Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Euthyphro - Summer 2020
23
Plato - Euthyphro
Background
This is a tough dialogue to find yourself in the middle of.
Background
The question is: what is holiness?
The Euthyphro in PHI192
We've encountered cultural relativism.
We saw that it had some flaws, but we were hesitant about committing to a fully universal moral code. In part, that was because it was tough to come up with a definition which applied across the board.
In PHI192
The Euthyphro is an attempt to justify a universal moral code. That is, it provides an answer to the question: "what makes an action wrong (or right)?"
Socrates (c.470-399BCE)
A general pain - pestered people with endless questions about big questions. It got him a lot of fans, and it also got him killed.
Socrates
We know about him through the writings of his student, Plato, who recorded many of his conversations. The characteristic Socratic dialogues serve as good prompts for thinking. They present no clear answers, but convincingly undermine popular, unreflective beliefs.
The Euthyphro
The "setting" of the dialogue
Socrates is hanging out outside the Athenian courthouse. There, he meets Euthyphro who is prosecuting a case.
Upon Socrates' prompt, Euthyphro presents himself as an authority on religious matters.
Euthyphro's First Answer
The First Answer
An example is not a definition!
Reactions?
Why can't examples be enough?
Or is it...?
There are a number of reasons. Here are two.
First, when we have examples, but no definition of goodness, we can't decide whether any new thing we encounter is good or not.
Second, examples don't really tell us why the good things are good!
There are other reasons. Hopefully you can see how giving examples is not the same as giving a definition.
Goodness instead?
What if, in response to the question "what makes actions right or wrong?", I were to respond:
What about goodness in general?
"Being good is having sympathy for the unfortunate, being courageous in the face of injustice, having my friends' back, and always bringing enough to share!"
Euthyphro's Second Definition
The Second Answer
Well, since the Greeks had many gods, and the gods tended to disagree with one another about many things, this definition has to get amended. Euthyphro settles on this:
Is this a better definition?
You probably don't think Zeus and Aphrodite have much to do with whether it's okay to cheat on a test or to recklessly contribute to climate change. But maybe whatever God you subscribe to does...
So, let's focus on the following universal moral code:
Improved?
"The good things are whatever God wants us to do, the bad things are whatever God wants us to not do."
A New Problem?
Do the gods love what is holy because it's holy, or is it holy because the gods love it?
A New Problem?
The Text
The "Euthyphro Problem"
Is murder evil because God hates murder?
or
Does God hate murder because murder is evil?
In other words...
Murder is evil.
Which is it???
Visually
God hates murder.
Murder is evil because God hates murder
But why? Why does God hate murder?
Murder is evil because God hates murder!
Notice - this a different question than before. We were, before, asking about a moral fact. Now, we're asking about God's preferences or reasons for God's choices.
God hates murder because murder is wrong?
Realism
Great. God has a reason for hating murder.
But, if that's the case, what really matters is the wrongness of murder, not what God prefers or hates!
God hates murder because God hates murder!
Circularity
But then we haven't answered the question: why does God hate murder?
God just hates murder - there's no further explanation for that!
Ad Hockery
Maybe. In that case, it really is God's preference which matters to morality.
But does that sound very God-like - to prefer things for no reason at all? Aren't choices made for no reason seemingly less important or less worth paying attention to?
God has some reason for hating murder - we'll just never know it.
Mysticism
That sounds plausible enough.
But that doesn't change the fact that either
(a) there's no reason for God's preference,
(b) God prefers what She prefers just because God prefers it, or
(c) God's preference is due to the wrongness of murder.
God hates murder because murder is evil!
This answer does not encounter the earlier problems.
God hates murder because murder is evil!
But, then, it seems like the evil of murder has nothing to do with God in the first place!
(One) Lesson from the Euthyphro Problem:
Moral judgments cannot be based on divine commands.*
The Takeaway
If God prefers X because X is good, something other than God's preference makes X good.
If God prefers X for some other reason, or for no reason at all, it's not clear why we should care about God's preference.
Can divine authority still be relevant to our moral reasoning in some other way?
Asterisk
Let's turn to some more pedestrian authorities to see...
The Bigger Point
This dialogue isn't only about what the gods love.
The point can be generalized: why should authorities matter to our moral judgments?
Today's Euthyphro Problem
Does _________ forbid murder because murder is wrong, or is murder wrong because________ forbid murder?
Today's Euthyphro Problem
Murder is wrong.
Which is it???
Visually
____ forbids murder.
Who are the moral authorities?
Why does the authority forbid murder?
Murder is wrong because ______ forbids it!
...because murder is wrong?
Realism
But, then, why does the authority matter?
...just because they do!
Circularity
We haven't answered the question!
... for no reason at all!
But then why should we care?
Ad Hockery
.... for some reason obscure to us!
Mysticism
But that doesn't change the fact that either
(a) there's no reason for the preference,
(b) the authority is its own reason, or
(c) the reason is due to the wrongness of murder.
______ forbids murder because murder is wrong!
But then, why do we need the authority?
There are no moral authorities.
A Radical Conclusion
Nobody has any reason to appeal to anybody else in figuring out what's right and wrong.
People are authorities based on knowledge
We defer to people who know more than we do about special issues. So maybe some people know more about morality than others?
A Moderate Conclusion
We can all be some authority
Everybody can access moral knowledge - it's not hidden behind any expertise which we can't get at!