The Euthrypho Dilemma

bethangower

Does anybody have information on the Euthrypho Dilemma?

Reply 1

RMNDK

3

Original post by bethangower

Does anybody have information on the Euthrypho Dilemma?

What, are you looking for like a page or video that explains it? There's plenty online on Wikipedia, YouTube, philosophy pages, you can get a clear understanding from it.

Or are you look for someone to explain it cos I can do that.

Reply 2

bethangower

OP

Original post by RMNDK

What, are you looking for like a page or video that explains it? There's plenty online on Wikipedia, YouTube, philosophy pages, you can get a clear understanding from it.

Or are you look for someone to explain it cos I can do that.

i would like a clear explanation thank you :smile:

Reply 3

RMNDK

3

Original post by bethangower

i would like a clear explanation thank you :smile:

The Euthyphro Dilemma tries to highlight a problem with the concept of omnibenevolence and goodness, that is the idea that some being is all loving and full of goodness. Exactly where does this goodness come from?

Plato had a volume called the Euthyphro which is he says "Is what is pious loved by the Gods because it's pious, or is it pious because it is loved?"

Another way of saying is, "Are morally good ideas inherently good, or are they only good because God has said it's good?"

Let's look at the first answer/horn (it's referenced as horns, like the horns of a dilemma): "Morally good ideas are inherently good". In other words, actions such as charity and kindness are simply good because it's part of its nature.

This is unsatisfactory for the following reasons :

•

If God is dependent on these ideas of morally good, then he is not omnipotent and omniscient. He is dependent, reliant on this 'external' morality to be seen as wholly good. He cannot change these laws and he does not know how to.

•

God is being worshipped for following a code of conduct. He never created morality, he is bound by this source of morality. We do not need God to understand what constitutes goodness. So we can just completely eliminate God from our lives and yet moral goodness can still exist.

So let's go to the second answer/horn: "It's good because God has said it's good"

This is unsatisfactory for the following reasons :

•

Anything that God decrees must be good (and thus anything can be seen as bad). So God in the beginning could have said "Murdering animals is one of the greatest rewards". Anything ****ed up could have be conjured by God and it's morally right simply because God has said so.

•

Morality is arbitrary, i.e. its subjective and has no substance. The criteria is that God has decreed to be, so there are no reasons for why something has to be good. It's like me saying a set of laws for a new country and saying "You must accept it simply because I have said so"

•

This links to the problem that the answer falls into circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is where your beginning premise is your conclusion. For example, "The Bible is true. I can prove it. It says in the Bible that it's true". Similarly, the second horn doesn't actually answer the question of why God is good, it only dictates the obvious: that God follows his own commands, but where does the goodness stem from?

•

If morality is dependent on God, then how do atheists fit in? Many believe humans have an innate sense of morality, but if atheists can demonstrate a rational of morality without the belief in God, then that means this dependency is false.

This entire dilemma has shown that while we can understand the idea of a supremely good being and that it creates goodness, we can't find out the nature of this goodness. Do we just accept God is arbitrarily good, or is there some source of goodness that things, even God, depends upon...?

I hope I haven't made this too complicated. Feel free to comment.

Reply 4

bethangower

OP

Original post by RMNDK

The Euthyphro Dilemma tries to highlight a problem with the concept of omnibenevolence and goodness, that is the idea that some being is all loving and full of goodness. Exactly where does this goodness come from?

Plato had a volume called the Euthyphro which is he says "Is what is pious loved by the Gods because it's pious, or is it pious because it is loved?"

Another way of saying is, "Are morally good ideas inherently good, or are they only good because God has said it's good?"

Let's look at the first answer/horn (it's referenced as horns, like the horns of a dilemma): "Morally good ideas are inherently good". In other words, actions such as charity and kindness are simply good because it's part of its nature.

This is unsatisfactory for the following reasons :

•

If God is dependent on these ideas of morally good, then he is not omnipotent and omniscient. He is dependent, reliant on this 'external' morality to be seen as wholly good. He cannot change these laws and he does not know how to.

•

God is being worshipped for following a code of conduct. He never created morality, he is bound by this source of morality. We do not need God to understand what constitutes goodness. So we can just completely eliminate God from our lives and yet moral goodness can still exist.

So let's go to the second answer/horn: "It's good because God has said it's good"

This is unsatisfactory for the following reasons :

•

Anything that God decrees must be good (and thus anything can be seen as bad). So God in the beginning could have said "Murdering animals is one of the greatest rewards". Anything ****ed up could have be conjured by God and it's morally right simply because God has said so.

•

Morality is arbitrary, i.e. its subjective and has no substance. The criteria is that God has decreed to be, so there are no reasons for why something has to be good. It's like me saying a set of laws for a new country and saying "You must accept it simply because I have said so"

•

This links to the problem that the answer falls into circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is where your beginning premise is your conclusion. For example, "The Bible is true. I can prove it. It says in the Bible that it's true". Similarly, the second horn doesn't actually answer the question of why God is good, it only dictates the obvious: that God follows his own commands, but where does the goodness stem from?

•

If morality is dependent on God, then how do atheists fit in? Many believe humans have an innate sense of morality, but if atheists can demonstrate a rational of morality without the belief in God, then that means this dependency is false.

This entire dilemma has shown that while we can understand the idea of a supremely good being and that it creates goodness, we can't find out the nature of this goodness. Do we just accept God is arbitrarily good, or is there some source of goodness that things, even God, depends upon...?

I hope I haven't made this too complicated. Feel free to comment.

thank you so much!

The Euthrypho Dilemma

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you