Game Type Philosophy Thread - Euthyphro

[Scipio]

Here's the game: you can only reply with a single short (use your judgement) sentence.


Plato posed a simple question in his dialogue Euthyphro: What is the source of what we think is good and bad, or right and wrong? Putting aside the relative truth of religion for a moment, does good and bad come from God, or is it grounded in a different standard of truth outside God? Basically, are God's commands arbitrary, or are they grounded in something? Is an act morally good because God wills it or is it good because God agrees that it is good?

IMPORTANT: Assume (correctly) that it's possible for God to exist and for good to come from another, possibly higher source. You don't need an atheist to think that right and wrong are grounded not just within God, but within the universe itself.

So, here's the question:

Do good and bad, and right and wrong come from God (or whichever deity), or are they grounded in something else, like humanity or the very structure of the universe?

[asaris]

Well, I'll bite. Right and wrong both come from God and are grounded in our nature. Because God is God, he didn't have to create, and creating, he didn't have to create any specific world (i.e., there is no "best of all possible worlds"). But having created this world, he created a world with the sorts of creatures we are. Now, God is good. So he had to create a set of moral laws such that they would lead us to our natural end -- union with him. But our natures are such that there is more than set of moral laws that would lead us to union with God. So he had some choice in the matter.

So, there are three classes of moral laws: those that, given our nature, are necessary; those that are contingent, but 'well-fitting'; and those that are 'arbitrary' (that is, arbitrary in the same sense that which side of the road we drive on is arbitrary). The difficulty is an epistemological one: for any given moral law, we don't know what category it fits into. Note that, among all of the last four (or six, or five, depending on how you count) of the 10 commandments, God commands at some point a breach of the commandment, except in the case of adultery (yes, adultery, not murder (see Abraham), and not lying (It's somewhere in Kings). So either God is not good, or he can, for our benefit, set aside part of the moral law in a particular situation.

I might add two things by way of an addendum:
1. My position is essentially derived from that of the medieval thinker John Duns Scotus, though not identical to his.
2. This is a philosophical position, not a religious position. That is, while it excepts the Biblical accounts as largely true in the important ways, it is not dependant on my Christianity for my belief in it, nor is my belief in Christianity dependant on it. Similarly, it is not a position that could be proven from scripture alone.

[Giltwist]

Concepts of "good" and "evil" are societal constructions as evidenced by the observation that different societies think different things are "evil".

[asaris]

I don't think that's good enough (if you'll pardon the pun) Giltwist. I want to be able to say, "What the crusaders did when they sacked Constantinople was evil", and under your definition, unless you clarify it a bit, I can't validly say that without being anachronistic.

[Giltwist]

Heh, he said only one sentence

And it is not anachronistic, and that is the whole point. The crusaders sure as heck didn't think the crusades were evil. But you can. Thus, "evil" is relative. I go one step further and say that one's view of "evil" is based upon, first, what other people tell you is evil, then, later, by what you experience in your society. So, philosophers would call the concept of "evil" a social construction.

[rsl12]

here's the central problem. I assume you think that God is the Creator, or if not, at least in control of humanity and the structure of the universe. Then it follows that even if you belive that good and bad are grounded in humanity or the structure of the universe, then good and bad have to also be grounded in god.


In other words:

God is in control of humanity.
Humanity is in control of good and bad.
Therefore, good and bad are in control of God.

As long as you believe the 1st, you cannot believe that good and bad are grounded in humanity and not in God at the same time.

[FleaCircus]

Right and wrong come from my shoulders.

Or, at least, the little angel and devil that appear on my shoulders every now and again.

[Xell101]

Good: Supporting the society by creating enviroments where individuals thrine and support that enviroment at the same time, thus perpetuating that which perpetuates society in a desirable manner, desirable being what brings happiness and intelligence to all.

[asaris]

xell (and I could ask Giltwist the same question): why is that good? See, it makes sense to ask "Is what society considers good good?" But that means that good must be something other than merely what society considers to be good, otherwise the question would have no sense. (That is, it makes no sense to ask "Is x y?" if x is the same thing as y.)

Oh, and sorry, I missed the one sentence thing. Hopefully this is short enough.

[Xell101]

One sentance Summary: I don't really believe in good and evil, just what we humans delude ourselves in in the interests of our little organized collective's ability to self-perpetuate, being beast of society and all.

[Giltwist]

But that means that good must be something other than merely what society considers to be good, otherwise the question would have no sense. (That is, it makes no sense to ask "Is x y?" if x is the same thing as y.)

Actually it makes perfect sense. In fact, it makes so much that there is a rule that says you can introduce a=a at any time in a proof.

[asaris]

Yes, but it doesn't make sense to ask "Is a=a?" And if x=y, then asking "Is x=y?" is the same thing as asking "Is x=x?" The reason you can add it into a proof at any time is because it doesn't mean anything -- it doesn't add any new information into the proof, and is precisely for this reason admissible. Would you ever ask "Is 2=2?" or "Is Aristotle Aristotle?"

[Giltwist]

Actually a more interesting question "Is Aristotle at age ten Aristotle at age twenty?"

[asaris]

no