The Euthyphro Dilemma: On Morality and Religion

[ensayne]

Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This dilemma has always intrigued me when I was a theist along with other philosophical dilemmas.

The question is quite simple: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

On one hand it seems that good would be arbitrary if it were good simply because it is commanded by God, yet on the other hand if what is morally good is exclusive of God's commandment, then morality would exist without God's authority. For the sake of this discussion let's assume God exists. I could easily end the argument by stating morality is neurobiological in nature, but I wish to avoid the scientific reductive route and instead remain in the realm of philosophy.

I think what is morally good is good independent of any authority, be it God or other men.

[Mr.NoBoddy]

That is a pretty good question I am not sure. Maybe Men's morality will only take us so far such as murder and all that, but things such as adultery theft and things of that nature wouldn't be consider immoral.

I have no clue.

[Cephus]

It is a problem because it depends on the whim of the moment of the deity you're talking about. If they decide, in 5 minutes, that murder is now moral, is it? If they decide that caring for orphans is immoral, is it? How would anyone know, especially since these supposed gods tend to be really good at hiding their existence at all?

[notthecheatr]

I think the solution is to stop thinking of morality as something above and beyond mankind.

Morality came originally from biological origins, for there is an evolutionary advantage to not killing each other, working together nicely, etc. After civilization began to develop, man began creating his own moral values. The development of religion took care of the rest of the details. Today, as we are conscious, thinking beings, we are able to think about these issues in terms of the values we carry with us from our family and friends, and create our own values as we receive new information and experiences.

In discussions like this, it's important to remember that morality can be viewed in terms of individuals or societies, or both. You can also think of it as an intellectual concept, or the more primitive form which came to us via evolution. The word "morality" is a blanket term that covers many different concepts.

[ensayne]

I don't necessarily think we created our own moral values, but they were handed down by our evolutionary ancestors, but this is a philosophical dilemma, not a scientific one. So once again, let's not head down that route.

[notthecheatr]

Well I wasn't necessarily trying to approach this from a scientific angle, I was just pointing out that (at least as far as I'm concerned) it's nonsensical to talk about morality as being something that exists apart from and beyond man. Morality is not something with an objective existence in the universe; it is a creation of man, and to have any meaningful discussion of morality this must be recognized.

[ensayne]

Well I wasn't necessarily trying to approach this from a scientific angle, I was just pointing out that (at least as far as I'm concerned) it's nonsensical to talk about morality as being something that exists apart from and beyond man. Morality is not something with an objective existence in the universe; it is a creation of man, and to have any meaningful discussion of morality this must be recognized.

So...what is natural is not good and what is good is not natural. Where does that leave us?