Euthyphros Dilemma
Since my last thread failed to create constructive discussion (or any at all if you will), I have decided on starting another one for the sake of seeking truth value. The purpose of the thread, as subtly hinted by some replies in the previous thread, isn't to target down theism on morality but rather find the means in which our sense of morality is formed.
So without further ado,
"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
in other words
Are things good because God says they are good or does God says something is good because something is good?
Edit*
[b]Tales and Myths[/b]
As its told by Plato in his Apology, Socrates once set forth to the ancient Temple of the Oracle at Delphi to find out who the wisest man in the world was. This proved futile once the Oracle, on behalf of the god Apollo, announced that; [i]no one is wiser than Socrates[/i]. Tired and unsatisfied, Socrates found relief in his earnest sleep. This would be disturbed by fleet Hermes, to whom would appear in Socrates dream.[1]
The importance on this event is the conversation that followed between Socrates and Hermes. One of the most primal concerns being authoritative knowledge. (That which is told by a greater entity or a God and is 'swallowed' by the pleb)
[quote=Deutsch]
"[b]Hermes[/b]: How many are willing to criticize a god by the standards of reason and justice?
[b]Socrates[/b]: [Ponders.] All who are just, I suppose. For how can anyone be just if he follows a god of whose moral rightness he is not persuaded? And how is it possible to be persuaded of someone's moral rightness without first forming a view about which qualities are morally right?"[/quote]
Some would reckon that knowledge passed down by the authority is 'The final word'. Very few are willing to question it. But this is what Hermes describes to be justified belief and its not what we should pursue. Since;
[quote=Deutsch]
"In truth, beliefs cannot be justified, except in relation to other beliefs, and even then only fallibly. So the quest for their justification can lead only to an infinite regress- each step of which would itself be subject to error."[/quote]
Although I think it is more remarkable when they discuss the origin of knowledge.
[quote=Deutsch]
"[b]Hermes[/b]: Remember when you all got lost on your way here from the ship? And why?
[b]Socrates[/b]: It was because - as we realized with hindsight - we completely misunderstood the directions given to us by the captain.
[b]Hermes[/b]: So, when you got the wrong idea of what he meant, despite having listened attentively to every word he said, where did that wrong idea come from? Not from him, presumably
[b]Socrates[/b]: I see. It must come from within ourselves. It must be a guess. Though until this moment, it had never even remotely occurred to me that I had been guessing.
[b]Hermes[/b]: So why would you expect anything different happens when you do understand someone correctly?
[b]Socrates[/b]: I see. When we hear something being said, we guess what is means, without realizing what we are doing."[/quote]
Every oral communication, every written communication, every visual communication, we are constantly guessing at its meaning. That is the process of teaching right there. Educators can't just insert their knowledge into the learners head. Instead the learners have to guess at the educators meaning, creating their way to understand what they are being taught. This ofcourse is where the [b]Socratic Problem[/b] comes from. Since Socrates left us no writings, historians of ideas can only guess at what he really thought and taught, using indirect evidence of his portrayal by Plato.[2]
I think the perfect example for this is [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69F7GhASOdM]Plato's Allegory of the Cave[/url] :
[quote=Bullhead]"Imagine prisoners that have spent their entire lives chained deep inside a cave. They have been chained so that they cannot see behind themselves and they are forced to stare endlessly at the cave wall infront of them. Behind them a fire is burning, and between the prisoners and the fire is a walkway. Now imagine that each day a menagerie of objects crosses the walkway. Animals, people carrying their ways to the market. Their shades create and intricate shadow play in the wall infront of the prisoners. This is the only world that the prisoners have only known; The shadows and the echoes of unseen objects. Now imagine that a prisoner is released. After some time adjusting to the blinding light. The free prisoner will begin to experience the world outside of the cave for the first time. And its like nothing he could have ever imagined. With his new perception of the world the man will ofcourse want to return to his friends to share his incredible discoveries. But the prisoners cannot recognize their own friend. He appears as all things do. His voice is a distorted echo and his body is a grotesque shadow. THey cannot understand his fantastic stories of the world outside of the cave. To them it will never exist."[/quote][3]
I take God and religion as a myth. As putting your understanding of the world to the hands of faith. Like we all do at some point. We are blindfold so we must make conjectures about what is around us. And although it is not accurate, it is a place to start when finding out what is moral and what isn't. What is just and what isn't. The problem is, to not stay believing in those myths, but rather to criticize them to seek better explanations.
[1]= Deutsch, BoI (chapter 10) *I own a hard copy and couldn't find one online to link you
[2]= [url=http://stephenwhitt.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/the-beginning-of-infinity-chapter-ten/]stephenwhitt wordpress[/url]
[3]= [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69F7GhASOdM]Plato's cave[/url]
9 Comments • Newest first
[quote=WontPostMuch]Yeah we get it, you are super smart bc u type stuff nobody reads.[/quote]
I'm sorry. Is there something wrong with looking for a philosophical discussion? I'm not trying to act "super smart" like you claim I am. Instead at most I am a fool!
Yeah we get it, you are super smart bc u type stuff nobody reads.
[quote=Arash]You ask: "Are things good because God says they are good or does God says something is good because something is good?"
Then you follow that up by declaring that God is a superstition, which is true. The problem with this is that it invalidates the question.
When it comes to morals, I take an existentialist viewpoint. Meaning is created and morality is decided by each individual. For example, one person may think eating animals is immoral, while another may enjoy the pleasures of meat because they do not see a problem with producing and later slaughtering animals. In case you're wondering, I love meat.[/quote]
The problem then lies in making a society in which the laws and regulations fall within everyones "morals", that seems troubling!
[quote=Omegathorion]I never liked Plato's cave much, or the idea of a centralized God for the same reason. It's because both systems rely on the assumption that we are all living in a shared reality that is a constant for all of us, and it's just our perception that's different. Those poor little prisoners in the cave, they're so stupid and retarded because they don't understand what us brilliant grand philosophers see in the world.
Instead of saying that different people have different perceptions of the same reality, I would rather say that different people live in different realities. Maybe I grew up in a world where it's normal to wear the same pair of pants every day, and you grew up in a world where you change pants every day. Different people, different realities. There isn't gonna be any kind of 100% guaranteed truth to anything. You can't grade people on a linear 1-100 scale of how close to reality they are, because reality is different for each person. The philosophers outside the cave may never come to understand the subtle intricacies of precipitation and stalagmite formation the same way that the prisoners do.
So if you asked a question like "Are things good because God says they are good or does God says something is good because something is good," that's still assuming that there is a constant universal definition of "good." No matter how good you think something is, there's always someone else who thinks it's the most horrible thing in the world. Sure, some people like God, they adjust their personal morals accordingly. Other people don't like God, they adjust their personal morals accordingly too. There's no hard-line rule that you can say about all people. Statements like "Mindless sheep who follow religion are immoral" or "Godless bastards who reject religion are immoral" don't work because different people are different.[/quote]
I think you misunderstood me with the first part, and its perfectly okay! I wasn't clear enough myself. More like I was vague on my way of communicating. I meant to say that Plato's cave was an example to the Socratic problem. Suggesting that Plato's famous "parable of the cave" is really just a misinterpretation of Socrates' realization that our senses are imperfect instruments. That being said it follows your thought on the distinct perceptions of reality. It would be practically impossible for anyone to say with certainty that they known what someone else is thinking, because they can't seen through that other persons eyes his view on the world. That why I like the solipsist approach on the issue. That the only certainty is that our mind is sure to exist. But that's getting out of topic.
In regards to the Dilemma, I agree that "good" can't be the same for everyone but good luck going up to a court and pleading that as your defense; "I'm sorry your honor, but my reality is not the same as yours. You see I was raised differently than you did and obviously I had different experiences. Therefor I have a different perception of what is good and what isn't."
Huh.. O_O
[quote=Metacafe]I'm kinda tired so idk if i'm going to make sense but I think a common reply would be that "good morals" are "good" because they don't negatively impact others/society. Humans are a colonial species (idk if that's even the right phrase?) as in we thrive when we work together for the benefit of the common populace, kinda like how ants work together. One ant can't accomplish anything but a colony of ants can build a nest/find food/feed the colony/defend the colony. So maybe it's a biological/evolutionary/survival instinct to do good to each other, which is where "good morals" come from.
yeah idk[/quote]
If i'm not so foolish at saying this, I think I understand what you are trying to say. And I like that you tried to explain what is meant by "good morals" because thats where the whole issue lies in. How do we define "good morals"? But i'll get onto that later. It's on human nature to seek survival, through procreation etc. and that doesn't come alone, there is also the factor that humans can't be alone. Like you said, as a specie they look for company. But I believe that goes even further than just biological means of survival. Physiologically we are conditioned to seek for company. (In most cases) Since our birth we are surrounded with people, and this goes through our whole lives. I would go to an extreme and say that human interaction becomes part of out sanity.
In that sense I agree with the factor of society when it comes into the role of describing morality. But what i'm most conflicted by is the part of "negatively impacting". That is fairly subjective. You could live in a society where the conditions are not the same and require different actions. A good example is Robin Hood. It negatively affect others when you steal, but when is it justified to steal? for a greater cause? survival? What about a thief who commits crimes for his own profit, it is very difficult to frown upon a person who turns to stealing in the face of poverty to ensure his family's survival. Nonetheless, sometimes it's hard to rid oneself of old habits and one continues to practice crime even though it has ceased to be morally justifiable, simply because one does not know any other reality.
Even the Bible gives us a very vague description of who Satan was before his descent into hell, he is traditionally (and mythically) recognised as Lucifer, the Bearer of Light, the most beautiful of all angels, who then turned against God in his pride and desire for unlimited freedom. Such is the image of Satan in Dante's inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost. For Christians it is unacceptable to seek any good traits in the Devil, but the romantic view on miltonic Satan is much more forgiving. He is not seen as a villain, but an anti-hero, the ultimate rebel who wants freedom at all costs. In paraphrase, he would rather be free in hell than serve in heaven. Freedom is generally seen as one of the fundamental human rights; something unquestionably good. It looses some of it's charm when we think about it as the source of Lucifer's damnation. Sympathy for the Devil has always been somewhere there, and if the villains are not utterly evil, then the heroes can't be absolutely perfect.
[quote=AugustRain]without god, no one needs a conscience. you dont need religion to have morality.[/quote]
Of course you don't need religion to have morality. I agree! but naturally, it is from religion that some people seek morality! Help me understand
You ask: "Are things good because God says they are good or does God says something is good because something is good?"
Then you follow that up by declaring that God is a superstition, which is true. The problem with this is that it invalidates the question.
When it comes to morals, I take an existentialist viewpoint. Meaning is created and morality is decided by each individual. For example, one person may think eating animals is immoral, while another may enjoy the pleasures of meat because they do not see a problem with producing and later slaughtering animals. In case you're wondering, I love meat.
I never liked Plato's cave much, or the idea of a centralized God for the same reason. It's because both systems rely on the assumption that we are all living in a shared reality that is a constant for all of us, and it's just our perception that's different. Those poor little prisoners in the cave, they're so stupid and retarded because they don't understand what us brilliant grand philosophers see in the world.
Instead of saying that different people have different perceptions of the same reality, I would rather say that different people live in different realities. Maybe I grew up in a world where it's normal to wear the same pair of pants every day, and you grew up in a world where you change pants every day. Different people, different realities. There isn't gonna be any kind of 100% guaranteed truth to anything. You can't grade people on a linear 1-100 scale of how close to reality they are, because reality is different for each person. The philosophers outside the cave may never come to understand the subtle intricacies of precipitation and stalagmite formation the same way that the prisoners do.
So if you asked a question like "Are things good because God says they are good or does God says something is good because something is good," that's still assuming that there is a constant universal definition of "good." No matter how good you think something is, there's always someone else who thinks it's the most horrible thing in the world. Sure, some people like God, they adjust their personal morals accordingly. Other people don't like God, they adjust their personal morals accordingly too. There's no hard-line rule that you can say about all people. Statements like "Mindless sheep who follow religion are immoral" or "Godless bastards who reject religion are immoral" don't work because different people are different.
without god, no one needs a conscience. you dont need religion to have morality.
I'm kinda tired so idk if i'm going to make sense but I think a common reply would be that "good morals" are "good" because they don't negatively impact others/society. Humans are a colonial species (idk if that's even the right phrase?) as in we thrive when we work together for the benefit of the common populace, kinda like how ants work together. One ant can't accomplish anything but a colony of ants can build a nest/find food/feed the colony/defend the colony. So maybe it's a biological/evolutionary/survival instinct to do good to each other, which is where "good morals" come from.
yeah idk