Euthyphro's Dilemma

[Sapiens]

Hello again!

In my last thread, "The Moral Argument", we discussed the existence of morality and its ontological foundation. Early in the discussion, the subject of this present thread was brought up but got forgotten as the discussion progressed. I would like to discuss it further, or at least expose the solution, here.

The Euthyphro Dilemma goes like this: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" (Wikipedia). In other words, either God decides what is good, arbitrarily, or he just knows what is good (and it somehow exists on its own). If the standard of goodness exists independently of God, then we don't need Him to tell us, we could figure it out on our own.

As Dr. Craig puts it "The weakness of the Euthyphro Dilemma is that the dilemma it presents is a false one because there’s a third alternative: namely, God wills something because he is good. God’s own nature is the standard of goodness, and his commandments to us are expressions of his nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God."

So God's decrees are always, and necessarily, good because God is consistent with his own nature and so are his decrees. Moreover, moral goodness does not have to exist as an idependent thing on its own, floating somewhere up in the clouds. In fact, it makes a lot more sense to believe that morality comes from a person than from nothingness. He knows what is good because he is the reference, he is good.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god#ixzz4ALF2rGpa

 

[Davian]

Hello again!

In my last thread, "The Moral Argument", we discussed the existence of morality and its ontological foundation. Early in the discussion, the subject of this present thread was brought up but got forgotten as the discussion progressed. I would like to discuss it further, or at least expose the solution, here.

The Euthyphro Dilemma goes like this: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" (Wikipedia). In other words, either God decides what is good, arbitrarily, or he just knows what is good (and it somehow exists on its own).

As Dr. Craig puts it "The weakness of the Euthyphro Dilemma is that the dilemma it presents is a false one because there’s a third alternative: namely, God wills something because he is good. God’s own nature is the standard of goodness, and his commandments to us are expressions of his nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God."

So God's decreeds are always, and necessarily, good because God is consistent with his own nature and so are his decrees.

How circular.

Moreover, moral goodness does not have to exist as an idependent thing on its own, floating somewhere up in the clouds. In fact, it makes a lot more sense to believe that morality comes from a person than from nothingness.

It wouldn't be a WLC argument without this false dilemma.

He knows what is good because he is the reference, he is good.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god#ixzz4ALF2rGpa

Let's give this hypothetical god of yours a test drive around the block.

If you knew that I had seen a child being raped, and had the ability to interfere, yet I simply stood by, allowed it to happen, had no fear of repercussions if I did interfere, and said nothing to anyone about it, would you categorize this as "good" or "evil"?

 

[Sapiens]

How circular.

It wouldn't be a WLC argument without this false dilemma.

Lets' give this hypothetical god of yours a test drive around the block.

If you knew that I had seen a child being raped, and had the ability to interfere, yet I simply stood by, allowed it to happen, had no fear of repercussions if I did interfere, and said nothing to anyone about it, would you categorize this as "good" or "evil"?

How's it circular and how does that compromise the proposal?

Your last question is referring to the problem of evil. In your case, I would say you acted wrongly by not doing anything and that, yes, your lack of proper actions would be evil. That is, of course, because you are a human, like me, and I assume you have the same knowledge and resources at your disposal as me. That is also because you and I have the same moral obligations in life, if we accept they exist at all and that they are objective and binding to all.

However, God is not a human, and he does not have the same knowledge at his disposal that we do. In response, I will propose two explanations.

Firstly, as the Canadian apologist Michael Horner said "we must not confuse 'I know of no good reason' with 'God knows of no good reason". In other words, we are not like God and we cannot assume that God thinks like us nor that he has the same moral obligations as us. So unless one can prove that there is such a thing as unjustified evil in the world, that is evil without a good reason to be allowed, then one can not say God is in the wrong. Again, unless one can prove that God doesn't have a "morally sufficient reason", as Michael Horner puts it, one cannot say God is failing a duty. Let's face it, if God exists and he is who we think he is (omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent) then one has no reason to disbelieve that God has a morally sufficient reason to allow the evil that occurs.

Secondly, if there is such a thing as free-will and that God meant us to have it, then he created us with the power and the possibility to do evil. Hence the existence of evil done by man. Couldn't God have created a world with no evil? Of course. However not one where there is freedom, and a world with free creatures is better than a world without. So this world must be the ideal world, with the most good possible and the least evil possible, better than no world at all, since God created it.

http://www.existence-of-god.com/problem-of-evil.html

EDIT: More on the problem of evil: www.reasonablefaith.org/the-problem-of-evil

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Plato's famous question concerning the nature of goodness asks whether a thing is good because God says it is good, or does God say it's good because it is good. This is known as Euthyphro's Dilemma (named after the character Euthyphro in Plato's 'socratic dialogue' on the subject of goodness).

The problem this question raises for the Christian is two-fold. First, if a thing is good simply because God says it is, then it seems that God could say anything was good and it would be. This might include things that we instinctively know to be evil, like rape or murder. But we don't want a morality based on God's arbitrary declarations, so it seems this choice is a poor one for the believer. However, if God is simply reporting a thing's goodness, then He is no longer the standard for goodness and seems to be at the mercy of some outside standard. But we don't want there to be a standard above God that He must bow to, so this response does not seem attractive, either. Hence the dilemma.

There is, however, a third option. As Christians we should affirm both God's sovereignty and His non-derived goodness. Thus, we don't want a standard that is arbitrary nor one that exists outside or above God. Fortunately, God is both supremely sovereign and good. Therefore, God's nature itself can serve as the standard of goodness, and God can base His declarations of goodness on Himself. God's nature is unchangeable and wholly good; thus, His will is not arbitrary, and His declarations are always true. This solves both issues.

How is God the standard of goodness? Because He is the creator. A thing's goodness is determined by its purpose. A dull knife is not a good knife because the purpose of a knife is to cut. Sharpness is bad for a shoe, however, for a good shoe is one that is comfortable and supportive to a foot. God, as creator, is the determiner of all purposes of His creation. What He makes is made purposefully, and anything that stands in the way of that purpose is bad. Rape is evil because that is not what sex is made to be. Murder is evil because it is not the purpose of humans to arbitrarily decide when people should die. (Note that this does not necessarily vilify all human-caused deaths, such as capital punishment or war. If God has stated guidelines for these actions, then it is no longer arbitrary human will being carried out.)

In conclusion, a thing is good to the degree that it fulfills its purposes. Because God is the creator of all things, according to His own good nature, He is therefore both the standard and declarer of goodness.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Davian]

How's it circular and how does that compromise the proposal?

I take it that you concede the false dilemma I bolded?

As for circular, it is a self-referencial standard. God meets the standard of "good", God being the standard of "good".

As for compromised, how do you compromise a tissue already soaked in water?

Your last question is referring to the problem of evil. In your case, I would say you acted wrongly by not doing anything and that, yes, your lack of proper actions would be evil. That is, of course, because you are a human, like me, and I assume you have the same knowledge and resources at your disposal as me. That is also because you and I have the same moral obligations in life, if we accept they exist at all and that they are objective and binding to all.

However, God is not a human, and he does not have the same knowledge at his disposal that we do. In response, I will propose two explanations.

Firstly, as the Canadian apologist Michael Horner said "we must not confuse 'I know of no good reason' with 'God knows of no good reason". In other words, we are not like God and we cannot assume that God thinks like us nor that he has the same moral obligations as us. So unless one can prove that there is such a thing as unjustified evil in the world, that is evil without a good reason to be allowed, then one can not say God is in the wrong. Again, unless one can prove that God doesn't have a "morally sufficient reason", as Michael Horner puts it, one cannot say Good is failing a duty. Let's face it, if God exists and he is who we think he is (omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent) then one has no reason to disbelieve that God has a morally sufficient reason to allow the evil that occurs.

You have just introduced a fourth option, "God wills something because he has good reasons to do so". Now you are arguing situational ethics, and have shot yourself in the philosophical foot.

I do not take issue with situational ethics, but when you try to butter both sides of your bread like that, you will end up with quite the mess.

Secondly, if there is such a thing as free-will and that God meant us to have it, then he created us with the power and the possibility to do evil. Hence the existence of evil done by man. Couldn't God have created a world with no evil? Of course. However not one where there is freedom, and a world with free creatures is better than a world without. So this world must be the ideal world, with the most good possible and the least evil possible, better than no world at all, since God created it.

http://www.existence-of-god.com/problem-of-evil.html

I don't see how that is relevant to my scenario. Are you working from a script?

You have judged the act as described in my scenario as evil; When your god does it, does it become good action (God is his own standard)? Or does he need a good reason to do it (God works to our standards)?

 

[Chesterton]

As presented, I don't see a dilemma. It's the first choice: what is morally good is commanded by God because it is morally good. Prima facie this is true. The only problem comes if you read into it that good therefore exists apart from God, but stated as it's stated, it's not at all necessary to include that idea.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

The way I see it, in Christianity, God is good because he says he's good, and because we are his creations, we don't get to argue with him over the matter. Simple as that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Athée]

Hello again!

In my last thread, "The Moral Argument", we discussed the existence of morality and its ontological foundation. Early in the discussion, the subject of this present thread was brought up but got forgotten as the discussion progressed. I would like to discuss it further, or at least expose the solution, here.

The Euthyphro Dilemma goes like this: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" (Wikipedia). In other words, either God decides what is good, arbitrarily, or he just knows what is good (and it somehow exists on its own). If the standard of goodness exists independently of God, then we don't need Him to tell us, we could figure it out on our own.

As Dr. Craig puts it "The weakness of the Euthyphro Dilemma is that the dilemma it presents is a false one because there’s a third alternative: namely, God wills something because he is good. God’s own nature is the standard of goodness, and his commandments to us are expressions of his nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God."

So God's decrees are always, and necessarily, good because God is consistent with his own nature and so are his decrees. Moreover, moral goodness does not have to exist as an idependent thing on its own, floating somewhere up in the clouds. In fact, it makes a lot more sense to believe that morality comes from a person than from nothingness. He knows what is good because he is the reference, he is good.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god#ixzz4ALF2rGpa

Quick question. How do you determine that God's nature is good. Do all his actions align with a standard of goodness that you recognize or do you know that his nature is good because he tells you it is?

 

[Davian]

The way I see it, in Christianity, God is good because he says he's good, and because we are his creations, we don't get to argue with him over the matter. Simple as that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That was the impression that I had, but I gather the problem arises when one reads the scenario I presented in post #2, and compares that act to our internal moral compass (allegedly provided by this same god) and we sense a conflict when we consider that this [hypothetical] god commits this same act every day.

The OP then pack-pedals in an attempt to resolve this conflict by introducing "God wills something because he has good reasons to do so", pulling the rug out from under "God is good because he says he's good"; God now needs reasons to be considered good (and we have no access to those reasons).

 

[Sapiens]

I take it that you concede the false dilemma I bolded?

As for circular, it is a self-referencial standard. God meets the standard of "good", God being the standard of "good".

As for compromised, how do you compromise a tissue already soaked in water?

You have just introduced a fourth option, "God wills something because he has good reasons to do so". Now you are arguing situational ethics, and have shot yourself in the philosophical foot.

I do not take issue with situational ethics, but when you try to butter both sides of your bread like that, you will end up with quite the mess.

I don't see how that is relevant to my scenario. Are you working from a script?

You have judged the act as described in my scenario as evil; When your god does it, does it become good action (God is his own standard)? Or does he need a good reason to do it (God works to our standards)?

Oh, all right! I didn't get what you meant when you talked about a false dilemma. I thought you were refering to the Euthyphro dilemma, which seemed strange. Please clarify this for my next response, are you saying that my statement "In fact, it makes a lot more sense to believe that morality comes from a person than from nothingness." is a false dilemma?

How is it relevant?
My friend, I was merely presenting you with a good reason for God to allow manmade evil to exist: Freedom. I knew where you were going with this. If it's wrong for you then it's wrong for God too. And I answered that. I'm sorry you didn't see the relevance.

As for circular, I was not making an argument to prove that God is the source of goodness. Rather, I was proposing the possibility that he is, thus offering a third option to choose from. This is the one I choose. How do you see this as a problem that God's actions are consistent with his nature?

As for compromised, how do you compromise a tissue already soaked in water?

Then go dry yourself!

You have just introduced a fourth option, "God wills something because he has good reasons to do so".

How's this a fourth option? His good reasons, or motivations, are rooted in his perfectly good nature. Moreover, he is omniscient, therefore he has a wider scope of what is going on, and what will happen, than us. God always knows the best thing to do, in any and every situation.

You have judged the act as described in my scenario as evil; When your god does it, does it become good action (God is his own standard)? Or does he need a good reason to do it (God works to our standards)?

Well, God doesn't rape people. As for what we perceive to be inaction from his part, I've provided an answer to this already. The answer is yes for your first question. Yes it's good. He does have a good reason. Our standards come from him, my friend. Guess who made our conscience.

 

[Sapiens]

The way I see it, in Christianity, God is good because he says he's good, and because we are his creations, we don't get to argue with him over the matter. Simple as that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

He isn't good because he says He is. But it's true, He is and He does say He is.

 

[Sapiens]

Quick question. How do you determine that God's nature is good. Do all his actions align with a standard of goodness that you recognize or do you know that his nature is good because he tells you it is?

Good questions. I think it's yes for both.

 

[Davian]

Oh, all right! I didn't get what you meant when you talked about a false dilemma. I thought you were refering to the Euthyphro dilemma, which seemed strange. Please clarify this for my next response, are you saying that my statement "In fact, it makes a lot more sense to believe that morality comes from a person than from nothingness." is a false dilemma?

Yes.

How is it relevant?

It's not. But if you frequent William Lane Craig's site, things like that might stick to the bottom of your shoe, and then you track them in here.

My friend, I was merely presenting you with a good reason for God to allow manmade evil to exist: Freedom.

Freedom from what?

I knew where you were going with this. If it's wrong for you then it's wrong for God too.

Your god can do wrong?

And I answered that.

Where?

I'm sorry you didn't see the relevance.

As for circular, I was not making an argument to prove that God is the source of goodness. Rather, I was proposing the possibility that he is, thus offering a third option to choose from. This is the one I choose. How do you see this as a problem that God's actions are consistent with his nature?

Only when presented in as a circular reference.

Then go dry yourself!

I'm wash-n-wear, unlike your arguments!

How's this a fourth option? His good reasons, or motivations, are rooted in his perfectly good nature. Moreover, he is omniscient, therefore he has a wider scope of what is going on, and what will happen, than us. God always knows the best thing to do, in any and every situation.

And the "best" thing to do is to remain silent, and stand silently and idly by, while thousands (millions?) of individuals are brutalized, often with long lasting physical and emotional damage, no recompense, and the perpetrators never being brought to justice, even when there is no risk involved.

I might have thought an [allegedly] all-knowing-all-powerful-something could be a bit more creative.

Well, God doesn't rape people. As for what we perceive to be inaction from his part,

..observed as inaction on his part...

I've provided an answer to this already. The answer is yes for your first question. Yes it's good.

Such as bizarre thing, theology, where allowing the rape of children can be "good".

He does have a good reason.

Now you are contradicting yourself. Either God is good, or he needs good reasons to be good. Which is it?

Our standards come from him, my friend. Guess who made our conscience.

From wherever I "got" my standards, or from whomever [allegedly] "made" my conscience, it would seem to me that to remain silent, and stand silently and idly by, while thousands (millions?) of individuals are brutalized, often with long lasting physical and emotional damage, no recompense, and the perpetrators never being brought to justice, when there is no risk involved would be "bad".

Your god does not meet the standards you allege him of providing.

 

[TheBear]

If the Christian God is the arbiter of what is morally good, why isn't slavery outright condemned in the ancient writings? Why are women treated, for the most part, as second class citizens? (One example - No one knows how old Eve was when she died. Why? Not important, because she was a woman.)

 

[Athée]

Good questions. I think it's yes for both.

So if all his actions align with a standard of good that you recognize, then your standard of good includes slavery and genocides ( and I doubt this is the case) You can speculate that he has good reasons but that really just brings us to our second point which was that you know these things are good because God did them and he says he is good.
Thoughts?
As a follow up...is God's nature good because it aligns with an external standard of good or is it good because God says it is?

 

[SeraphimSarov]

If the Christian God is the arbiter of what is morally good, why isn't slavery outright condemned in the ancient writings? Why are women treated, for the most part, as second class citizens? (One example - No one knows how old Eve was when she died. Why? Not important, because she was a woman.)

Yeah, but who decided that slavery is bad, and why aren't women second-class citizens? If God doesn't say those things are bad, then who are we to say they are bad and contradict him? Just because a consensus of humans decide on the (im)morality of something does not make it so in God's eyes.

Note for the slow: I'm not advocating for slavery or that women be considered second-class, nor am I advocating for theism.

 

[Sapiens]

"In fact, it makes a lot more sense to believe that morality comes from a person than from nothingness."

Exactly how is this a false dilemma? It's not even a dilemma to begin with!

Freedom from what?

Freedom to be able to know and do evil (i.e. "a departure from the way things ought to be', as Dr. Craig puts it), or else do good as one oughts to. God could have prevented us from knowing and being able to do evil, had he wanted.

And the "best" thing to do is to remain silent, and stand silently and idly by, while thousands (millions?) of individuals are brutalized, often with long lasting physical and emotional damage, no recompense, and the perpetrators never being brought to justice, even when there is no risk involved.

I might have thought an [allegedly] all-knowing-all-powerful-something could be a bit more creative.

You view things this way because you're not christian. We, as christians, believe that God himself has borne all the pain and suffering and evil, even death, upon his back. And he died on the cross for us, vainquishing death once and for all. As for Justice, believe me that God will give them no less than what they deserve when they get in front of Him, on the day of judgment. Contrary to what you believe, God has promised eternal life with Him in Heaven, when in his presence we shall be fulfilled, and all we need to do is wait for the accomplishment of his promise. What is an eternity of bliss compared to a few years of suffering? Oh, and by the way, God both heals people physically and emotionally in this world too. Just so you know. We also don't know how many wrongs God actually prevents from being done.

Where?

Here:

Firstly, as the Canadian apologist Michael Horner said "we must not confuse 'I know of no good reason' with 'God knows of no good reason". In other words, we are not like God and we cannot assume that God thinks like us nor that he has the same moral obligations as us. So unless one can prove that there is such a thing as unjustified evil in the world, that is evil without a good reason to be allowed, then one can not say God is in the wrong. Again, unless one can prove that God doesn't have a "morally sufficient reason", as Michael Horner puts it, one cannot say God is failing a duty. Let's face it, if God exists and he is who we think he is (omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent) then one has no reason to disbelieve that God has a morally sufficient reason to allow the evil that occurs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Firstly, as the Canadian apologist Michael Horner said "we must not confuse 'I know of no good reason' with 'God knows of no good reason". In other words, we are not like God and we cannot assume that God thinks like us nor that he has the same moral obligations as us. So unless one can prove that there is such a thing as unjustified evil in the world, that is evil without a good reason to be allowed, then one can not say God is in the wrong. Again, unless one can prove that God doesn't have a "morally sufficient reason", as Michael Horner puts it, one cannot say God is failing a duty. Let's face it, if God exists and he is who we think he is (omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent) then one has no reason to disbelieve that God has a morally sufficient reason to allow the evil that occurs.

Congratulations...

You just took the moral compass and reduced it into mere obedience to a perceived authority, with no rationale behind it.

Because you say "I would have to say it is evil, but god doesn't seem to think so... I have no idea why, nore do I understand it, but hey... it's god, so I'll go ahead and say it is not evil"

This is what I call "moral bankrupcy".

 

[Sapiens]

If the Christian God is the arbiter of what is morally good, why isn't slavery outright condemned in the ancient writings? Why are women treated, for the most part, as second class citizens? (One example - No one knows how old Eve was when she died. Why? Not important, because she was a woman.)

I don't know about slavery (I did mention above that I don't know why God allows certain things to happen, and I don't need to), but I do know that those slaves were much much better treated than in the last century they were by our "civillized" people. One more thing, we are living in a post-slavery society, it was socially accepted as normal back then. There was nothing necessarily wrong in being a slave, if they were treated well. Many slaves were people who owed a debt they couldn't repay. God progressively revealed his ways to a fallen humanity. Otherwise, we probably would've just rejected him form day one... Let us remember that the Old Testament is about the Israelites, God's chosen people.

I don't know why they were treated as second class citizens (were they really?). Back then, the lineage was done through the men, whence the men being mainly listed.

Here's another good question: Why do we kill, in our modern age society, why do we kill thousands of babies every year? Is that normal?

 

[Athée]

I don't know about slavery (I did mention above that I don't know why God allows certain things to happen, and I don't need to), but I do know that those slaves were much much better treated than in the last century they were by our "civillized" people. One more thing, we are living in a post-slavery society, it was socially accepted as normal back then. There was nothing necessarily wrong in being a slave, if they were treated well. Many slaves were people who owed a debt they couldn't repay. God progressively revealed his ways to a fallen humanity. Otherwise, we probably would've just rejected him form day one... Let us remember that the Old Testament is about the Israelites, God's chosen people.

I don't know why they were treated as second class citizens (were they really?). Back then, the lineage was done through the men, whence the men being mainly listed.

Here's another good question: Why do we kill, in our modern age society, why do we kill thousands of babies every year? Is that normal?

This is getting a bit off your opinion piece topic. That said ...you will want to go and read exodus 21 I think and leviticus 25 before making comments about slavery. It's gods word, shouldn't you know what he said? Moreover, when you do read it and see that God condoned slavery and that yes it was actual brutal slavery, ask yourself why you have never heard this before. Why is it that your pastors never shared these verses with you, how did you come to believe that slavery was mild, who have you been trusting to tell you what God said, and are they doing a good job?