Euthyphro dilemma

The Euthyphro Dilemma is a philosophical and theological problem, which was rudimentary first formulated by the Greek philosopher Plato in his fictional, literary dialogue Euthyphro designed.

Problem

Generally speaking, it comes to the question of whether something is so ethically correct because it corresponds to the will of a deity, or whether it is in and of itself ethically right and is wanted for this reason of the deity. If the ethically right thing is defined as the Godly, concepts such as "good" and "right" not have its own content, but say only that something is willed by a deity. Then all ethical statements to statements about the divine will can be reduced and the Ethics does not own criteria by which they could judge something. In this case, there is no ethics as an independent philosophical discipline. If on the other hand has the right thing to its own characteristics, which establish its definition, the Godliness is not a part of the definition and therefore not a criterion for ethical judgments. In this case, there is an ethical standard to which the deity is bound, provided that the statement "God is good" or " The gods are good," should apply to. Thus, this standard appears to be the highest instance that is even superior to the divine will. This is not compatible with some theological doctrines.

The discussion in the Euthyphro

In Plato's dialogue Euthyphro the interlocutors, the philosopher Socrates and his fellow-citizens emphasized religious Euthyphro try to determine the nature of piety. The term τὸ ὅσιον (to hósion ) refers to " the Pious ", ie the right or obligation Proper. A proposed definition Euthyphrons is: " So what is the gods love is pious; what is not loving, ruthless. " This definition is checked for their veracity and been clarified to indicate that what all the gods love is pious. But it proves to be inadequate. Socrates used: "Consider this: If the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved? " He believes that the pious should not be equated with the God lover; something is god- loved because it is loved by the gods, the Pious, however, loved by them because it is pious. The determination of the pious loved by the gods, is not a statement about the nature of the pious, but only about what happens to the pious. Euthyphro have therefore says nothing about what the Pious. Euthyphro sees that.

Walking on the consistency of individual parts of the argument put forward by Socrates in the research, opinions differ; mainly, it is considered that it was not overall conclusive.

The views that can represent Plato in his dialogues from his teacher Socrates, can - if they are not ironic, but meant seriously - be regarded as an expression of his own position. Thus Plato was convinced that the ethically right thing can not be defined depending on the setting of the gods. For Plato, there was no " Euthyphro Dilemma ", but only a question that he had a clear answer in the dialogue. A dilemma came of it until much later in Christian theology, when it became clear that the autonomy of ethics is with some theological ideas difficult to reconcile.

Reception

The dialogue was not so understood that it reflects the idea of ​​God of Plato, but discusses the contemporary concepts of God. Plato's concept of God was discussed in philosophy in three different approaches. Here important:

" The metaphysical interpretation of Plato holds God to be identical with the uppermost idea that takes Plato in his dialogues. This view was first represented in the 19th century by Eduard Zeller. Zeller sees no other possibility of a coherent understanding of the " inner connection of the Platonic doctrine " but to accept the identity of the idea of good with God. "

Accordingly, there is also no Euthyphro dilemma, but is exclusively a problem of the conception of God, which in polytheism is first apparent.

In medieval times, the problem was discussed by Catholic theologians, but without reference to the dialogue of Plato, for he was then completely unknown in the Latin -speaking academic world. It is, therefore, although often used, but not very helpful to characterize the theological question of the justice of God with the Euthyphro dialogue. This highlights the problem in front of a polytheistic background, which differs significantly from the Christian question.

In modern theology and religious critical discourse is the question: "Will this moral good so commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it so morally good because it is commanded by God? "

In his 1927 published writing " Why I Am Not a Christian " ( Why I am not a Christian ) Bertrand Russell has the dilemma used as an argument against theistic moral reasoning:

"If you are quite sure there is a difference in between right and wrong, 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 in between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say did God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, did God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning Which is independent of God 's fiat, Because God's fiats are good and not good Independently of the mere factthat he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say it did is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but thatthey are in Their essence Logically anterior to God. If you are sure that there is a difference between right and wrong, you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God's commandments or not? If it is because of God's commandments, then there is for God himself there is no difference between good and evil, and it is thus no longer a meaningful statement to say that God is good. If you will say how theologians do, that God is good, you must also say that right and wrong have a meaning which is independent of God's commandments, commandments of God are good and not good, regardless of the mere fact that he who created them. If you say that, you have to say that right and wrong are not only created by God, but preceded it logical in their nature too. "

Russell discussed here do not have the option of the identity of God with the good par excellence. He seems to be fixated on a dichotomy between God and the good.

Michael Schmidt -Salomon also argues in this sense against a theological moral reasoning:

Michael Schmidt -Salomon also builds here on the distinction between God and the good. It is common in almost any religion to distinguish between God and the good.