Euthyphro and moral agency
  • jorndoe
    4.1k
    In brief, where G means some deity of relevance (like Aditi, Dike, Yama, Yahweh, Varuna, Allah, etc), we might express the Euthyphro like so:

    • G acts according to morality (independence)† or
    • morality is acting according to G (dependence)‡

    † is a partial definition of G (not morality)
    ‡ is a definition of morality that depends on G (cf theological moral voluntarism)

    (Note, the above is not necessarily a strict dilemma as such, since G could be all of moral immoral amoral alike, or some may simply define G = morality; definitions seems free for all.)

    Anyway, I wanted to explore any relations between the Euthyphro and the Torquemada problem (a parallel thread).
    The Torquemada problem seems inconsistent with ‡ (and consistent with †). Moral agencies aren't items you purchase at your local synagogue crafted by YHWH.
    Then again, Gs are typically said to be moral agents, perhaps "superior moral agents" in some sense.

    What to make of it all...?
    1. Euthyphro and moral agency (see opening post) (4 votes)
        † G acts according to morality (which is independent of G)
          0%
        ‡ morality = acting according to G (dependence)
        75%
        the requisite 3rd option, please explain coherently
        25%
    jorndoe Options
  • Deleted User
    0
    This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
    Deleted User Options
  • ChatteringMonkey
    1.5k
    I voted for the second option, morality is acting according to G.

    And while G here is some God, since i'm an atheist I believe this is just a stand-in for the more general notion of convention. Morality is the mores or customs of a people, be it theistically based or not.

    Regarding the torquemada problem, I don't really believe in metaphysical free will, and so agency will be limited. It's limited by our biology, and more importantly here, also limited by our upbringing.

    So I think 'moral intuïtions' arent' really so free as would have to be supposed by the first senario (G acts according to morality, where morality is something independant) or the torquemada problem. 'Moral intuïtions' are also shaped by our upbringing and the culture we live in. There's no standing outside of this... unless maybe in the case of the philospher (achetype Socrates) who examines his (moral) assumptions over the course of his live by a proces of dialectics.
    ChatteringMonkey Options
  • jorndoe
    4.1k
    ↪tim wood
    , right, yes, the Euthyphro has been used to question the existence Gs as defined.
    Going by definitions only is already suspect in itself, and the Euthyphro is applicable to some such definitions.
    If a definition along with the Euthyphro leads to something incoherent, then G does not exist as defined.
    No problem if G isn't real. Hm maybe there should have been an explicit voting option for that, no matter, just use the 3rd.
    jorndoe Options
  • Deleted User
    0
    This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
    Deleted User Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories