The Euthyphro Dilemma

[Vergil]

So the title says everything.

What do you think about it, milords and miladies?

[RickD]

It's generally recognized as a false dichotomy.

[Vergil]

It's generally recognized as a false dichotomy.

Care to explain milord?

[Storyteller]

I know nothing about this and google isnt really helping!

What is it?

[Vergil]

I know nothing about this and google isnt really helping!

What is it?

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

[Storyteller]

Both?

Isn't it a bit like what came first? Chicken or the egg type thing.

[Vergil]

Both?

Isn't it a bit like what came first? Chicken or the egg type thing.

Honestly, I'm confused as well, I don't know how to approach this . . . this . . . "Dilemma" milady.

[Storyteller]

Have you read Jac's book? Divine Simplicity? If you haven't, please do
I think it will help you see things a bit more clearly.

Okay, is morality good because it originates from God or did God mchoose morality? Thinking as I type hereso bear with me.
God is.
Everything has to come from, originate with Him as He is the creator, the beginning, the end.

God created, declared things good. Could that be the start of morality? God cannot be immoral. Ergo, it must begin with God.


Bet that hasnt helped, has it?

[Vergil]

Have you read Jac's book? Divine Simplicity? If you haven't, please do
I think it will help you see things a bit more clearly.

Okay, is morality good because it originates from God or did God mchoose morality? Thinking as I type hereso bear with me.
God is.
Everything has to come from, originate with Him as He is the creator, the beginning, the end.

God created, declared things good. Could that be the start of morality? God cannot be immoral. Ergo, it must begin with God.


Bet that hasnt helped, has it?

I planned on tackling the topic of Divine Simplicity, but alas, I have yet to reach the minds of the greatest of philosophers.


Yes, you are correct milady

[Jac3510]

The false assumption in the question is that "goodness" is in some since distinct from God's nature, as if it were a thing that He either possessed (like I possess the property of sight--I am not sight, I just have that property, so that I can see) or else He strives to possess (like I strive to possess the property of being a good husband). But the assumption is incorrect. God's nature and Good are absolutely identical. So the question, as stated, is meaningless.

[Vergil]

The false assumption in the question is that "goodness" is in some since distinct from God's nature, as if it were a thing that He either possessed (like I possess the property of sight--I am not sight, I just have that property, so that I can see) or else He strives to possess (like I strive to possess the property of being a good husband). But the assumption is incorrect. God's nature and Good are absolutely identical. So the question, as stated, is meaningless.

If i may ask, milord, how can God's nature and Goodness be absolutely identical? (forgive me if you this question silly)

[Storyteller]

Because God doesn't have goodness, He is goodness.

edited to give Him a capital G.

[Jac3510]

It's not a silly question, and the answer is not simple. Let me try to get your thinking going this way: do you accept the idea that evil is not a thing in and of itself but rather is a lack of something (namely, good)? Just like darkness is not a thing but a lack of light and coldness is not a thing but rather a lack of heat?

So this tells us that goodness is a real thing. But further, I would suggest that goodness is not a separate existence added to a thing, such that if it has it, the thing is good and if it lacks it, the thing is not good. Rather, goodness relates to a thing existing as it ought to, as it is ordered to. So an eye is good if it sees (if it lacks sight, it is bad). A dog can bark and has all four legs is better than one born without those things. The human who acts in a rational and empathetic manner acts better than one who acts in an irrational, spiteful manner. So, again, something is good if it exists the way it ought to, and it is evil to the extent that it lacks the existence it ought to have. Thus, good is simply existence thought in a certain way.

God's nature is pure existence (more literally, that which is the cause of all existence). His nature is not distinct from His existence. That is just what He is. The Latin is ipsum esse subsistens--existence existing in itself. As such, He cannot lack any existence He ought to have. He simply Is (and so, He is I AM). Thus, He is Good, not as a property attributed to Him, but because to be good is to exist; to be bad is to fail to exist (as how one ought to, with respect to one's nature). Thus, God simply IS Good. Put differently, Good is what God is.

edit:

Or as Annette put it much more simply just above!

[Vergil]

It's not a silly question, and the answer is not simple. Let me try to get your thinking going this way: do you accept the idea that evil is not a thing in and of itself but rather is a lack of something (namely, good)? Just like darkness is not a thing but a lack of light and coldness is not a thing but rather a lack of heat?

So this tells us that goodness is a real thing. But further, I would suggest that goodness is not a separate existence added to a thing, such that if it has it, the thing is good and if it lacks it, the thing is not good. Rather, goodness relates to a thing existing as it ought to, as it is ordered to. So an eye is good if it sees (if it lacks sight, it is bad). A dog can bark and has all four legs is better than one born without those things. The human who acts in a rational and empathetic manner acts better than one who acts in an irrational, spiteful manner. So, again, something is good if it exists the way it ought to, and it is evil to the extent that it lacks the existence it ought to have. Thus, good is simply existence thought in a certain way.

God's nature is pure existence (more literally, that which is the cause of all existence). His nature is not distinct from His existence. That is just what He is. The Latin is ipsum esse subsistens--existence existing in itself. As such, He cannot lack any existence He ought to have. He simply Is (and so, He is I AM). Thus, He is Good, not as a property attributed to Him, but because to be good is to exist; to be bad is to fail to exist (as how one ought to, with respect to one's nature). Thus, God simply IS Good. Put differently, Good is what God is.

edit:

Or as Annette put it much more simply just above!

Hmmm, I admit I'm confused yet somehow I can understand it, I just need to study the topic to comprehend it.

Thank you for the answers milord.

[Storyteller]

Let yourself absorb it, you do know it, you feel it. and do, do read Jacs book.