In the height of Irony, I'm taking a philosophy class, and I have to write a paper on the Euthyphro Dilemma.
"Is something right because God says it's right or was it right before God said it was right."
My personal opinion is that there are things that are by definition right whether or not God says they are. However, I know that most people here are intelligent and well read and I was wondering if you all could share some insights or opinions.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote a novel about this very topic!
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
He did? Which one?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
If you really want the best input from fellow hatrackers, I'd suggest you expand a bit on your own thoughts first. This way, we can be sure you're thinking for yourself and not just stealing ideas from others. Plus, it's more beneficial for you.
Why do you hold this opinion? Why do you think it's more plausible than the alternative?
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
Okay then, my thoughts on the Euthyphro dilemma are that there are certain things which are good no matter what. For instance, if God were to tell a lie, the fact that God did it would not make it good. It would be God doing something bad. I think that the basic tenants of morality are defined and unchangeable, even by God. For instance, if God can do anything, why did Jesus Christ have to come down and sacrifice himself for us. I think that God was abiding by the laws that he holds himself to. He couldn't just save us, he had to abide by the concepts of both Justice and Mercy.
Maybe the ancient Greeks believed differently, there concept of god/gods was certainly different, but that right there is my philosophy.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
My opinion of the matter: Euthyphro was one of the few people who was nice to Socrates, so Socrates tried to make him look like an idiot. Sweet. Concerning the actual question, meh.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
To say that implies that you don't understand the Socratic method. In the Euthyphro, Euthyphro says that it is his piety that makes him superior to other men. He also says that it's his knowledge of spirituality that allows him to prosecute his father for the murder of the slave, (even though the murder was somewhat of an accident and it wasn't illegal or even considered wrong by the majority of the population.
That's quite impressive, to say that you are so pious that you are superior to other men. So Socrates asks Euthyphro what it means to be pious and Euthyphro cannot supply a "form" (or perfect method) for determining the piety of anything. Yes Euthyphro looked like an idiot, but hopefully it humbled him to a point that he could learn wisdom.
In the Apology Socrates says that that is his whole purpose. He doesn't pretend to know anything he doesn't really know. And he proves to others that they don't know what they think they know, hopefully paving a path to true knowlege.
For Knowledge must be true, truth is eternal, therefore knowlege is eternal.
Eternal Knowledge is wisdom. Or so say Socrates and Plato.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
While he may have been a bit dismissive, I'm fairly certain Jon understands the Socratic method well enough.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: In the height of Irony, I'm taking a philosophy class, and I have to write a paper on the Euthyphro Dilemma.
"Is something right because God says it's right or was it right before God said it was right."
My personal opinion is that there are things that are by definition right whether or not God says they are. However, I know that most people here are intelligent and well read and I was wondering if you all could share some insights or opinions.
When you say that there are things that are right whether or not God says so, it begs the question. It could be that there are things that are right and that God doesn't say anything about one way or the other, but that all things that God says are right, are right, because God says so.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
But then that begs the question, what if God suddnely said that those things weren't right anymore? Would they suddenly become wrong or would they remain right independently of God?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Phil, this is all about your definition of God.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Philosofickle, I understand the Socratic method. I just don't like Socrates in the early dialogues. As a person, not a philosopher. Maybe I was spoiled by first reading the later dialogues. Ion, Euthyphro, all that stuff. I just don't like it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Another question you may want to address is, if one were to say that whatever god says or does is morally good, can that really be an absolute morality? Or is it just subjective morality given by the person with the biggest gun?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: He did? Which one?
Sorry--I was just joking. It was a reference to a thread that is old enough that most people here probably don't remember it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Sorry--I was just joking. It was a reference to a thread that is old enough that most people here probably don't remember it.
Be sure to cite him correctly, though. That's "Waldo," not "Wallace."
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: My personal opinion is that there are things that are by definition right whether or not God says they are.
How do you establish that? Ethics are inherently unfalsifiable and, from what I can tell, species dependent. How do you demonstrate murder is wrong in an absolute sense? This would require demonstrating that murder is wrong not only for humans but also for any other species that could conceivably exist in the universe. What does it even mean for a specific value to be "absolute"? Does it somehow detract from our existence if morals are not absolute?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: Philosofickle, I understand the Socratic method. I just don't like Socrates in the early dialogues. As a person, not a philosopher. Maybe I was spoiled by first reading the later dialogues. Ion, Euthyphro, all that stuff. I just don't like it.
Actually, Socrates is pretty much a dick throughout the Dialogues. My senior capstone philosophy class spent some time on "the historical Socrates," and he doesn't come out of it looking very good. I think we all hated him by the end of the semester. Not that he isn't important as a philosopher.
As far as the Euthyphro problem goes, very few philosophers are willing to go with the first horn - that whatever God does is right. I think Kierkegaard was one...
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
If you go with "whatever god does is right," you end up with "the problem of evil."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Phil, this is all about your definition of God.
Again, we are talking about a "superman in the sky" version of God. Not big enough.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
kmbboots, How similar would you say your idea of God is to pantheism?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I think before you could even begin to address the question, you have to thoroughly define God. Obviously, a lot of atheists believe that there is right and wrong and that it does not come from God.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
It seems the traditional approach to this dialogue for intro philosophy classes is to define God as the omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God that most western monotheists believe in.
But as TomD and kmbboots pointed out, there are other possibilities.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Jhai, I didn't mind him in Phaedrus and The Republic.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Classical (as opposed to natural) pantheism is in the right direction - but still too small.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I like the dialogue. It's actually one of my favorite because it fleshes out the problems and the virtues of following more than one God. I think this pantheist conception of Gods better clarifies the problems we face in everyday life; except instead of Zeus, Apollo, Hera, and Hermes, we have Freedom, Equality, Security, and Dignity. All of the latter are worthy qualities, but you have to be kidding me if you think the demands of each coincide with the dictates of the others.
And on those rare occasions where the gods agree, your initial question still remains provocative. Whether on one hand, what is good is good because it is loved by the gods, or on the other, the gods love it because it is good.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Jon: To be fair, most historians/philosophers believe Socrates wasn't really in The Republic. Plato was just looking to add a little sizzle to his dry bit of political writing. You know, like Ann Coulter or Michael Moore do
In fact, this opinion is expanded to include much of the later Dialogues, where many believe Plato interjected more of his philosophy than Socrates.
-Bok
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I know that Bokonon, which is why I said that I liked him in the later dialogues much more than the early ones. I noticed the philosophical differences very early on, and asked my professor about it.
However, even so, I think that Aristotle is greater than 'em both.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well then, it seems to be silly to say you like him more in the later stuff, since it likely wasn't really him
-Bok
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
True, but Jhai didn't differentiate, so I just went along with the flow.
-Jon
See, I can have a tag too.
Oh, I actually had a discussion about this with my professor, where I was wondering if the Phaedo was starting to transition towards Plato rather than Socrates, as his opinion concerning the immortality of the soul changed from that in The Apology. He never got back to me.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Yeah, it's pretty well established that only the Socrates of the earlier dialogues has any connection with the historical Socrates, from what we can piece together. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. There's a few books I can recommend on the subject, if anyone's interested, but I don't remember them off the top of my head (sold them as soon as I was done with the final to get them out of my bookcase & life).
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
As far as Philosophy goes, I really like it so far. "The unexamined life is not worth living." What is the point of life if you don't strive to become better.
As far as Socrates goes, he makes people feel ike morons. That's what he does. But the ulterior motive is to make people better.
As far as the Pheado goes, that's definitely more Plato than Socrates. The problem that I see, is that Socrates had his own words, and then the words that plato attributed to him. Sorting them out is the problem.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, given the climate Socrates lived in, I bet he did it mostly to make people feel moronic.
I wonder if anyone has written an essay/book based on the premise the Socrates was the first nihilist?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)