This thread has been inspired by a discussion with 2Philovoid in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/without-human-existence-does-god-need-to-be-good.7910680/ ,
and I´d like to dedicate it to him.
In that thread we came to agree, that the Euthrypho Dilemma can´t address a basic generic god concept - stripped off any theological premises and defining properties. (That´s not THAT huge an insight, but we had a little party nonetheless).
This morning, in the creative five minutes of half-sleep between waking up and getting up, the following thoughts came to me (Maybe they are not new, maybe they are painfully trivial, maybe they are complete nonsense, maybe they need modification or refining - I´ll throw them out nonetheless):
So what can the Euthrypho Dilemma actually do for us? What are its merits? What is it an effective tool for?
I don´t think that - even though it´s circled around God - it actually is about God.
It is a fundamentally subversive reductio ad absurdum to any authoritative/authoritarean model of morality. Ultimately, it tackles all structures, in which morality is unquestionably linked to power (and typically is used as a tool to stabilize and maintain this power).
This needn´t be a God. In authoritarean thought structures it can be Daddy, the King, the boss, the American Constitution (the forefathers), the Almighty Communist Party,...; or even just "the majority".
IOW: all systems, in which one thought (which is the most obvious third option to the false dilemma to every observing bystander) is taboo: "Well, maybe the self-professed moral authority is not good." (There are other solutions to the dilemma, too.)
[Of course, in hierarchical authoritarean structures each relative authority will justify it´s authority by referring to a meta-authority. Like, Daddy might refer to the law of the country or the Pope as a meta-authority. Thus, it´s very elegant of Plato to go right away for the supposedly highest authority above which none can possibly exist: God.]
So what can you do if proposing a third option is forbidden ground (and possibly might cost you your head due to "blasphemy", or at least will earn you a knuckle sandwich)?
You simply accept the unquestionable premise ("X is good", or more to the point here "When X says it´s good it´s good") and scoop it out by - in all innocence - asking a question which leads to a dilemma. You take this dilemma seriously, you consider it back and forth, but conclude that there - sadly! - isn´t a solution to it. [If remaining within the paradigms and the unquestionable premises, that is. In order to avoid being shot for being the messenger, you leave it to the thinking audience to find out how the false dilemma - which falseness isn´t your making, but inherent to the premise of the structures in question - can be easily solved.]
I don´t dare to assert that this was actually Plato´s intention. Maybe he found the most effective way of poking a devastating hole into any power=morality conjunction just inadvertantly.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/without-human-existence-does-god-need-to-be-good.7910680/ ,
and I´d like to dedicate it to him.
In that thread we came to agree, that the Euthrypho Dilemma can´t address a basic generic god concept - stripped off any theological premises and defining properties. (That´s not THAT huge an insight, but we had a little party nonetheless).
This morning, in the creative five minutes of half-sleep between waking up and getting up, the following thoughts came to me (Maybe they are not new, maybe they are painfully trivial, maybe they are complete nonsense, maybe they need modification or refining - I´ll throw them out nonetheless):
So what can the Euthrypho Dilemma actually do for us? What are its merits? What is it an effective tool for?
I don´t think that - even though it´s circled around God - it actually is about God.
It is a fundamentally subversive reductio ad absurdum to any authoritative/authoritarean model of morality. Ultimately, it tackles all structures, in which morality is unquestionably linked to power (and typically is used as a tool to stabilize and maintain this power).
This needn´t be a God. In authoritarean thought structures it can be Daddy, the King, the boss, the American Constitution (the forefathers), the Almighty Communist Party,...; or even just "the majority".
IOW: all systems, in which one thought (which is the most obvious third option to the false dilemma to every observing bystander) is taboo: "Well, maybe the self-professed moral authority is not good." (There are other solutions to the dilemma, too.)
[Of course, in hierarchical authoritarean structures each relative authority will justify it´s authority by referring to a meta-authority. Like, Daddy might refer to the law of the country or the Pope as a meta-authority. Thus, it´s very elegant of Plato to go right away for the supposedly highest authority above which none can possibly exist: God.]
So what can you do if proposing a third option is forbidden ground (and possibly might cost you your head due to "blasphemy", or at least will earn you a knuckle sandwich)?
You simply accept the unquestionable premise ("X is good", or more to the point here "When X says it´s good it´s good") and scoop it out by - in all innocence - asking a question which leads to a dilemma. You take this dilemma seriously, you consider it back and forth, but conclude that there - sadly! - isn´t a solution to it. [If remaining within the paradigms and the unquestionable premises, that is. In order to avoid being shot for being the messenger, you leave it to the thinking audience to find out how the false dilemma - which falseness isn´t your making, but inherent to the premise of the structures in question - can be easily solved.]
I don´t dare to assert that this was actually Plato´s intention. Maybe he found the most effective way of poking a devastating hole into any power=morality conjunction just inadvertantly.