Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
The Euthyphro Dilemma
    #13238593 -

So I thought this was an interesting subject for discussion because it is something that both athiests and believers can explore and find philosophically stimulating.

This is the basic dilemma, as quoted from wikipedia (which provides a pretty good description):

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

Now, if you do not believe in God, that's okay because you might interpret this dilemma as evidence against the existence of God as a source for morality. If you do believe in God (or perhaps many gods, with slight modifications to the premise), then this dilemma can provide you with an opportunity to explore the nature of morality in a manner which you previously had not considered. Take a side, but be careful because there are a number of issues with each position.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: Boba JFET]
    #13238917 -

I am going with "what is morally good is commanded by God because it is morally good"... and I am not necessarily saying whether or not any particular religious tradition has the correct rules that God commanded.

But basically I am choosing this side because I disagree with the notion that ad hominem arguments are valid. Ad hominem basically means to claim that a belief is true because someone in a position of authority said that belief is true. An example of this would be believing that whatever a doctor says is true because that person is a doctor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


--------------------
http://www.dlshq.org/teachings/brahmacharya.htm

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: lines]
    #13239847 -

Okay, but then how is what is good morally decided? It has just always been? The good are just immovable rules that not even god could change? That would appear to be a challenge to a god's sovereignty and omnipotence, yes?

*Also, what you describe is a valid refutation of the second horn of the dilemma, because If what is good is only good because god says it is good, then that also robs god of some authority, i.e. should we only obey a god "because he says so"? However, this is not an ad hominem fallacy per se, it is more of an appeal to athority, or ipse dixit. Ad hominem usually refers to an attack on a person - it can be used in other context (i.e. to suggest that a person's argument is valid because they are dessed nicely), but appeal to authority is a named fallacy on its own.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: Boba JFET]
    #13239941 -

Quote:
So I thought this was an interesting subject for discussion


:yawn:

It is has been repeatedly shown that all morality is entirely subjective.

Was that interesting? No.

The End.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #13239948 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
So I thought this was an interesting subject for discussion


:yawn:

It is has been repeatedly shown that all morality is entirely subjective.

Was that interesting? No.

The End.


Hey, I don't disagree, but that doesn't leave a lot of room for interesting discussion. I personally am willing to invoke a hypothetical god if it means I might get a good conversation out of it. :laugh: If you don't want to participate, fine, but why piss in the punch?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: Boba JFET]
    #13239973 -

Divine Command Theory


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #13239982 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
So I thought this was an interesting subject for discussion


:yawn:

It is has been repeatedly shown that all morality is entirely subjective.

Was that interesting? No.

The End.



There are arguments that ethics are relative, and ethics aren't relative.

They both have agreeable arguments.


Most people that say ethics are entirely relative, usually are the first to get upset when somebody else 'wrongs' them.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: I AM SWIM]
    #13239989 -

I AM SWIM said:
Divine Command Theory


You might have surmised that since I am aware of the Euthyphro Dilemma I might also be aware of Divine Command Theory. I'm more interested in what you think about the relation between the two.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: I AM SWIM]
    #13240028 -

Quote:
They both have agreeable arguments.


OK, let's say you are a 35 yo male. You want to have consensual sex with a young girl. What is the minimum age of the girl in which it is universally ethically acceptable?

Quote:
Most people that say ethics are entirely relative, usually are the first to get upset when somebody else 'wrongs' them.


No relevance.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #13240049 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
They both have agreeable arguments.


OK, let's say you are a 35 yo male. You want to have consensual sex with a young girl. What is the minimum age of the girl in which it is universally ethically acceptable?




I'm not talking about subjective issues, i'm talking about morality alone.

Everybody has there own view on what is good and bad, but that doesn't mean good and bad don't exist.

If all ethics are relative, then good and bad doesn't exist.

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
Most people that say ethics are entirely relative, usually are the first to get upset when somebody else 'wrongs' them.


No relevance.


It's relevant because those kind of people contradict themselves, and thus ethics are not entirely relative.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: I AM SWIM]
    #13240064 -

Quote:
I'm not talking about subjective issues, i'm talking about morality alone.

Everybody has there own view on what is good and bad, but that doesn't mean good and bad don't exist.



Start over - and this time try to make sense.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #13240079 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
I'm not talking about subjective issues, i'm talking about morality alone.

Everybody has there own view on what is good and bad, but that doesn't mean good and bad don't exist.



Start over - and this time try to make sense.



It's simple logic.

If ethics are entirely relative, then morality seizes to exist, since there is no such thing as 'good' and 'bad,' because they are subjective.

If there is no such thing as good and bad, then there is no morality that is 'relativistic.'


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: I AM SWIM]
    #13240091 -

If God created us God then it is Gods wish for us to be alive and therefore God would command us to avoid that which is self-destructive and so avoiding that which is self-destructive would be good. That which is good is not good due to God commanding it, God commands it because it is good. Saying this does not undermine the authority of God because Gods authority is not tyranical, rather authority in reference to God refers to credibility and God is credible. Gods commands are not based on whims.

Again I am not saying whether or not any religion would have the real commands of God.


--------------------
http://www.dlshq.org/teachings/brahmacharya.htm

Edited by lines (09/24/10 11:05 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: lines]
    #13240112 -

lines said:
If God created us God then it is Gods wish for us to be alive and therefore God would command us to avoid that which is self-destructive and so avoiding that which is self-destructive would be good. That which is good is not good due to God commanding it, God commands it because it is good. Saying this does not undermine the authority of God because Gods authority is not tyranical, rather authority in reference to God refers to credibility and God is credible. Gods commands are not based on whims.

Again I am not saying whether or not any religion would have the real commands of God.


But god apparently also wishes for us to die, as we are mortal and we all die. So I don't see how goodness can be decided based on what is not self-destructive for us, if we are ultimately destroyed anyway. Further, if god created us and is indeed capable of creating anything, could he not also simply change the rules of our existence such that poison makes us stronger, etc.? Then the rules of what is self-destructive would change, thus what is good (but that definition) would change, so in fact god could through those means decide what is good.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: I AM SWIM]
    #13240167 -

I AM SWIM said:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
I'm not talking about subjective issues, i'm talking about morality alone.

Everybody has there own view on what is good and bad, but that doesn't mean good and bad don't exist.



Start over - and this time try to make sense.



It's simple logic.

If ethics are entirely relative, then morality seizes to exist, since there is no such thing as 'good' and 'bad,' because they are subjective.

If there is no such thing as good and bad, then there is no morality that is 'relativistic.'



Well, you tried to make a case and failed. :shrug:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #13240412 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
I AM SWIM said:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
I'm not talking about subjective issues, i'm talking about morality alone.

Everybody has there own view on what is good and bad, but that doesn't mean good and bad don't exist.



Start over - and this time try to make sense.



It's simple logic.

If ethics are entirely relative, then morality seizes to exist, since there is no such thing as 'good' and 'bad,' because they are subjective.

If there is no such thing as good and bad, then there is no morality that is 'relativistic.'



Well, you tried to make a case and failed. :shrug:



No, you just misunderstood what I wrote.

You can't say that something is relative to nothing.

And that is what you are implying when you say that ethics are entirely relative.

Relative to what? Nothing?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: Boba JFET]
    #13240456 -

Boba JFET said:
lines said:
If God created us God then it is Gods wish for us to be alive and therefore God would command us to avoid that which is self-destructive and so avoiding that which is self-destructive would be good. That which is good is not good due to God commanding it, God commands it because it is good. Saying this does not undermine the authority of God because Gods authority is not tyranical, rather authority in reference to God refers to credibility and God is credible. Gods commands are not based on whims.

Again I am not saying whether or not any religion would have the real commands of God.


But god apparently also wishes for us to die, as we are mortal and we all die. So I don't see how goodness can be decided based on what is not self-destructive for us, if we are ultimately destroyed anyway. Further, if god created us and is indeed capable of creating anything, could he not also simply change the rules of our existence such that poison makes us stronger, etc.? Then the rules of what is self-destructive would change, thus what is good (but that definition) would change, so in fact god could through those means decide what is good.

I'm not sure I don't have everything fully thought out.


--------------------
http://www.dlshq.org/teachings/brahmacharya.htm

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: lines]
    #13240823 -

:facepalm3: This is what I get for trying to discuss philosophy on a drug forum.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: Boba JFET]
    #13242409 -

If there is a God, there would be no way to differentiate between the commandment of morality and the existence of morality.

If there is no God, this dilemma is not a dilemma at all.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma [Re: Kickle]
    #13242546 -

Why not both at the same time?

Black or White topics, conclusions, and/or perspectives are so old school :cool::thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 Anonymous 23,314 157 12/21/04 06:31 AM
by deafpanda
* Mystics Enlightenment and Morals (Good and Evil)
( 1 2 all )		 lucid 2,781 22 12/14/03 03:12 PM
by themagicman
* Do Basic Human Morals Exist
( 1 2 all )		 mrfreedom 5,523 24 05/28/02 07:55 AM
by Sclorch
* Are morals subjective?
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 6,357 35 04/24/03 05:58 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Question for moral objectivists
( 1 2 all )		 silversoul7 4,166 31 06/14/03 10:42 AM
by NewToTrippin
* Moral Dilemma
( 1 2 all )		 infidelGOD 2,231 34 02/27/04 08:25 PM
by Frog
* Determinism & Objective/Subjective Morality TinTree 2,914 13 01/24/05 10:34 AM
by shroomydan
* A debate on the subject of the morality of drug use. neuro 1,944 7 02/21/03 05:10 AM
by Sclorch

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,829 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 22 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 18 queries.