How do you determine whether something is "good"?

[zippy2006]

In fact, I think any attempt to split the horns of Euthyphro by appealing to some third option, X, will always reduce to the same set of questions - is Yahweh in control of X, or is he not in control of X? Meaning, you are right back where you started, and the horns remain the same.

The Euthyphro dilemma is about piety and the gods. The dilemma states that either piety is a function of the gods' opinions and follows wherever they go, or else the gods are simply passing on the standard of piety that exists above and beyond them. Either piety is determined arbitrarily by whatever the gods say it is, or else the gods are beholden to piety just as much as the humans are.

The Greek anthropomorphic conception of the gods is at the heart of the "dilemma," and most atheists are committed to an equally anthropomorphic conception of God. The key to the dilemma is the separation between piety and the gods. They are extrinsic concepts, neither contained within the other. The first horn conceives of piety as an artifice constructed by the gods; the second horn sees it as a standard external to themselves that they must adhere to. This extrinsic nature of the terms is unavoidable on the anthropomophic premise.

When we speak of God instead of the pantheon of Greek gods, and of goodness rather than piety, the dilemma is substantially altered. As already explained, God is the source of all goodness as Goodness itself. Goodness is intrinsic to God. The separation between the two terms and their extrinsic nature, which obtained in the original dilemma, no longer holds. Goodness is clearly not an artifice constructed by God, and neither is it a standard external to God that he must adhere to. It is just what he is. It is just his nature. God is no longer anthropomorphic, but rather the transcendent source of all goodness.

This becomes even more obvious once we consider the convertibility between goodness and being and instead insert "being/existence" into the dilemma. The dilemma would go something like this: either being is determined arbitrarily by whatever God says it is, or else God is beholden to being just as much as the humans are. Clearly both are false. God is the creator who creates ex nihilo out of the fullness of his own being. He is ipsum esse subsistens, self-subsistent being, Being itself. Being is not determined arbitrarily, it comes from God's own nature and is bestowed upon all things. God is not beholden to an external standard of being. There is no being, no standard, apart from himself.

is Yahweh in control of X, or is he not in control of X?

Your reproduction is accurate insofar as it also represents the two terms as extrinsic and separated from one another. It really makes little sense to a Christian. Is God in control of Goodness? Yes and no. Insofar as it is his nature, he is not in control of it, for he himself is the source of all being, goodness, and truth. It's just what he is. Insofar as he freely bestows goodness (and being and truth) on creation as its Creator, he is in control of it. The two horns are avoided: goodness is not reduced to arbitrariness, nor is there some standard apart from God. If you think that either of these two horns remain, you would have to note the horn and then explain why it remains.

 

[quatona]

Seeing that the thread question is "How do you determine whether something is good?" I am wondering how the "God is good(ness)" crowd determined that God is good(ness).
I mean, everyone is free to define the word "good" the way they see fit - but doing so doesn´t solve the actual problem.

 

[dysert]

Critically speaking, I've found that without God's definition (something along the lines of, if it exalts God [such as imitating him] then it is good; if it is in opposition, it is evil), all other definitions are relative to something else, meaning that there is no unassailable basis for any other definition.

It's hard for me to be less critical, because a definition like "good=builds up mankind and when possible builds up all individuals; evil=tears down mankind or individuals (unless necessitated by good for mankind)" ends up being, at the very least, simply a person's opinion, and other people will disagree.

I don't think it is possible for people stuck in the system (mankind) to express a valid meta-truth for (everyone in) the system, because it cannot be authoritative.

This is along the lines that I was thinking. If something glorifies God it is good. Otherwise, it is at best neutral. The trouble is, I haven't found a biblical definition of "good". Anyone know if the Bible actually defines it?

 

[toLiJC]

As a skeptic/nihilist I often have to question whether a particular action is 'good' or 'evil' after realizing ALL ideological/ethical/religious metrics have certain..problems with them.

Without any real ideological/ethical/religious metrics do really adhere to I more or less just rely on something like a combination of hedonistic calculus along with game theory to help make decision; and it works almost as well as 'regular morality' I think.

I have spent enough time on this problem that some of the more minor nuances of it no longer really require my attention (or at least in my humble opinion I don't need to waste more time on them), but I'm wondering if anyone on this forum has anything useful to this topic that I may have missed in past evaluations. Is it that "We do what we do, because that is the way that we do it" or is there something more to it?

every human being has rights to have normal and even good life, which is the basis of all the God's law, so, from this perspective, we have to provide only things that are good for everyone, and that are not harmful/detrimental/painful to any person, and this is exactly what is called 'righteousness' in the Bible, or as it is written:

Romans 12:17 "Provide things honest in the sight of all men."

Blessings

 

[Greg J.]

This is along the lines that I was thinking. If something glorifies God it is good. Otherwise, it is at best neutral. The trouble is, I haven't found a biblical definition of "good". Anyone know if the Bible actually defines it?

I would say what I wrote is a summation of what is actually in Scripture from a somewhat spiritual point of view (Luke 18:19). Since it is God's nature that defines goodness, seeking to understand his nature is valuable. One could also take a less spiritual viewpoint and just examine the thousands of examples of good vs. evil actions. This would be the (long form) of what goodness is like 1 Corinthians 13 is for love.

Also, since God is love (1 John 4:8,16 combined with Luke 18:19), one can examine things like the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23; also see vv. 19-20) to know what is good.

 

[zippy2006]

Seeing that the thread question is "How do you determine whether something is good?" I am wondering how the "God is good(ness)" crowd determined that God is good(ness).
I mean, everyone is free to define the word "good" the way they see fit - but doing so doesn´t solve the actual problem.

ST Ia, 6 & Ia, 5

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Nonsense. Provide an argument, something beyond mere assertion if you want to be taken seriously. There is no standard to which God is being measured.

Sure there is.

You and I both agree that 'goodness' (like 'wetness') is well defined. So, any entity which does not meet its definitional requirement as the creator and embodiment of that 'goodness', you would not call a 'god', and the one that does, you do.

Therefor, there is necessarily an independent standard of 'goodness' to which you are comparing this entity, whether you do so consciously or not.

Water is wet because it comes from the fountain (Speaking analogically of God). If you want a closer analogy, we can say that because it comes from the fountain, it is water.

Actually it was an analogy, and if you knew what that was you would also know that analogies are alike in some ways and unlike in others. Congrats, you found one of the unlikenesses, even though I already gave it away in my post.

The unlikeness completely undermines the point you were trying to make by invoking it. It's a crap analogy.

To be fair though, there is no good analogy you could make, because the point you are trying to illustrate - that goodness is ontologically dependent on this Yahweh character - can't be meaningfully defended.

Atheists are generally bad at theology.

I'll do you one better. This particular atheist doesn't think 'theology' is even a thing, since you can't glean information from or about non-existent entities. I would love to see a demonstration of how one becomes 'good' at that.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You lost me. You wouldn't make an argument against God as the ontological basis of morality, but you find the arguments unconvincing?

Yeah. Just like I find the arguments for the existence of pixies unconvincing, but I make no positive case against them. I feel no obligation to do so, as I am not the positive claimant.

 

[zippy2006]

Sure there is.

You and I both agree that 'goodness' (like 'wetness') is well defined. So, any entity which does not meet its definitional requirement as the creator and embodiment of that 'goodness', you would not call a 'god', and the one that does, you do.

Therefor, there is necessarily an independent standard of 'goodness' to which you are comparing this entity, whether you do so consciously or not.

God is goodness. There is no standard, there is just God himself.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Seeing that the thread question is "How do you determine whether something is good?" I am wondering how the "God is good(ness)" crowd determined that God is good(ness).
I mean, everyone is free to define the word "good" the way they see fit - but doing so doesn´t solve the actual problem.

"Good" is relative, thus, stating that "god is good" is, in practice, pointless. Having to state it over and over suggests that god actually isn't, because things people would often describe as "good" don't need that to be stated about them.

 

[Tomm]

As a skeptic/nihilist I often have to question whether a particular action is 'good' or 'evil' after realizing ALL ideological/ethical/religious metrics have certain..problems with them.

Without any real ideological/ethical/religious metrics do really adhere to I more or less just rely on something like a combination of hedonistic calculus along with game theory to help make decision; and it works almost as well as 'regular morality' I think.

I have spent enough time on this problem that some of the more minor nuances of it no longer really require my attention (or at least in my humble opinion I don't need to waste more time on them), but I'm wondering if anyone on this forum has anything useful to this topic that I may have missed in past evaluations. Is it that "We do what we do, because that is the way that we do it" or is there something more to it?

Simply relying on one's limited knowledge and wisdom, one will never succeed in finding out the true goodness and values of things. We should never stop learning from SOMEONE WHO is greater than us.