Eurythphro
Wow! I just realised that although I've managed to acheive an average posts per week of 15 I most of them I haven't had to say anything for. Ahh, the advantages of being behind the camera. Anyway I thought I'd write down my thoughts about Eurythpro's dilemna, which I introduced in an earlier blog. It was introduced to me in my Philosophy lecture and because my mind doesn't work in a nice rational way I didn't think about discussing it in my essay until the second half of the course. By then of course it was too late but anyway these thoughts came to me in one of the lectures, so here goes.
First Eurythphro's dilemna goes something like:
Socrates: I [asked] you to tell me the actual form as a result of which all things are holy...Then of the actions which you or anyone else perform, I can call holy the ones, peformed by you or anyone else, which resemble it, but not the ones which don't resemble it...
Eurthyphro: What is dear to the gods is holy. What is not dear to them is unholy.
...
Socrates: Then what are we to say about the holy, Eurythphro? According to your argument, is it not loved by all the gods?
Eurthyphro: Yes.
Socrates: Because it is holy, or for some other reason?
Eurythphro: No, for that reason.
Socrates: And so it is loved because it is holy; it is not holy because it is loved.
This was divided up into 2 arguments the first being that something is holy (or good) because God declares it to be and since God is good then this is not an arbitrary declaration. However, this means that then using God to define goodness is a circular explanation. The second being that what is holy (or good) is good because it is and God declares it to be good because it is good. [I hope this makes sense]. However, this means that theoretically it is possible to reach a concept of goodness outside of God. These to arguments (in my mind) can be separated into the 'is' and 'because' arguments, ie something is good because it is good; and something is good because God declares it is good. The problem that some people (namely my lecturer) had was that they thought these 2 arguments were mutually exclusive, ie if one argument is used then the other cannot be used. In other words something is good because it is good and because God declares it to be good. It is only good because God declares it to be good and God declares it to be good because it is good.
When I buy a new piece of electronic hardware say a discman (most people would understand if I used the example of a cellphone but I wouldn't) I generally read the warnings given about what not to do to it. This is because (after a few irritating incidents) I want to get my money's worth out of my discman. [Wait this analogy is going somewhere ... I think :S] Now the reasons for me obeying the warning labels is that I assume that a scientist(s) have tested this model of discman and have found that these things will adversely affect it. And this is exactly where I think the link between 'is' and 'because' lies. Firstly 'is'; I trust the company saying it is bad for the discman because it is bad for my discman. The second 'because' requires more thought; I trust the company saying it is not from any knowledge of my own regarding the effect a certain action will have on my discman. I trust the company saying it is bad because it is the company saying it is bad and I trust the company has done thorough testing. In a likewise manner if there is a creator God who made humans in His image (Genesis 1:27), and if He gave to humans a list of what is bad for them (Exodus 20:1-17) then why shouldn't we believe Him.
Anyway those are my coffee-addled ramblings.
God bless.
Given enough coffee, I could rule the world. ~Author Unknown
First Eurythphro's dilemna goes something like:
Socrates: I [asked] you to tell me the actual form as a result of which all things are holy...Then of the actions which you or anyone else perform, I can call holy the ones, peformed by you or anyone else, which resemble it, but not the ones which don't resemble it...
Eurthyphro: What is dear to the gods is holy. What is not dear to them is unholy.
...
Socrates: Then what are we to say about the holy, Eurythphro? According to your argument, is it not loved by all the gods?
Eurthyphro: Yes.
Socrates: Because it is holy, or for some other reason?
Eurythphro: No, for that reason.
Socrates: And so it is loved because it is holy; it is not holy because it is loved.
This was divided up into 2 arguments the first being that something is holy (or good) because God declares it to be and since God is good then this is not an arbitrary declaration. However, this means that then using God to define goodness is a circular explanation. The second being that what is holy (or good) is good because it is and God declares it to be good because it is good. [I hope this makes sense]. However, this means that theoretically it is possible to reach a concept of goodness outside of God. These to arguments (in my mind) can be separated into the 'is' and 'because' arguments, ie something is good because it is good; and something is good because God declares it is good. The problem that some people (namely my lecturer) had was that they thought these 2 arguments were mutually exclusive, ie if one argument is used then the other cannot be used. In other words something is good because it is good and because God declares it to be good. It is only good because God declares it to be good and God declares it to be good because it is good.
When I buy a new piece of electronic hardware say a discman (most people would understand if I used the example of a cellphone but I wouldn't) I generally read the warnings given about what not to do to it. This is because (after a few irritating incidents) I want to get my money's worth out of my discman. [Wait this analogy is going somewhere ... I think :S] Now the reasons for me obeying the warning labels is that I assume that a scientist(s) have tested this model of discman and have found that these things will adversely affect it. And this is exactly where I think the link between 'is' and 'because' lies. Firstly 'is'; I trust the company saying it is bad for the discman because it is bad for my discman. The second 'because' requires more thought; I trust the company saying it is not from any knowledge of my own regarding the effect a certain action will have on my discman. I trust the company saying it is bad because it is the company saying it is bad and I trust the company has done thorough testing. In a likewise manner if there is a creator God who made humans in His image (Genesis 1:27), and if He gave to humans a list of what is bad for them (Exodus 20:1-17) then why shouldn't we believe Him.
Anyway those are my coffee-addled ramblings.
God bless.
Given enough coffee, I could rule the world. ~Author Unknown
1 Comments:
Yeah, I'd say you're on to something there. I remember getting frustrated when I took that paper with how quickly we brushed over that argument of Socrates' without giving any time to possible ways out of the dilemma. Just like Euthyphro, we innocent first-years had our thoughts guided into that tangle, before we had learnt the kinds of tools that might help us out of it. [it's all a conspiracy]
I think you're right that whatever the origin of goodness may be doesn't need to affect the wisdom of living according to it. Another take on the whole thing is that it's meaningless to consider 'which came first', because we know that God is not bound by time; both God and goodness have always existed together.
For my own part, if this means goodness is arbitrary in some sense, I'm not particularly bothered by that. As you say, we were made according to the code of goodness that does in fact exist, for whatever reason, so it's folly to think of why it is good. If God is the ruler of a universe He has created in accordance with an ordered code, that's reason enough to follow the code. It is our very acceptance of His right to proclaim what is good based on His superior understanding, that constitutes worship, and the denial of it that constitutes sin.
Post a Comment
<< Home