It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Source Of Morality: Euthyphro's Dilemma

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
But God and "good" are not separate things, and the nature of "good" isn't a declaration of his, it is who he is. You may not have read the bit in Hebrews, but, in it, the author states that God cannot lie, and this is an accepted notion of the Christian God.


Saying that God would never command evil (or lie) in itself shows that God gets his morals from an outside source. If God would never command rape and murder because they're evil (or lie) then where did he get the determination that they were evil (or lies)?

The claim that God would not command evil (or lie) because it goes against God's nature does not actually change the problem, but only reorganizes it. The question might then be reasonably asked, "Where does God's nature come from?" Did God create it himself? If so then God's whims are still behind what he considers right and wrong, and the dilemma still applies. If, on the other hand, God did not create his own nature, then either someone else created it (in which case the dilemma applies to the creator of God's nature) or the morality contained in God's nature is inherent in some way (in which case God is not truly the author of right and wrong).




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
i would not argue about things that come from god with a person who is not of god.

i would argue that intellectualism on the part of the ungodly who speak of godly issues confuse the dogmatic practices of persons who follow god with issues of morality.

if i go to a catholic church and every one decides to eat a piece of "bread" i will not view their action as immoral even if my person views it as such; i will view their action for what the word tells me their action is; a dogmatic practice. if i go to iran and oversee a person who stole some bread or fruit in a market get caught and then loose a finger or hand i will view their societies response as equal parts misplaced dogma not different than that of a catholic partaking of food in a church. point being neither action directly has to do with morals.

since this is in the philo and meta sub forum; the source of morals lies in the very nature of how the word is being manifest before the nature of the act.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Then morality exists independently of god(s) and therefore cannot be sourced to the divine. The god(s) would additionally be subjected to these qualities, calling into question the concepts of the omnipotence of the god(s). .

So, assuming that the Good existed apart from the gods, how is "calling into question" some attribute of gods a fatal problem? It's what theologians do all day.

As I showed in my post, a god, when presented with a proposition, might choose to be bound to observe it. For example, the Abrahamic god, Jesus, is said to have limited his omnipotence by choosing to be bound to revisit Earth someday.

If the god cannot bind himself, his omnipotence is limited, then, too. Since you haven't shown there are any adverse consequences of voluntary self-binding, you haven't perfected a dilemma.

If you would claim an "omnipotence" problem, then all you'd have actually shown is that omnipotence must be defined carefully, as everybody already knows from the "rock that a god can't lift" chestnuts.

Plato's culture's gods aren't omnipotent anyway, so there's no problem at all in that respect within the scope of the OP. And you haven't established that the Good is necessarily distinct from the Godhead, either.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
So, assuming that the Good existed apart from the gods, how is "calling into question" some attribute of gods a fatal problem? It's what theologians do all day.

As I showed in my post, a god, when presented with a proposition, might choose to be bound to observe it. For example, the Abrahamic god, Jesus, is said to have limited his omnipotence by choosing to be bound to revisit Earth someday.

If the god cannot bind himself, his omnipotence is limited, then, too. Since you haven't shown there are any adverse consequences of voluntary self-binding, you haven't perfected a dilemma.


Correct. I've only introduced some problematic areas of one of the choices in the dilemma on the popular modern concept of the alleged omnipotence of god(s).


If you would claim an "omnipotence" problem, then all you'd have actually shown is that omnipotence must be defined carefully, as everybody already knows from the "rock that a god can't lift" chestnuts.


Agreed.


Plato's culture's gods aren't omnipotent anyway, so there's no problem at all in that respect within the scope of the OP. And you haven't established that the Good is necessarily distinct from the Godhead, either.


Nor am I trying to establish it. Again, it is simply one of two options in the dilemma.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
God didn't create Adam and Eve as a standard for morality.

Adam and Eve made moral choices. But they didn't know how to make immoral choices.

Adam and Eve started with clean sheets before they ate from the tree of knowledge. They had never made a immoral choice in their life, until they encountered the immoral snake.

In other words, before Adam and Eve encountered the immoral snake. Adam and Eve had fallowed their own knowledge about moral choices and moral values. But when the snake appeared. The snake starts to reason with Adam and Eve about Gods morality and moral values. Which Adam and Eve fallowed.

Adam and Eve who had only fallowed their own "Gods" knowledge about morality and moral choices. Where now been challenged by a new knowledge. A snake who wanted to challenge Gods morality and moral values through Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve, was for the first time in their life faced with a moral choice. "Who to believe in"

This was the first time in their life that Adam and Eve had ever made a immoral choice. Adam and Eve choose to fallow new moral values.




edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ausar
since this is in the philo and meta sub forum; the source of morals lies in the very nature of how the word is being manifest before the nature of the act.


Can you clarify?
What is "the word" in this case?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Adam and Eve, was for the first time in their life faced with a moral choice. "Who to believe in"


Adam and Eve were also subject to and operating on Divine Command. They were told what to do and what not to do arbitrarily. Does this make eating the fruit "immoral" and not eating it "moral" simply becaue God decreed it?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


The actions of the christian god in the OT are anything but "moral". The "high morals" thought of in today's society are nearly the opposite of how we see yahweh behaving in the OT. jesus himself spoke of high morals, acting as if he were completely unaware of any of the acts that he/his father committed in the OT and could probably be excused of such if he hadn't quoted from the OT.

"God made false prophecies (Jonah 3:4. Gen. 5:10)
God killed (Num. 16:35, 21:6, Deut. 32:39, 1 Sam. 2:26, Psalm 135:10)
God ordered killing (Lev. 26:7-8, Num. 25:4-5)
God had a temper (Deut. 13:17, Judges 3
God was often jealous (Deut. 5:9, 6:15)
God wasn't omnipresent (Gen4:16, 11:5, 1 Kings 19:11-12)
God practiced injustice (Ex. 4:22-23, Joshua 22:20, Rom. 5:12)
God sanctioned slavery (Ex. 21:20-21, Deut. 15:17)
God degraded deformed people (Lev. 21:16-23)
God ordered cannibalism (Lev. 26: 29, Jer. 19:9)
God excused a murderer and promised his protection (Gen. 4:8-15)
God killed a man who refused to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law (Gen.
38:9-10)"

The quote above is the "short list" version of the atrocities committed by this god.
Most gods are guilty of some version of this. The all claim omnipotence, are all loving, and are all forgiving.
To single out one god could be considered an attack on whatever religion caters to that particular god.
For most of us Americans, yahweh is the god that we know the most about - generally.
To point out that god doesn't exist just because the religious method that proclaims him is false, contradictory, shockingly horrendous, or just plain ridiculous - to me - is not entirely convincing. I don't believe the bible, but I don't believe the koran either - or any religious book for that matter. Lest I be perceived as a believer in a deity, let me make this clear - I do not. I do not put any stock into anything declared to be supernatural. I don't buy into the idea of gods, ghosts, spirits or souls. IF there was any sort of intelligence behind creation - the only physical act ever performed was cracking off the spark that beget the big bang.
Watching grown people bicker about religious dogma is about as enlightening as watching a group of pre-pubescent boys argue over pokemon cards.

If you study the attitude of yhwh in the OT, you will find that many church members and religious organizations DO mimic the attitude he held. They beg for offerings, promote racism, promote/endorse genocide, endorse(d) slavery, kill others who don't believe as they...etc, so in a sense I suppose you could say that god did influence their morality. He most certainly didn't do anything to prohibit them from acting unaccordingly in his name, therefore it must either be ok with him, he doesn't care, he can't do anything about it or wont, or he doesn't exist.

It really would be a kicker to determine that yahweh really DID exist, and he DID author the bible - but filled it with such contradictory garbage to see who would be smart enough and/or willing enough to figure it out and challenge THAT and then judge based upon THAT and nothing else.

This post is nothing more than random thought jammed together in 2 minute typing sessions. It is probably wrong, but I don't think it is.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
These are all arguments in the realm of the limited human understanding, limited mind, limited logic/reason.

In contrast to God who is unlimited, beyond limited understanding, transcendent, and so forth.

Euthyphro's Dilemma is an invention of a limited mind clawing and grasping at the beyond and in doing so trying to establish an intellectual hypothesis, rules, limits, and so forth. None of which at the end of the day are really applicable in the grand scheme.

These are all arguments within the frameworks of Duality, whereas God is an Absolute nondual beingness therefore right off the bat the entire frameworks of Euthyphro collapse. The cool part about all of this?

The cool part is that there are hundreds possibly thousands of accounts around the world of the journey that it takes to get to the direct experience of the Absolute, a knowingness beyond all doubt, a truth that is absolute and alive and here and now.

Those that have journeyed there basically laugh at all these philosophical musings and man-made frameworks.
____________________
You want the truth about 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6? They are all true and all untrue. That is the paradox that while doesnt make sense in duality frameworks, make complete sense to those in the experience of Non-duality. These are all just concepts, ideas, thoughts ....non of which are real but are products of the mind which operates in imaginary ideas.
_______________



"The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good." -Bertrand Russell

Seeing myself that the mind paints pictures and ideas over what already is. I question everything including the concepts of good and bad. I question every quote but even the most respected of philosophers. AT this point Russell's :"fiat" and "God" are simple constructs of the mind and not what reality really is. In the end is self imploding dribble compared to unlabeled, unfiltered, unadulterated reality which is there and stands on its own before anyone even says anything about it.

The highest truth is to experience directly absolute truth, and on the way there reject all relativities, ideas, and concepts. That which is found at the end of the journey destroys all questions and all doubts..



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by spy66
Adam and Eve, was for the first time in their life faced with a moral choice. "Who to believe in"


Adam and Eve were also subject to and operating on Divine Command. They were told what to do and what not to do arbitrarily. Does this make eating the fruit "immoral" and not eating it "moral" simply becaue God decreed it?


Well i would say that the majority of people would agree that they made a immoral choice. Because, we haven't learned to become better beings by knowing the difference between good and evil.

And i think the majority of people would have hoped that Adam and Eve had listened to God. And not eaten from the tree. Because that is what Adam and Eve have thought us by their immoral choice.


Would you have eaten from the tree today! if you had known what Adam and Eve knew?

What moral choice would you have made. would you have done the same?

Or would you have asked your self: Who has authority here: God or the Snake?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
These are all arguments in the realm of the limited human understanding, limited mind, limited logic/reason.

In contrast to God who is unlimited, beyond limited understanding, transcendent, and so forth.

Euthyphro's Dilemma is an invention of a limited mind clawing and grasping at the beyond and in doing so trying to establish an intellectual hypothesis, rules, limits, and so forth. None of which at the end of the day are really applicable in the grand scheme.


Well, so you declare, but how is this any different than avoiding the question by unilaterally dismissing it? You've simply evaded the dilemma by declaring your god to have qualities that transcend it, though you have not established that any of these qualities, or your god, actually exist.


The highest truth is to experience directly absolute truth, and on the way there reject all relativities, ideas, and concepts. That which is found at the end of the journey destroys all questions and all doubts..


If such a thing can only be accessed through subjective experience how can you then discern it from hallucination or delusion? How can you recognize it as "absolute truth" by rejecting all relatives, ideas and concepts?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Or would you have asked your self: Who has authority here: God or the Snake?


How could they have made any distinction if they had not yet acquired the knowledge of good and evil?
---



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Morality and Ethics change with time and situation; is this question about morality really relevant?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by trekwebmaster
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Morality and Ethics change with time and situation; is this question about morality really relevant?


I agree with you. But yes, the question is relevant, particularly to the theist and more specifically those who believe that morality originates from the divine.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by spy66
Or would you have asked your self: Who has authority here: God or the Snake?


How could they have made any distinction if they had not yet acquired the knowledge of good and evil?
---


Well God told them that they also would die. They didn't know what death was either.

If you knew that you had eternal life, and was told that you would die and not have eternal life anymore if you ate from the tree, would you ave done it?

We don't know how much God really told Adam and Eve about death and the difference between good and evil. But the main thing is. God is thee authority and told them not to do it.

Adam and Eve live under the authority of God.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Adam and Eve live under the authority of God.


Fair enough.

How do you think Adam and Eve relate to Euthyphro's Dilemma?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by spy66

Adam and Eve live under the authority of God.


Fair enough.

How do you think Adam and Eve relate to Euthyphro's Dilemma?


Well they related to it because they choose to fallow the snake. The snake apposed Adam and Eves moral understanding of Gods word, with new knowledge about the tree compared to what God had said.

Adam and Eve was for the first time in their life,faced with a moral choice " A moral dilemma". "To fallow Gods command or the Snakes words".

They were faced with a dilemma right there. Eve knew it was wrong because she also recited to the Snake what God had commended her not to do. But the Snake said that God was lying.

But God wasn't lying at all. Because God is thee authority, and what he says goes.

I have a question for you. Was it immoral of God to command Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Adam and Eve was for the first time in their life,faced with a moral choice " A moral dilemma". "To fallow Gods command or the Snakes words".


Apologies in advance, but I don't think that Euthyphro's Dilemma is a moral dilemma at all. It's more of a philosophical dilemma.


I have a question for you. Was it immoral of God to command Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge?


I believe so because of the circumstances, particularly if God is omniscient.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by spy66
Adam and Eve was for the first time in their life,faced with a moral choice " A moral dilemma". "To fallow Gods command or the Snakes words".


Apologies in advance, but I don't think that Euthyphro's Dilemma is a moral dilemma at all. It's more of a philosophical dilemma.


I have a question for you. Was it immoral of God to command Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge?


I believe so because of the circumstances, particularly if God is omniscient.


Well, i believe a command has more authority then reasoning and philosophy.

God is thee creator. Creation is Gods plan and Gods work. God makes the rules.

The snake was the philosopher which Adam and Eve choose to believe in. The snake was the one who created the dilemma for Adam and Eve.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

God is thee creator. Creation is Gods plan and Gods work. God makes the rules.


In that case, would you argue that those things which god commands are automatically, inherently moral? That is, morality is sourced directly to god?




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join