] It’s necessary in order to make moral judgments. An absolute standard is one that cannot be evaluated at a higher level. For some, the absolute standard is something like “human well being.” If this is the standard, then a question like: “how do we know that human well being is good?” doesn’t make any sense to ask. “Human well being” is the standard by which we measure everything else. It cannot itself be judged.[6] So it is with my view on God’s nature.

[5] Indeed, a standard, not the standard. You claimed God is the standard. Ignoring the problem that God is an impractical standard, he is no more authoritative than other standards. He is not the foundation of morality. He can at best be the foundation of a morality.
[6] What would prevent judgement by those who use a different standard ?

no, we must ask if our moral standards are good. If I find a better standard than well being I will change to that. If I never question my standard how can I improve it!

To compare moral standards or improve one's moral standard one would need to choose a standard of quality. One can make anything better than anything else by choosing an appropriate standard of quality.

You still have not defined your standard or morality.

And neither have you. Well-being is not a prescriptive notion, just a descriptive notion, a descriptive notion regarding human psychology and not human morality at that. Do you know the difference between an ethically "Prescriptive" moral notion versus a "Descriptive" moral notion?

The Euthyphro dilemma or MMDP does not aim to show the foundation for morality is non-divine. It aims to dispute that God is the foundation for morality.

But if we're going to talk about a moral goal? I suppose we could subscribe to Human Significance along with Human Well-Being. But, even then, adding this additional concept doesn't get us to any principle, let alone an ethical system, of prescriptive force.

You can derive principles from a goal. If well-being is desireable, then one can develop an ethical system promoting it and one can make rules prescribing its creation and prohibiting its desctruction. Legislations are ethical systems that mainly focus on the prohibition of the destruction of well-being. For example, stealing is usually bad for well-being, so don't steal.

Then give me a better one?

I just did. Human Significance is better than mere Well-being. And if they're coupled together, it gives us an impetus to begin searching for additional links that could provide justification. The only problem is that we then have to each choose an epistemological mode by which to address our axiological concerns, and that opens a whole new can of worms.

That Human Significance is better than Well-being is merely a bald assertion of yours. Furthermore, it does nothing to undermine the Euthyphro Dilemma or support that God is the foundation of morality.

Well, @Tree of Life , thank you for this thread.
Do you still now maintain that the Euthyphro Dilemma can be easily solved?

I do. I don’t think the points that I raised in my OP were sufficiently undermined.

That is debatable, but even if it is, fortunately I have remediated that in the mean time.

Thanks @InterestedAtheist ! I disagree.

Disagreeing with reality is typical for Christians.

I'm happy saying that God is the standard of good. Happily, he always meets that standard. Am I missing something?

What you are missing is that saying something does not make it so. Would Adolf Hitler be the standard of good if a neonazi said he is ?

[no response]

You forgot to answer my question.

If I understand, something's nature is the collection of all it's attributes.
Barack Obama is 185 cm tall. His height is part of his nature. What if he were only 180 cm tall ? That would be impossible because that would be contrary to his nature. It would not be Barack Obama. His nature is to be 185 cm tall. Correct ?

[no response]

You forgot to answer my question.

[3] [Also asked in post 57, but with passive formulation] How does on do that, found justice ? Of course, God could slam his fist on the table and roar that he commands what is just, but Christians would dislike that.
If I understand correctly, God conforms to the external standards of patience, love, kindness, generosity and beauty, while he founds the standards of justice and moral goodness. Why is there that distinction ? Are there other standards God founds ?

[no response]

You forgot to answer my questions.

If you are free to define God the way you like it, then you can define him with a morality that does not originate from him and hence is not arbitrary, but where does God get his morality from then ?

[no response]

You forgot to answer my question.

You atheist guys win! And you didn't even have to try to do so. You're THAT good!

If atheists were Christians, they too would be losing all the time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Many Christians haven't fully explained how it can be certain that God exists.

Since I'm an Existentialist myself, I'm rather unconcerned with an epistemology that assumes there should be some suppositional build by which God could be logically demonstrated without error and without any level of uncertainity.

So, my answers in this will differ a bit from those which other of my fellow Christians will present to you skeptics.

The Euthyphro dilemma or MMDP does not aim to show the foundation for morality is non-divine. It aims to dispute that God is the foundation for morality.

Right. And if you by chance didn't catch my drift in my earlier posts, I only insisted in those posts that The Euthyphro Dilemma isn't applicable to a Biblical conception of a monotheistic God. So, where Christianity is concerned, the EU is a non-issue, but at the same time I realize that so too is my effort to assert that God is an objectively verifiable foundation for human morality. Hence, this is why I only assert God (or Jesus most specificially) has to be the foundation of my own Subjective view of human morality. I don't expect anyone to look up into the clear blue sky and "zing!" shout "Eureka, I get what you're saying now, 2PhiloVoid !!!"

You can derive principles from a goal. If well-being is desireable, then one can develop an ethical system promoting it and one can make rules prescribing its creation and prohibiting its desctruction. Legislations are ethical systems that mainly focus on the prohibition of the destruction of well-being. For example, stealing is usually bad for well-being, so don't steal.

The goal is not only Subjective (in a Kierkegaardian way), but somewhat relative as well; so hence, there is no guarantee that the goal chosen through personal desire and idealized by the Modern Skeptic actually represents a fully/truly just or robust path of morality. No more so than the path of morality that the lion follows upon capturing and eating the gazelle, which it desired to capture and eat.

That Human Significance is better than Well-being is merely a bald assertion of yours. Furthermore, it does nothing to undermine the Euthyphro Dilemma or support that God is the foundation of morality.

As is "well-being"----as I've just stated above. As for the Euthyphro Dilemma, if you don't understand that the only real reason that a dilemma came to the mind of Plato's Socrates was due to the conflicting notions of morality that existed between multiple Greek gods who disagreed with one another, then maybe you don't fully understand the contexts of the Euthyphro. I think it's high time for everyone to finally wake up to this brass tack fact that is inherent within the dilemma and stop dallying with their own unauthorized, unjustified, willy-nilly attempts to extract and reapply the dilemma to a context for which it doesn't have any cogency.

You forgot to answer my question.

Amoranemix 142 said:
If you are free to define God the way you like it, then you can define him with a morality that does not originate from him and hence is not arbitrary, but where does God get his morality from then ?

Not from some FORM of the Good, that's for sure!

If atheists were Christians, they too would be losing all the time.

Atheists, like Christians are losing all the time because they over assert their positions and seeming justifications----but also like a lot of religious people, atheists just don't seem to recognize this fact.

 

[Amoranemix]

The Euthyphro dilemma or MMDP does not aim to show the foundation for morality is non-divine. It aims to dispute that God is the foundation for morality.

Right. And if you by chance didn't catch my drift in my earlier posts, I only insisted in those posts that The Euthyphro Dilemma isn't applicable to a Biblical conception of a monotheistic God.[7] So, where Christianity is concerned, the EU is a non-issue, but at the same time I realize that so too is my effort to assert that God is an objectively verifiable foundation for human morality. Hence, this is why I only assert God (or Jesus most specificially) has to be the foundation of my own Subjective view of human morality. I don't expect anyone to look up into the clear blue sky and "zing!" shout "Eureka, I get what you're saying now, 2PhiloVoid !!!"

[7] Indeed. Many variants of God have been invented. The ED only disputes the existence of those variants that are the foundation of morality.
What does the EU have to do with this ?

The goal is not only Subjective (in a Kierkegaardian way), but somewhat relative as well; so hence, there is no guarantee that the goal chosen through personal desire and idealized by the Modern Skeptic actually represents a fully/truly just or robust path of morality. No more so than the path of morality that the lion follows upon capturing and eating the gazelle, which it desired to capture and eat.

Indeed. In most Christian worldviews God's goal represents a fully/truly just and robust path of morality. In reality nothing does. Skeptics believe in reality.

As is "well-being"----as I've just stated above. As for the Euthyphro Dilemma, if you don't understand that the only real reason that a dilemma came to the mind of Plato's Socrates was due to the conflicting notions of morality that existed between multiple Greek gods who disagreed with one another, then maybe you don't fully understand the contexts of the Euthyphro.[8] I think it's high time for everyone to finally wake up to this brass tack fact that is inherent within the dilemma and stop dallying with their own unauthorized, unjustified, willy-nilly attempts to extract and reapply the dilemma to a context for which it doesn't have any cogency.[9]

[8] You are not describing context but history. In general, the strength of an argument is independent from its history. In this case it is irrelevant.
[9] That is your personal opinion. I and most skeptics don't share it.

Atheists, like Christians are losing all the time because they over assert their positions and seeming justifications----but also like a lot of religious people, atheists just don't seem to recognize this fact.

So you claim, but can you prove your alleged fact ?


It appears that Christians have given up. The idea that God is the foundation of morality has been buried again.

 

[HitchSlap]

God does not determine his own character.

Exactly. A task left for humans.

 

[Lion IRC]

Euthyphro : Hey God, do you act wisely because it is wise to act wisely, or are you wise because you act wisely?

God : Wut?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

2PhiloVoid said: ↑

Amoranemix 148 said:
The Euthyphro dilemma or MMDP does not aim to show the foundation for morality is non-divine. It aims to dispute that God is the foundation for morality.

Right. And if you by chance didn't catch my drift in my earlier posts, I only insisted in those posts that The Euthyphro Dilemma isn't applicable to a Biblical conception of a monotheistic God.[7] So, where Christianity is concerned, the EU is a non-issue, but at the same time I realize that so too is my effort to assert that God is an objectively verifiable foundation for human morality. Hence, this is why I only assert God (or Jesus most specificially) has to be the foundation of my own Subjective view of human morality. I don't expect anyone to look up into the clear blue sky and "zing!" shout "Eureka, I get what you're saying now, 2PhiloVoid !!!"

[7] Indeed. Many variants of God have been invented. The ED only disputes the existence of those variants that are the foundation of morality.
What does the EU have to do with this ?

... That was a typo. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

... Indeed. In most Christian worldviews God's goal represents a fully/truly just and robust path of morality. In reality nothing does. Skeptics believe in reality.

You obviously didn't understand what I said above. Indeed.

[8] You are not describing context but history. In general, the strength of an argument is independent from its history. In this case it is irrelevant.

What??? Hogwash!!!

[9] That is your personal opinion. I and most skeptics don't share it.

Well, goody.

So you claim, but can you prove your alleged fact ?

I'm talking about the context of the topic in this OP thread. Why would I be referring to something of a universal scope here? No, I wouldn't be in this case.

Euthyphro Dilemma Easily Solved

It appears that Christians have given up. The idea that God is the foundation of morality has been buried again.

May I remind you that you're speaking to me,. an Existentialist. I'm also not overly keen on Foundationalism, but if I had to go that epistemic route, the closest I'd aver for is "Weak Foundationalism" rather than "Strong" or "Moderate" Foundationalism.[/QUOTE]

 

[Amoranemix]

Indeed. In most Christian worldviews God's goal represents a fully/truly just and robust path of morality. In reality nothing does. Skeptics believe in reality.

You obviously didn't understand what I said above. Indeed.

I commend you for the eloquence, detail and comprehensiveness of your clarification.

[8] You are not describing context but history. In general, the strength of an argument is independent from its history. In this case it is irrelevant.

What??? Hogwash!!!

I commend you for the eloquence, detail and comprehensiveness of your explanation.

So you claim, but can you prove your alleged fact ?

I'm talking about the context of the topic in this OP thread. Why would I be referring to something of a universal scope here? No, I wouldn't be in this case.

Then your claim is not a fact. Thanks for sharing your personal opinion with us, but skeptics prefer to believe in reality.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

I guess you are using your personal definition of good here (I note the scare quotes around the word). There would be different ideas of what constitutes good as you'd know. So you are personally defining God using your specific interpretation of what constitiutes good

Let's say that you think not allowing euthenasia is good. I personally think that allowing it is good. So if God is good (it's his eternal character) then we have two versions of Him. Which one shall we discuss first?