The script to this video is part of... - The Philosophy of Religion Part II eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe2 - The Philosophy Vibe paperback Anthology Vol 1, 'Philosophy of Religion' available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1
I really wish this chanel could be discovered by a lot of people. Usually carries lots of meaning content that broadens our horizon. Thanks for the great show.
Thank you very much, so happy to see you find this content useful. This channel is growing, slowly but surely, and we're happy to be reaching new people every day :)
on the contrary. The flaw in the "reasoning" behind as to why point one is wrong is simply the description of God's nature. Our God (Christian) is an all loving God who would never command the deaths of his own creations. You can't say "oh you will never know," because of the mere fact that we do know. We do know that God would not want us to kill anyone because then that would violate his many rules he has set out. Even if God commands you to do something, you can not reason why due to the fact that God operates on a higher scale of reason. He sees all outcomes and has a reason as to making you do something.
@@nicholasdo5763 bruh ever heard of the ten plagues lol. Also he commanded the invasion of Canaan. Never killing his creation lol 🤔lol I forgot he commanded Abraham to kill his own son also.
I'm currently taking an Ethics class right now, and this video was very beneficial. I've noticed that many people use the argument that our morality comes from our cultures, not God himself, but our culture gets their morality from somewhere as well. Is it God himself? God created people, which lead to the creations of cultures, families, etc. My other argument is that what God finds is morally good, is good. So let's say someone believes in DCT and follows what God believes is moral. If God said that killing people was morally good, and someone that follows DCT argued the arbitrariness objection, wouldn't that make Divine Command Theory wrong?
The good is expressed in Gods nature. God would not and could not say that killing people is good. That would be going against his very nature which He can’t do.
@@lennyrobo4293doesn’t that imply that god is limited and therefore not all powerful? If he can’t make commands that go against his nature like, “killing puppies is morally right” than we have another problem that questions how powerful god is
@@fantazypointz1054 God is all powerful and can do anything that is possible. It’s impossible to do certain things like draw a round square or be a married bachelor. If God is perfectly good how then could he command evil?
@@lennyrobo4293Well no that’s actually not true. God has ordered the killing of young, old, innocent, and guilty man, woman, child, and beast multiple times in the Old Testament, for a variety of different reasons many of which I find to be morally incorrect. There is also slavery, child abuse, rape, and other things condoned by God.
@@lennyrobo4293 That's not true, in all Judeo Christian texts God has commanded people to slaughter others or has done it himself, man, woman, child, and beast so your argument doesn't really work. Take the siege of the canities and the other nations surrounding Israel. No one was spared also there are many causes in the bible where other nations most people were slaughtered except for the virgin girls which God commanded Moses and his men to take for their pwn pleasure. If DCT was real this would be a good thing, wouldn't it?
Perhaps something worth noting is the framework with which Plato was working: Plato's original dialogue, obviously, was written in ancient Athens. That society was polytheistic and therefore many gods are added to the equation. The interlocutors depicted in the dialogue were trying to define piety, and one of the first suggested definitions was "that which pleases the gods." This idea was quickly scrapped because the gods of their tradition were frequently at each other's throats, making it very difficult to find specific, tangible things which would adequately please all of them.
Currently reading Euthyphro for class, and from my understanding, piety, and as such morality, stands on its own. The gods commanded piety because of it existing as a pious idea, so of course it wouldn't make sense for piety to be that which is commanded of the gods when the gods themselves interpret piety differently. Interesting stuff!
In my Engineering Ethics class, we learned about Divine Command Theory and three arguments against it. The Euthyphro Dilemma was not one of them, but after seeing mentioned many times on RedditI figured I had to investigate and find out exactly what it is. One of the arguments that we went over in class said that "if DCT was correct, there is an objective will of God that is binding on all people. We could never know of the objective will of God that is morally binding on all people.So DCT is incorrect. I feel that this is a fair argument, we never could know of the objective will of God. Another argument we considered was known as the Arbitrariness Objection. It says that "if DCT is right then morality is arbitrary (because God could decide on it for any reason at all). Some moral wrongs are so for deep fundamental reasons are not arbitrary. So DCT is not right. An example used in class was that torturing kids for fun was fundamentally wrong. This argument is fair in my opinion, but I think the other argument is better. The third argument we discussed in class is known as the Emptiness Objection. It says that "if DCT is right then 'good' means 'willed by god'. Saying 'God's will is good' is saying something positive about God. Saying 'God's will is willed by God' is saying something trivial, not something positive. So DCT is not right." In all honesty I don't really understand this argument. I understand the English, but I don't see why the point needs to be made. Anyway, onto the content of the video. I thought that the second point of the dilemma made a lot of sense. If morality is a pre set list of rights and wrongs that God follows, then what is the point of God. If he is all powerful and all knowing, surely he would be in charge of deciding what is morally right and wrong. This brings us to the first point, the one that I think is somewhat reaching. To say that morality is based on how God feels and that it could change at any moment does not make sense to me. If God is sitting at his heavenly dinner table and suddenly has some epiphany and decides that something which was morally wrong is now morally right, how is that information going to be relayed to humanity. It is not as if we have biweekly check-ins with God so he can fill us in on changes like this. I am not religious, but I imagine what God deems moral and immoral is written in the Bible, Qur'an, and other holy texts, which to my knowledge do not change and, with the exception of maybe font, format, and cover art, have been the same for many many years, and so God's morality is not something that can change at the drop of a dime, or at least is not something humanity can perceive. I think that if I were a very religious person, this dilemma, the other arguments I mentioned above, and Divine Command Theory as a whole would mean more and make more sense to me.
Have you considered that the dilemma is a false dilemma as it assumes only two options? A third option and taken by most theist philosophers is that Morality is a reflection of Gods nature and so found in him. Because God by nature is kind, loving and compassionate his commands reflect that nature. He could never say killing for fun is right because that conflicts with his nature. This implies his commands aren’t arbitrary either.
@Lenny Robo that relegates God to a deist conception and therefore doesn't answer the dilemma because it necessarily casts God as an agent with no free will which makes this God indistinguishable from nature itself. Besides all monotheistic religion breaks down if you deny the image bearer doctrine that man is made in his image. He gave us free will from the get go. If God doesn't have free will, why would he burden us with free will and claim we are made in his image? Goodness in the monotheistic worldview necessitates a morality whose only source is what God wills. God can not will something that is a natural attribute of his that he had no control in its expression or formation.
@@wisdomsnap8695 sorry I’m not sure how that follows that God has no freewill. Scripture is filled with His will. He chose to create us with free will. God is perfectly good. He never chooses to do evil because that is what being perfectly good is. We on the other hand are not perfectly good and so we sometimes choose to do what is evil.
@Lenny Robo What choices can God make other than the single perfect choice in any given moment? Or do you ascribe to the idea that God can just change morality to whatever he wills? That he can just come down and decide at any moment that it is good to commit adultery for instance? If he can't, then he has no free will. Being incapable of choosing anything other than the perfect choice because it is God's "nature" is the definition of not having free will.
I also just read it and I felt like my brain pieces were being taken by the spoonful and all burned or frozen at random and thrown back into a different vessel
I am of the school of thought that God commands us to do good because God has full understanding of what is moral and what is immoral. If humans seek God and follow God’s Devine commands (according to religious text) then we will do good and live well. God has given us all an ounce of knowledge as to what is good and what is not. Even when we choose to do wrong, we still have a “feeling” that we are doing the wrong thing and we choose to ignore it.
It's a dilemma that really didn't need to happen because Its a false dilemma. "What comes first, God or morality?" It ignores the very real possibility that God simply is morality. He is goodness. It's intrinsic in His nature. Since subjectivity is derived from someone's feelings or opinions, then morality would not be subjective, as existing without cause, and a part of someone's nature.
@@dorcas7222 No because The issue with the dilemma is that morality has to have come from outside of God, or it has to be an entity apart from God. Really, Goodness, Which morality is based upon in which you cannot have morality without, Is God. It is a part of His nature. It is His essence. Morality is God. They're not separate, Nor are they apart from each other created by one another.
It seems to be a Solution indeed, but i must asure you, that it is non. For the entire Dilemma would indeed disapear, but god too. It is simply wrong to say, that Something other then goodness is goodness, meaning it in the identical sense. For what is identical is one and the Same, and by that, has to it all the Same. But neither is goodness capable of anything, Nor is god supposed to be Not to. It further does Not solve the Problem of knowledge about it, as one would need to understand goodness again in the First place. Goodness, as Truth does neither need a source, Nor a 'garantie'. They are simply, what they are. Eternal and one. Just Like being.
@davsamp7301 Despite our saying God is goodness, it is not comprable to saying He is only goodness. Goodness is not a quality, as material. If I were to say. God is wood, He can't be metal. Or if He were, He'd be percentages. God isnt percentages of anything. However, immaterial properties don't have percentages. They're not exclusive. You can be all powerful, all good, all loving, etc, without having percentages, or having to make all those identical. If they're immaterial properties, then they're non-causal, but they don't replace the mind which causes. If i'm correctly understanding your statement of the problem of knowledge about it, And if the "it" is supposed to be "goodness", Then I'd say the problem of knowing good is solved if you are it. There is no problem about knowing who @DavSamp is if you are him/her. There's no problem knowing how to hunt for food, if it's in your nature to hunt, etc. You say goodness doesn't need a source. I'd like to know what your worldview is, as any refute I give will be less effective if I'm going against false ideas. You say it doesn't need a source, it just is eternal. Something, dependant upon unalive processes via reality, cannot be objective. If science was another way, so too, could morality be. Or if it comes from man, it's merely opinion. I agree goodness is a fact, eternal. It is so, as it is God's nature. And He is eternal.
It raises questions about where morality comes from and why we should obey it- why would an omnipotent creator submit to a morality He did not create? Also this question can invite circular reasoning, as it is morality itself that determines what "bad" even is. You'd still have to explain where morality comes from, why we or God should follow it etc
I don't think that's circular. It's basically one of the most fundamental logical rules that something equals itself. That A=A. It makes the question meaning less not the answer to the dilemma. If God and good are synonyms the the dilemma is just why is God God or why is good good. Does good decide what is good? It would be like asking does the color red decide what the color red is and does that make red arbitrary. If God and good are the same thing the dilemma breaks down.
@@mitslev4043 Your definition of the good is void of content. Using identity to prove the existence of the Good cuts both ways. God exists because the Good exists. But to insist that there can't be the Good without God is not arguing from identity. It's the classic fallacy of begging the question. Since you have already defined God as Goodness without any independent reason for its existence you have literally concluded with your premise. Circle. I could prove the existence of unicorns with that logic. Unicorns exist BY DEFINITION.
@@thethikboy except I'm not trying to prove God exists. I'm only solving a dilemma. But it's would not be circular even then. How would I be defining God as existing? I'm only defining him as goodness. Unless you think goodness exists? But even then we are talking about something different. Your outside source could be the emanations of goodness since we are talking about something metaphysical. We would have a sense of good.
@@mitslev4043 you're trying to prove the Good only exists because God does. That makes them synonymous BY DEFINITION since you have no other independent basis to affirm that God is Good. Basically it's no different than saying the Good exists because God is God. I'm getting dizzy with all the circular logic. There can't be objective reality including truth itself without God. Funny how the theorems of Euclid don't need a God postulate.
Not necessarily Elijah,Christin here. (watching and learning like everyone else here). as someone in the faith for years now I have a few things come to mind as I approach this video. There is black and white morality in the Bible: Do not blaspheme the lords name. Pretty straight forward. No need to ever do it. Ever. And then we approach killing others as proposed by this video. My answer in a nutshell is Soverignty. This is not a cop out answer. Of course killing is immoral for us Christians. But I'llbring up a popular topic from the old testament. God instructed Israel to kill the Canaanites. Odd rite? Well the Canaanites had a vow to always oppose the God of Israel Isaac and Jacob and to instruct their future generations to also do so as well. As a JUST God he would have to sentence them ALL to damnation for generations..unless...he intervened and cut it off ahead of time before many more lives got involved. He is Merciful and just at the same time.
@@Taco-jitsu he's omnipotent right? So why don't he just change the minds of caananites. I mean he built everything just by word why don't he do it with his word again?
@@Taco-jitsu I advise you to watch a video called "god vs abortion" by a channel named darkmatter2525. So that you can see why your conclusion is irrelevant.
@@earl5270 He can Earl. Matter of fact there are places in the bible where he does. Just like when he hardened Pharao's heart against Israel. God showed he can and yet he shows that it is not his will to do so everywhere, every time. Wer're talking about an infinite being here. We have his laws and the scriptures and by them man has been judged. The canaanites swore to be at war with Israel forever. Big no no towards Gods chosen people.
@@no-vo9bm It is actually not irrelevant. Based on the video. the darkmatter video twists the intention of God into a cruel narrrative. You mean to tell me the author of life cannot take life? How arrogant to believe an all powerful creator cannot rightly decide everything and anything is up to him, for him. Also it is quite western to believe God owes man anything at all. including a chance at life when all we deserve is death on account of sin. Yet his goodness gives you and I a chance to repent and rebel against him no more.
@@mitslev4043 Except they aren't and in order to make the leap you have to redifine God in the first place. I also have to ask: Is Gods character the way it is because it is good? Or is it good simply because it is Gods character?
@@claytonveno3710 not really. Because when we are talking about god we are talking about good as a think in its self. Not as an adjective. When I way God is good it's the same as saying a tree is a tree.
I don't think this is much of a dilemma. I believe the second point is true: God commands what is morally good. The fact that he is bound by morality doesn't make him any less omnipotent, just as being bound by logic doesn't mean he's not omnipotent. It just means he won't choose to go against his moral character and do things that are immoral. Just because you choose not to do something doesn't mean you couldn't do it. Now, even God can't do anything illogical. For example, he can't move an unmoveable mountain because if he did, the mountain wouldn't be unmoveable, and he still wouldn't have moved an unmoveable mountain. Still, being all-powerful doesn't require to be able to do things that are not logically possible. Similarly, being all-powerful doesn't you must do things that go against what you would choose to do.
I see the morality similarly to 1+1=2 God created the universe with it's own rules, yes he can change it but it would make as much sense as making everything solid liquid and vice versa. At least in our own eyes that is. A universe that is used to 1+1=fish would have problems understanding our 1+1=2 as much as we would have problems understanding a universe that is founded over different to our morality.
I disagree, morality is not something like 1+1=2. I think it is subjective in any case and it can only be 1+1=2 if you arbitrarily decide on a standard for your morality. One standard people arbitrarily choose is the bible or another standard would be human well being. Within these subjective standards you can then objectively come to moral conclusions
Indeed, morality is of s similar Nature insofar, as it is logical and objective. But you make a thin mistake, when you suggest, that the Rules of the universe, or at least those of Logic and all related to it where Not only created, but also Out of many other possibilities. It is wrong, because there are no other possibilities and this World with at least These laws is necessary. Further, they cannot have been created, for they are eternal by Nature, for it would otherwise be contradictory.
This is based on the anthropomorphic version, the Christian God but there's much more to this. Integral Theory created by Ken Wilber has helped put all into perspective(s).
The Christian God was not created yet by Greeks when this dilemma was written, however it is a precursor to Christian thought, which is why it seems so similar. To understand God in philosophy, one has to remove the cultural aspect on many people's perspectives of him, meaning, to remove all the stories presented in the Torah, the bible, The Qura'n, and more, but only see God as two things, All-knowing, and All-Powerful. We only now personify him because of our cultural understanding of God, but in reality the same argument presents itself when you depersonify him.
What if God did create the rules of morality And he commits to follow and abide by them himself no matter what Meaning- he follows them even when it's difficult Or he doesn't change them anytime after the original creation of these framework along with creation of the universe?
Regardless of whether or not God chooses to forever stay true to these rules, the fact still stands that he could in theory change them if he wanted to. If he created them, he CAN change them. He doesn't NEED to change them, just the fact that he CAN is enough to make morality arbitrary. Also, he doesn't exactly follow all of the moral commands he imposes on humans in the Bible. God (especially OT God) is lowkey an abuser, at least by the standards that humans are held to. And if we are held to a moral standard that God isn't also held to, morality makes no sense. Humans are supposed to follow God's example in every way, but if we did so by following the abusive actions he commits, we would no longer be moral.
@@purplespinach17 he cannot change them it is there before the universe began he is it and he cannot change. Its logically impossible its like asking can God make a stone he can not lift no he cannot
I would agree with 1st point, being for that which is Good is because because has so as the omnipotent and omniscient being, for example you would have to conclude that which God commands you to kill .. which he does in the Bible is done for the right reason never for evil, hence the moral laws in which he has placed. If God commanded me to kill someone it is not wrong bc God has commanded me for the right reasons it could never be the incorrect one, and also God has the right to take away life if he is the all mighty and knowing creator
Perhaps this isn’t a dilemma, as there is an alternative, and thus it is not an inescapable dilemma. Which is “God wills something because God *is* good.” God himself is the paradigm of goodness, and his will reflects his character. God is loving, kind, fair, impartial, generous, and so forth, and therefore there would be no possible world in which hatred is good.
Really? Which God are you talking about? Because you can easily find a lot of violent and ferocious commands in the sacred texts of all religions. So, go and kill the infidels.
Dream Weaver I’m not referencing any specific religion. I simply stated a solid argument, this isn’t truly a dilemma anymore in modern philosophy. As it is an escapable dilemma and therefore not a true dilemma. God himself is the paradigm of goodness, any deviation from that definition would be a misrepresentation of God and thus is made up by man. I think you have missed the point and are hung up on non-philosophical ideas.
@@astroedsastrophotographych4562 I agree with you, God is goodness; unfortunately, this kind of knowledge, which allows escaping the dilemma (it requires to know what God is and/or what goodness is) only belongs to God, while is unknown to humans. What Socrates meant was simply that you cannot use God as a moral argument.
Dream Weaver This is flawed reasoning. Why is it flawed you may ask, because while man can’t have a perfect understanding of God which is the paradigm of goodness, he can have a finite knowledge of goodness.Thus he can use that finite knowledge of goodness as a basis for a moral argument.
@@astroedsastrophotographych4562 Finally, we agreed. Human beings only have a finite understanding of what good (human morality) is. This is what Socrates and Kant meant claiming that we do not have acces to absolute knowledge, neither of God nor of His nature (absolute goodness). What we have in religion is revelation(s) and faith. This is what God meant for us, because if we 'knew' about Him there would be NO freedom of choice, nor value in faith. Can we agee on this, AstroEd's?
First, morals exist in the real world, they don't come from holy books. Second, the right option is the third option, which says: Something is good when it comes from God because God is good.
I don't think that solves the dilemma. If we identify God's nature with good, we've just created a new dilemma: Is God's nature said to be good in virtue of God having it, or is God's nature said to be good in virtue of some other standard? All we've done here is push the problem from God's will/command to God's nature, solving nothing. Not only this, but if we equate God's nature with good, then it raises the question of why we ought to do things that align with God's nature anyway. More questions and objections arise, like, is something good because it reflects God's nature, or does God's nature reflect what is good? Is God's nature good because it reflects an external standard of good, or is it good because God's nature is the standard? Is God's nature subject to his will, or is his will subject to his nature? Does God choose his nature, or is does god have no control over his nature? In all of these questions, one answer makes God irrelevant and the other makes morality abitrary. Also, if God = objective moral goodness, then the moral argument (without God, objective morality can't exist and since objective morality does exist, then God exists) reduces to: Without God, God can't exist. God exists, therefore God exists.
Hi Alisha. We have covered it a little bit in our Philosophy of Mind Part 2 Video: ruclips.net/video/1MZGRHdIjfw/видео.html We are looking to do another video exploring it deeper.
I would still side with option one where God is the one who decides what is and what isn’t good. I don’t see it as a problem that it can be changed as however God decides since given that God is the creator, he is the one who decides. This specially since objectively good and evil are human concepts that also change with time and between cultures, so even having God as the ultimate authority who chooses is more stable than how it is and God doesn’t necessarily need to have a changing morality, being a perfect being he may already have created the perfect morality (which not necessarily aligns with ours)
Saying “he may already have created the perfect morality” is saying that morality doesn’t come from god. If god is the standard, whatever moral preferences he happens to have at that moment *is* the perfect morality, by definition, so there wouldn’t be a separate standard by which to judge if something is good or bad.
This isn't a dilemma for monotheist depictions of God (as is the depiction in this video). It's a dilemma for polytheist systems like ancient Greece, which this theory is derived from. The idea that morality must be above the gods is true, but it merely points towards a monotheistic worldview---that God is not only the enforcer of morality, but he himself *is* the morality that's being enforced.
@@louisuchihatm2556 My instinct is to say that (1) God is divine good and (2) morality is a human intuition in which the heart informs the mind that good is better than evil. Thus, to live morally is to act in a way that manifests that divine good.
@@williamt0ll "God is morality that's being enforced" "morality is the intuition on which the heart imforms the mind that good is better than evil." The task you clearly have is connecting the two above sentences.
@@louisuchihatm2556 I was unclear. The first sentence wasn't meant to claim that God and morality metaphysically one and the same thing. Morality as an intuition can be likened to the knowledge of good and evil, so it emanates from divine truth which ultimately is God. I do not mean to reduce God to a mere human intuition.
@@avivastudios2311 does morality needs to come from somewhere? Many find their being an origin for things to be a form of comfort or reasoning. It's how we deal with an indifferent reality. Our type of reasoning does not meld with reality thus we create reasons as to why. These reasons are all very human. However an indifferent reality lacks a human answer . To us it is too much. So for morality I feel its all just ever present without the whims of a deity(s). I liken to be the same as emotional reactions, intuitions, dreams and even things like energy and gravity. This is also not a halt to searching for a reason why things are. This is just the present answer I have. Henceforth I feel the christian deity at least as interpreted by believers today, alongside this dilemma is logically impossible.
@@seermayton-el3488 I don't remember the last time an agnostic said it was logically impossible for God to exist. That's weird. Did you change your mind, dude? Even if I wasn't a Christian, I wouldn't say that it was logically impossible for God to exist. That doesn't make sense. Especially since the God in question doesn't necessarily have to be the Christian God. So if I'm agnostic I'd be open to different types of deities and ideas like polytheism and deism. Maybe there's a God who is completely neutral.
@avivastudios2311 your definition of agnosticism is partially true. Agnostics in the truest sense philsophically are individuals who are searching for evidence of deity and therfore suspend a stance. Some are more hardline and say there is no way to prove whether or not a deity(s) exist. Soft agnostic leave the door open. An atheist is someone who denies belief in any deity(s). They seek to take an even stronger stance than a hard agnostic. This is what distinguishes the two. I think for me the impression I give is that of scottish philosopher David Hume. Many think he was an atheist due to how much he criticized religion. However he was more of an agnostic searching for the truth. Many define god(s) in many ways. I was speaking within the context of the the Christian and to put it to a greater extent Abrahamic god (God of Chistianity, Islam, Judaism.) Since that was my faith beforehand. From my learning of concepts like in the video I found it to be logically defunct. My stance in my previous statment does not rule out a deistic god. However that falls out of the perview of the mythology involving the Abrahamic god. Similar to there being multiple gods within the Abrahamic faiths. All this being said the god of the Abrahamic faith does not work within the concept of what we in my class call the All-PKG god. That being a god that is all powerful, all knowing, all good. This deity does not work within the bounds of the Euthyphro dilemma. One concept dminishes gods power. The other dminishes gods goodness and renders morality and our reaction to it trivial. Hence my statment
@avivastudios2311 your definition of agnosticism is partially true. Agnostics in the truest sense philsophically are individuals who are searching for evidence of deity. Some are more hardline and say there is no way to prove whether or not a deity(s) exist. Soft agnostic leave the door open. An atheist is someone who denies belief in any deity(s). They seek to take an even stronger stance than a hard agnostic. This is what distinguishes the two. I think for me the impression I give is that of scottish philosopher David Hume. Many think he was an atheist due to how much he criticized religion. However he was more of an agnostic searching for the truth. Many define god(s) in many ways. So within the context of the the Christian mythology and to put it to a greater extent Abrahamic god (God of Chistianity, Islam, Judaism.) I find it to be logically defunct especially given the dillema in the video. While my statment may have been a hardline it was within the context of my former faith. I was not rule out a deistic god however that falls out of the perview of the mythology of the Abrahamic god. Similar to there being multiple gods within the Abrahamic faiths. Each of these don't work within the rules and myths involving the abrahamic god though. In the faith god is personal and is as each one state "the one true god" Henceforth given the topic and its context I gave my claim
there is a missed point here. ITs not up to how god feels its about what god commands. on top of that, god doesnt come to you to command you to kill.thou shalt not kill.
@@jeffhampton7405 you should read the Old Testament then read the New Testament. God sent his son to bring a new covenant which did away with the ways of the old.
Wait a minute. Command and Create are entirely different. If God created all that is Good, then it would reason that God is Good. If god commanded you to slew your neighbor. Then you would have to analyze the command in detail. You might not be commanded by God but by something else entirely. Euthyphro called it, Piety is justice in relation to the gods, plural. This video puts forth the idea of a singular God.
Did God create everything? If so, he also created all that is bad, and it would reason God is bad. Also, the Bible details God slaughtering and telling people to slaughter in like every other chapter. Was the Bible written by something else entirely?
Couldn’t you argue that because God is all-knowing and benevolent, He is able to decide what is the most moral way. He isn’t being given this by a superior, it’s what He has concluded with his omniscience. God set these morals because He knows that they are the best.
Still arbitrary but nevertheless trustworthy. I would state it as "Morality is decided upon by God. He creates it as part of the universe. Because it is as much a part of our universe as Gravity and chemistry, we can take the morality he created to be as fixed as gravity and chemistry, but not so fixed as 1+1=2
Even If so, it would Not solve the Problem, for If one knows Something, this Thing is that to which i refer, and is therefore Not only Independent of the act of knowledge, but also its reference. No God is to be trusted more then anyone Else, for everyone can say, that they have understood it all. And to then say, that a god would alone be capable of that, would Change nothing on the Point, that Noone is to be trusted more then Others for talking about it, If they dont demonstrate greater wisdom. But to do so, one must bring Others to understanding of These Things, which implies the Same Independent Nature of our object of reference again and our own Powers of reasoning, which are the Same as those of any god.
@@coreygossman6243 It seems alright but it's just the second argument again, you are saying its fixed and unchangeable by God, meaning God is no longer all-powerful because he created something he cannot change. You say that God decided morilty based upon something as well, which implies it still exists outside of him, implying he's only knowledgable of morality not the creator of morality. If you say "Well it isn't fixed for God, but he chooses not to change it" but the fact that he CAN change it, it is implying that morality is arbitrary. Which is the first argument again.
The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dichotomy limiting the Divine Command Theory to just two possible outcomes which has been explained great in the video. There is a third premise and has been answered many times theologically. That God's very nature is the standard of goodness and his commandments to us are expressions of his moral nature. Therefore morality is not arbitrary or independent of God, because God's own character defines what is good. The morally good or bad is determined by God's nature and the morally right or wrong is determined by God's will. God wills something because he is good and something is right because God wills it. This has been well defended by philosophers such as Robert Adams, William Alston and Phillip Quinn.
@MultiBagram Hi, I think you're missing the point that has been made by these philosophers, I think it's a valid answer to the dilemma and not an evasion of it, most scholars would agree which is why the modern skeptic doesn't use this argument in their debates with theologians. God himself is the paradigm of goodness, and his will reflects his character. God is by nature loving, kind, fair, impartial, generous, and so forth. Therefore, he could not have willed that, for example, hatred be good. That would be to contradict his very own nature. So therefore God wouldn't will something to be the opposite of his very essence. It just doesn't follow that God would change his very nature to fit a certain narrative. It is very well explained further by Dr William Lane Craig much better than probably I'm explaining it for you.
@MultiBagram It’s all good man, I’d have to ask as I don’t know your worldview but to say God in the bible does some horrible things I’d have to ask by what standard can you call it “horrible” as it’s heavily argued morality comes from God without the acknowledgement of God morality is just relative to the individual and there is no universal law or morality. Yet I’m sure we’d both agree it’s wrong to torture babies. It’s no longer a relative premise. I disagree though I think WLC is hugely knowledgeable on these topics and has had great debates on these questions. Ultimately I seek truth. And always do my best to not have a biased approach to arguments and look into both sides. If you have any material that you could point me to that you’ve found useful for your views please let me know.
@MultiBagram If you take God out of the equation then there is no morality? What do you then begin to replace it with? Without a moral law giver we would have to concede that everything is relative and it's only through our subjective notions that we call something wrong or good. If we're being consistent without the moral law giver we can't say what Hitler did to the Jews during WWII is wrong. From his point of view he thought he was doing right for the greater good of his people. We can take a step further and say this could just prove the case with eugenics or (survival of the fittest) but I don't believe for a second that we can keep that up for long or remain honest with that notion to admit that it was all relative that Hitler did what he did. I hope you're getting the point I'm trying to make here lol. CS Lewis had said that for morality one must have an idea of a straight line to call it crooked. To take away God from morality is self defeating and something that is quite hard for the skeptics to grapple with and find an alternative. Now it's not to say that those who don't believe in God don't have good values. Of course they do, which just shows that there is a universal understanding of when bad things happen in the world we have empathy and know this isn't right. Although I don't think it's an important point to make but will say it anyway, in terms of the animals I think it would be fair to see we're far more complex creatures than animals and it is God's spirit that has been imprinted on all mankind as being created in his image. This means we understand and have a conceivable amount of knowledge of morals. I'll keep this next point short as I know I've drafted a lot here and I'm enjoying our conversation, but sin entered into the world. This has the effect that we see today of the world. Suffering is something you despise, me too. So does God. And we're promised that he will make it right.
@MultiBagram no its OK completely I do like the thought provoking dialogue, I really do and likewise you've been respectful also. I will admit when you read some passages in the bible on the surface I can see why most would be uncomfortable, but as with anything and especially when it comes to the bible there is always context. The bible hides nothing to the imagination of how brutal people can be and the way the bible is written over the thousands of years by authors it can stand up to be scrutinised and be tested historically. And has stood up to the criticisms. As archaeologists and scholars further test and look into biblical readings it backs it self to show truth. As for your comment on the wars I can think of many wars and the worse wars to happen that haven't been motivated by religion. Not to play a tit for tat game but I'd indulge you to read the Gulag Archepalago that will show you what replacing God with a social structure will become. Now I agree, if I didn't believe in God doesn't mean I'd be on a war path, but what would it matter? If I went to go and blow myself up in a school I've got away with causing that misery. I'm dead, therefore it doesn't really matter what misery I've caused. It means nothing and I've fulfilled what I wanted to do and take innocence with me. Religious leaders didn't do much to help.. you'd have to be more specific on who you're speaking of? I'd say on the assumption that also many non religious people didn't do much to help? It lacks any substance to say all because religious people didn't help to the standard you'd see fit that it makes anything what we've talked about untrue. Same as the western world statement that people are better behaved. We still see horrible crimes happening. And I believe this commits the genetic fallacy. All because the western world may appear to be more socially abiding to laws than anywhere around the world it still doesn't answer the main points of morality. Thanks for your comments though MultiBagram and I hope that maybe I've shed some new light on any of your statements if not I'm sorry and I implore you to keep asking these kind of questions and someone can give you a satisfactory answer. Thanks again and take care!
@MultiBagram I'm a 90s generation guy lol! Although it was showing of the communist state history would also show in order for it to be so effective they wanted to remove all theology from its state and I believe even made their own faith system in the structure they was implementing. However there is statistics showing that there is an increase of Christian followers in these oppressive states that aren't by the majority of Christians. We see many persecuted for their beliefs by other religious sects and government leadership. I'd have to find my sources when back at home for you. But yeah im enjoying this discussion :-)
Would you say murder is immoral? If so, why did god flood the earth, destroy nenova, and kill all the egyptions firstborn children? God has committed a lot of atrocious acts in the bible that would be consodered immoral by todays standards, yet you say he never changes.
It's funny because the the Euthyphro Dilemma's 1st point applies to all of humanity, where we make our own right and wrong on a whim and its based off culture etc. Without a God morality doesn't exist and it all comes down to what you believe and what I believe.
If God = objective moral goodness, then the moral argument (without God, objective morality can't exist and since objective morality does exist, then God exists) reduces to: Without God, God can't exist. God exists, therefore God exists.
You could still have a moral framework as society. For me, it's based on whether or not something causes harm, which a lot of factors could be put into play. Harm = the worsening of our species. It's not just for me but it's also for a lot of others. The issue with gods morals is that it's inconsistant. There's been many people in history who have "dreams" or "visions" of god commanding then to do atrocious things, and then they go do said thing. Thry don't do this thing because of a lack of moral foundation. Rather, they do it because they believe god told them to, and their moral foundation is founded upon gods will. This makes it so the moral framework of "gods will" is objectively more flimsy and up to interpretation. For example, the bible is interpreted in so many different ways, which in turn creates denominations, which all follow a different set of morals. Some believe lgbtq is moral. Some believe speaking in tongues is demonic, even though speaking in tongues is extremely important in pentecostal denominations. In this sense, morality from god is objectively flimsy due to it being up to interpretation. Morality based on harm and the betterment of our species, however, isn't up to interpretation because harm is a very objective concept.
Well the point of the euthyphro is that morality is either what we decide is good or what god decides is good. There isn’t a strong foundation either way
@@dreamweaver9165 No, because it fails to address a monotheistic understanding of God. Socrates interlocutor was a polytheist, Euthyphro does not present a dilemma for monotheists. Saying yes it does only serves to highlight your own ignorance, willful or otherwise. Something for you to listen to so please educate yourself so that you don't unintentionally display ignorance. As has been pointed out to you this is settled stuff amongst academics in the field of philosophy of religion regardless of whether or not they believe in the existence of God. www.rightreason.org/2008/episode-004-parodying-plato/
@@camwg Actually, the argument is valid also, and I would say more, for a single God. Socrates is not discussing a theological notion of what God is, and then what the good is, but rather a gnoseological problem: can we know (and not only believe by revelation) what God is and then what goodness is? No, we do not. God cannot be used as a moral argument. You will find people justifying the most wicked actions in the name of THEIR god. As human beings we must accept our finitude and the fact that God has chosen to prove us through faith and doubt. PS In Plato's dialogue ignorance is better then believing ourselves wise.
@@dreamweaver9165 I first read the dialogue more than 25 years ago sunshine. Physician heal thyself. It is predominantly online atheists unaware of the fact that Euthyphro does not present a dilemma for monotheists and never has who make the argument. In fact it is my position that Socrates himself was a monotheist. You were provided a link so that you might educate yourself please take advantage of it.
"Morality is... what God wants.... In this case, morality becomes completely arbitrary." This conclusion seems intentionally misleading. Are you claiming special knowledge that God's wants are completely arbitrary? By definition of the argument, it is not completely arbitrary, it based on the character of God. If morality is declared by God, then by definition, it is not arbitrary. Maybe I am missing a step that was simply left out of the video.
At present I believe in DCT but because all of Gods commands are just and loving and because God himself by nature is loving and just and always has been so his moral code is not just because he whims but because he is loving and just therefore its not arbitrary or non reasonableness but because of love and justice which is who he has always been. Please tell me what is wrong with this thought?
God's commands are based off of his Wisdom, and he is perfect, so it's not arbitrary. Arbitrary means: being based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. God's commands are based on his perfect wisdom, so it does not classify under that definition of being arbitrary. (from the Islamic paradigm)
But wisdom implies he's originating it from somewhere other than himself, meaning that it's something he cannot change, meaning he is no longer all powerful but is at the will of morality itself. This also implies that morality is more powerful than God.
It is a false dilemma. Something is not good because God commands it, nor does God command it because it is good. God commands that which is good because He is good. Objective moral standards and duties are founded on God nature which is good, perfect, just, loving, etc... God is the good.
There are rebuttals to this position. For one, we end up at the 'who created the creator' argument. Did God create his own nature? If he did, then his nature is not good. Goodness is being defined as whatever flows from God’s nature, but if the nature was created by a being who did not already have the nature before creating it, then why would we call it good? What did God have in mind when he chose how to create his nature? Surely it was not ‘whatever flowed out of his nature.’ This is generally a convoluted and plainly undesirable position, so I doubt anyone will take this one. If he did not create his own nature, then we encounter even more problems.
@@RhetoricalMuse "For one, we end up at the 'who created the creator' argument." You would have to make up a "created god" to make that argument. Of course that would be a fictional god. If the God of the bible is real as the evidence suggest, then he is eternal, uncreated. He is the first, uncaused cause. God just is, and always was. God "creating his own nature" is a logical contradiction. Nothing can be the cause of itself. And in the case of God, he is uncaused. If you are an atheist, you still have to find a uncaused cause at the beginning of it all otherwise you end up with a infinite regress. 200 years ago, the leading scientific position was that the universe was eternal, therefore uncaused. But we now have scientific evidence showing that the universe had an absolute space, time, matter beginning. This is a real problem for atheists since you still have to find a cause that is immaterial, timeless and spaceless. Sounds like God to me.
@@elkhuntr2816So god doesn't have free will? He is not personal nor is he all poweful. If god's nature is not the result of his own decision, and he can't change it, then he is not powerful or capable of decision making. Yes? Every part of existence, including god's, is deterministic. Yes? If I threw a baby, that would be part of god's nature. God is incapable of doing anything about it. And there is no scientific evidence showing anything about the universe's beginning, classic theists making stuff up. Show me the paper that establishes such consensus, you can't.
Excellent video. My response: Allah is good and doesn’t accept anything but good. Allah created us with attributes that recognize His qualities of goodness. He commands us with Good.
What if God doesn't arbitrarily decide morality, nor does he observe it outside of himself, but observes it in his own nature? If God designed the framework of logic and the laws of nature for our universe, why could he not also radiate moral facts, attributed from his own nature? What if morality is a product of God, because goodness is an attribute of his? Can we, without looking elsewhere, accept the divine command then? If a god accepts moral facts outside of himself, the source of those moral facts is probably still conscious. It's a shame they don't teach this in philosophy courses today, but that is the answer to this dilemma.
Quite clear, and this is exactly what is taught by the Christian Bible, that the moral law is not a standard but is intrinsic to God. The law is based on God's character.
Euthyphro is a false dilemma because there’s a third option: God observes His own nature. Which makes more sense because He wouldn’t really be God if He was bound by logic outside of Himself. Only God, the true creator of logic, is also capable of emanating moral logic.
i think God is intrinsically good but it would still exist if he didnt exist if his nature was different and what is according to his real nature morally bad that wouldnt make it morally good i think the second option is true but the problems/arguments that follow arent valid
This dilemma makes no sense when trying to apply it to the Abrahamic religions. We must remember that went to Greek philosophers were dealing with anthropomorphic Gods that acted exactly like humans and we’re not all knowing all powerful omnipresent or omni-benevolent. This dilemma makes no sense because God in these religions god is the very definition of what it is to be good. So God doesn’t get his morality from a higher being than him and whatever he says is not moral just because he says it. It is moral because it is a part of his divine nature. So this dilemma cannot be applied.
The problem with the dilemma is that it fails to take into account God's nature. God is the standard of goodness (as you would expect with God being our creator ). However morality is not arbitrary because God has an unchanging nature....
I don't think this solves anything. If we identify God's nature with good, we've just created a new dilemma: Is God's nature said to be good in virtue of God having it, or is God's nature said to be good in virtue of some other standard? All we've done here is push the problem from God's will/command to God's nature, solving nothing. More questions and objections arise, like, is something good because it reflects God's nature, or does God's nature reflect what is good? Is God's nature good because it reflects an external standard of good, or is it good because God's nature is the standard? Is God's nature subject to his will, or is his will subject to his nature? Does God choose his nature, or is does god have no control over his nature? In all of these questions, one answer makes God irrelevant and the other makes morality abitrary. Also, if God = objective moral goodness, then the moral argument (without God, objective morality can't exist and since objective morality does exist, then God exists) reduces to: Without God, God can't exist. God exists, therefore God exists.
@@real_dirty_dan You have misunderstood the "problem". You claim - "In all of these questions, one answer makes God irrelevant and the other makes morality abitrary". The point is God is neither irrelevant nor arbitrary . Gooness comes rom God. God is the standard. Clearly if God is the standard then God is not irrelevant . So why is morally not arbitrary ? Because God is unchanging. He is the same yesterday, today and forever.
@@shogiwar There are definitely some issues I have with this response. Firstly, if goodness comes from God but God is good by definition, this is fallacious reasoning. If God is good by definition, then goodness is synonymous with godliness, making the concept of goodness circular and meaningless. Another question arises: Why ought we do things that are considered godly anyway? Why does God command that we do things that align with his nature? If God is the supposed standard, but goodness can exist independent of him, then that would of course make him irrelevant when discussing goodness and morality. You say that God is uncahnging, therefore morality isn't arbitrary, but that would just mean that morality isn't dependent on God. And let me ask you this. What reason does God have for commanding the things he does? If God has a reason for commanding what he does, then it's that fundamental reason (that exists outside of god) that is the basis for that command (Ex: don't steal, don't murder, love your neighbor, etc). But if God doesn't have a reason for what he commands, then what he commands is abritrary, even if he is unchanging. (Watch this vid 1:28:40 - 1:40:30: ruclips.net/video/_cPfxjwAubY/видео.html&ab_channel=CosmicSkeptic). You could try to make an argument to explain this away, but it almost always goes back to the same, or a similar premise, leading to an infinite regress.
I think that the ED fails as an objection to DCT because it does not understand that Morality is God. In other words Morality is a personal being. So when the ED asks is something moral because God says it is? Or does God say something is moral because it is moral? It is asking is something moral because Morality says it is? Or does Morality say something is moral because it is Moral? If the ED is valid it can be used to attack all kinds of things. Is something circular because Circularity says it is? Or does Circularity say something is circular because it is circular? This is why the ED does not bother a lot of Theists because it is obvious that something is moral/circular because Morality/Circularity says it is. So all that to say the ED only works to disprove a version of DCT where the God giving the moral law is not Morality itself. Morality is a personal being, that being we call God.
@D Sullivan that is not circular, that is definitional. I was showing how the ED fails to defeat that definition of morality. You are correct that I did not put forward an argument for that definition. But I was not trying to. An argument for that definition would look something like this, Premise 1) If morality is not the Divine Nature then morality is not objective. Premise 2) morality is objective. Conclusion ) morality is the Divine Nature.
@D Sullivan if I propose a morality as a God, you will never stop questioning. We need to ask ourselves which definition of morality works better? And as I pointed out the ED is not a good objection to the DCT definition of morality because it is not even attacking what most people mean by DCT. You ask why not morality without God? Here is an argument why you can't have morality without a God, Premise 1) If there is no God then humans are just animals. Premise 2) Animals have no moral responsibilities or duties. Conclusion) If there is no God then Humans have no moral responsibilities or duties. I think the problem of evil that you have brought up fails for a couple of reasons. A) the problem of evil if true does not prove that there is no God but only that He lacks some traditional Omni property. B) I think that a strong argument can be made that if there is no God then morality would not exist. So the existence of moral evil would actually be evidence for the existence of a God not evidence for His non-existence. C) Just because you can't think of a good reason why a God would cause or allow evil to exist it does not follow that there is no good reason for a God to cause or allow evil to exist. You might be interested in Paul Draper's Aesthetic Deism. Many believe that it is more likely than traditional Theism.
@D Sullivan no problem. I get so embarrassed when people who are on my side of an issue behave rudely to people in the comments. I appreciate your politeness as well. My argument for God being morality would start out with my animal argument from earlier to establish that God is the ontological ground for morality. Then I would try to get something like the following to work. Premise 1) If God is the ontological grounding for morality then a) God created morality, or b) God simply is morality. Premise 2) Not a. Conclusion) therefore if God is the ontological ground for morality then God simply is morality. I would actually appeal to the ED to defend Premise 2. If God created morality then morality would be arbitrary. But morality is not arbitrary. Therefore God did not create morality.
Obviously option number two is the correct one. Religion and god were invented by people, so religion got its morality from people, not the other way around. I like how the 10 Commandments were referenced, because anybody who wants to have this discussion is obviously unaware that the code of Hammurabi which predates the 10 Commandments by about eight centuries has far more legal and moral relevance today
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Good content, but what's with the second guy? It sounds like the philosophy TA woke up his stoner roommate to read lines for this new teaching aid he was making.
Can you stop depicting God as a man in the sky please. Many people don't believe God is a man in the sky. And this seems to make believing in God seem rather pathetic.
The dilemma is a false dichotomy as it there's a third possibility which is that goodness is a necessary, intrinsic part of God's very nature and it exists by virtue of God existing. Since it is part of God, God can't be subject to it (solving dilemma option 1) and since it is grounded on God's existence and not God's commands, it is not arbitrary (solves option 2).
Saying “goodness is an intrinsic part of God’s nature” assumes an outside standard by which to judge him. Otherwise it’s just saying God is godly, which is a meaningless tautology. You haven’t added a third prong. You just restated the dilemma. Is god’s nature good because it conforms to an existing standard of goodness? Or is something good because it conforms to God’s nature? If God’s nature were reversed, would goodness become evil, and evil good?
@@jeffhampton7405 I think what is meant here is that God’s nature contains certain properties that comprise God to be what God is. One property of God is God’s perfect goodness. This is what is meant when that person says “goodness is an intrinsic part of God’s nature”. Goodness is one of God’s eternal properties. So I don’t see how applying the property of goodness to God’s nature is judging God on an external standard from which the property of goodness resides when goodness resides in God itself. Also, I would say like to point out that when you say “restated the dilemma”, you did not accurately restate the dilemma. Specifically, you said “…or is something good because it conforms to God’s nature” is not restating point two that says “does God command it because it is morally good”. When you attempt to reiterate point two, you are asking if something is good because it conforms to God’s nature. However, point two in the actual dilemma asks if God commands it because it is morally good, insinuating an external standard of goodness. But your reiteration of the second point says God is the standard of moral goodness itself, and so something is good if it conforms to the standard that is God itself. I’ll try give an example of where you are going wrong. If we want to describe what the concept of structure is, we would look to what properties structure has. Structure has the property of order. Now, order doesn’t have to come from an external standard, but rather, order arises as a property of structure. With regards to goodness and God. Goodness doesn’t come from an external standard and then placed on describing God, Goodness arises as the property of God, just as order arises as a property of structure.
@@tyronrm6732 Because to say “God is good” is to say that God’s nature conforms to an existing standard of goodness. If goodness is defined as that which conforms to God’s nature, then saying “God is good” is absolutely meaningless. Whatever he is would be good. If his nature was to skin babies, then skinning babies would be the highest good. The only way “God is good” could have any meaning whatsoever is if his nature matches an external standard for what is good. Otherwise you’re just saying God is God.
@@jeffhampton7405 Not necessarily. The properties you use to describe Goodness, are the exact same properties you use to describe God. They are one in the same thing. So, in some sense, yes, Good is God. God is Good. God is God. You can't exactly say, "if God's nature was to skin babies, then skinning babies would be the highest good". That is like saying, "If the nature of structure was disorderliness, then disorderliness would be structure". However, the concept of structure can't remove it's property of orderliness, otherwise, structure isn't structure. If God's nature is to skin babies, then it is not God. God cannot be opposites. God can not not be God. Concepts are bound by their properties without the properties necessarily being from an external standard. God cannot remove the inherent property of Goodness. You create an unnecessary paradox by separating the two concepts as if they are mutually exclusive. Can you have structure without order, or order without structure? I would say no. Does order conform to structure, or does structure conform to order? If one supersedes the other, then I am likely to agree with you. However, I do not think this is the case. I wouldn't think one comes before the other. Simultaneously, by saying structure, you are saying order. Similarly, if I say God, I am saying Goodness. So, yes, God is God, but that is not necessarily meaningless.
There's no dilemma here. The problem with the first option is that, it assumes God would think and reason and act like a human being (a teenage human being). And option 2 is just ridiculous. Great video really enjoyed it
How do you know god doesn't go off of a whim? There's plenty of points in the bible where god commits immoral acts that kills innocent people. Such as when he killed every firstborn child in egypt or when he sent meteors to strike nenova. For a god who supposedly isn't "controlling," he sure controlled a lot of people in the days of the bible by murdering them. Furthermore, there's nothing in the bible that says god DOESN'T go off on a whim, so it's logical to assume that god sometimes does things on a whim, which is where the dilemma lies. Morality isn't objective in this sense, but based on how god feels or his intentions in that moment. You haven't even brought forth an argument for why the second is silly. Believing that god commands things simply because they are good implies that morality is something that god discovers and creates, which means morality still exists without god.
I agree that the second option is silly. If there is *greater* morality apart from God, then *that* becomes God (or at least a moral branch of a greater God... but nonetheless still God).
@@rikuvakevainen6157 I don't have a great answer here, but the first thing that comes to mind is that Morality would need a vessel to deliver itself unto humans (which could be the Judeo-Christian God and the 10 commandments, for example). Tangent: But if the supreme morality becomes God, then your questions becomes "Well why does God need God to exist?" or "Does God need God to exist?" My head hurts.
Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dichotomy/false dilemma. There is a third option. the good/righteous/moral flows from Gods nature. He is the source and as it is His nature He cannot act against His nature. Nothing arbitrary or variable and it establishes the ONLY possible grounding from objective morality. Thus, there is no dilemma.
There's no difference between saying "God is good" and "It is in God's nature to be good". So, is God good because God is good? Either being good really is good, or it's just whatever God is. If it's just whatever God is, it's not objective.
This doesn't solve the problem at all. By what metric is God that which is morally good? According to who? If God is that which is morally good only according to himself and his own will, then morality is still based on the arbitrary will of God, and anything can be moral as long as he thinks it should be.
@@isaacbruner65 God does not make a choice it just is his nature. So it's not arbitrary as he does not make a choice to be moral goodness that just is how he is. There is no choice made that's what it means for it to be objective and not arbitrary.
@@carterwoodrow4805 if God doesn't make a choice, but he is just by his nature "good", then goodness and the nature of God are the same thing, so you're still not solving the problem, just rewording it. By what metric is the nature of God good? According to who? Is the nature of God good because God says it is? Or is the nature of God objectively good (which again implies an objective morality outside of God's nature)? Let me put this another way. In your own words "God commands that which is morally good." So does that mean anything God commands is good? What if God told you to murder someone? You might object "God would never order that" but you have never given an explanation for what is stopping God from doing anything he wants, if he by his nature is morality.
@@carterwoodrow4805 did you just not read the rest of my comment or did you choose to ignore it? If God told you to murder someone, would that be a moral thing to do? And if it's not moral, how could it not be? And if you say God wouldn't ask that of you, why not?
The first premise assumes that God is changing and will make morality into that just pops into his head. That goes against the basic principle of the Abrahamic God that he is unchanging and perfect. If God is a perfect and unchanging being then he will never change his mind and the moral commands he gives will always be valid throughout eternity.
Actually, it is the opposite. Socrates notes that different gods would imply contrasting notions of good and right; then he goes over to discuss a monolithic idea of divine command, that is a single notion of good and evil.
So following the first one, if morality is a concept created by god, and acting morally is acting the way god wants us, and acting the way god wants us gets us into heaven, then what is wrong with this point? Wouldn’t morality just be synonymous with gods will? If we act amorally we sin, if we act against god we sin?
The point is that if god chooses morals, then they can change on the whim and aren't objective. Rather, they are fluid with what god wants at the time. Nenova being struck down and the firstborn children of egypt being murdured, or the earth being flooded are all very good examples of this. God, who is supposedly not "controlling," commits these atrocious acts of murder. Since god can only be moral, this would then make what god did moral even though murder is a sin. What if god told you to murder a ton of people in his name? He's done it in the bible, so why not now? That's what this video is talking about.
This dilemma comes from a misunderstanding of God. God is the very foundation of reality. Thus, if one believes that morality has a foundation and is objective it has to be rooted in God.
@@descartergosum My point is that your argument is irrelevant to my comment. However, I'm still interested in what you mean by an undercover law of nature?
What is the solution? That God is good by his very nature? Unfortunately, I don't think that solves anything. If we identify God's nature with good, we've just created a new dilemma: Is God's nature said to be good in virtue of God having it, or is God's nature said to be good in virtue of some other standard? All we've done here is push the problem from God's will/command to God's nature, solving nothing. Not only this, but if we equate God's nature with good, then it raises the question of why we ought to do things that align with God's nature anyway. More questions and objections arise, like, is something good because it reflects God's nature, or does God's nature reflect what is good? Is God's nature good because it reflects an external standard of good, or is it good because God's nature is the standard? Is God's nature subject to his will, or is his will subject to his nature? Does God choose his nature, or is does god have no control over his nature? In all of these questions, one answer makes God irrelevant and the other makes morality abitrary. Also, if God = objective moral goodness, then the moral argument (without God, objective morality can't exist and since objective morality does exist, then God exists) reduces to: Without God, God can't exist. God exists, therefore God exists.
@@real_dirty_dan *"If we identify God's nature with good, we've just created a new dilemma: Is God's nature said to be good in virtue of God having it, or is God's nature said to be good in virtue of some other standard?"* =That is not a dilemma. You've just taken the solution to the Euthyphro dilemma, and butted it up against one of the original horns of that dilemma, and called it a new dilemma when in fact it is not. You seem to just not like the solution. Too bad, frankly.= *"All we've done here is push the problem from God's will/command to God's nature, solving nothing"* =It solves the false dilemma. Which is the entire objection under consideration. So, it can be rightly said that it solves everything.= *"Is God's nature good because it reflects an external standard of good, or is it good because God's nature is the standard?"* =Again, you're just taking an original horn of the Euthyphro dilemma and butting it up against the very solution to that dilemma and wrongly claiming it presents a new dilemma= *"Does God choose his nature, or is does [sic] god have no control over his nature?"* =Option B. By necessity one cannot control what is necessarily the case. This is similar to how God cannot control whether He exists or not. A necessary being cannot choose to exist or not to exist. If God exists, there is no possible world in which He does not exist. Being omnipotent does not entail the ability to do logically impossible things.= *"Is God's nature subject to his will, or is his will subject to his nature?"* =If and only if you equate "subject to" with "flows from", then option B. If you don't, then I'm afraid this is another false dilemma, and you appear to be going for the world record. I can see quite clearly that you have no credible objections to the solution of the dilemma, so I will go ahead and end our interaction at this point. Go get a philosophy degree. Or get your money back if you in fact have one. Take care.=
The God himself is good. God himself is morally good intrinsically. It's like someone with the IQ of >160. He is intrinsically genius. So for someone who wants to be smart for example, therefore has to study with him. God is intrinsically good. Therefore we have to follow him to be good. Neither because He commands or invents it as a reason, but because we see Him as good itself. I don't find any difficulty in this.
Circular reasoning. God's commands are good because God is good, and God is good because he commands good things. This does not explain where the idea of what is or isn't good comes from. Either things are good because God decided they are (horn 1) or they're good regardless of what God thinks (horn 2).
The script to this video is part of...
- The Philosophy of Religion Part II eBook, available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe2
- The Philosophy Vibe paperback Anthology Vol 1, 'Philosophy of Religion' available worldwide on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1
I really wish this chanel could be discovered by a lot of people. Usually carries lots of meaning content that broadens our horizon. Thanks for the great show.
Thank you very much, so happy to see you find this content useful. This channel is growing, slowly but surely, and we're happy to be reaching new people every day :)
Brown noser 🐽 😂
This just kept me from failing my Greek Philosophy course. Thank you so much!
Pleasure. Good luck in the course.
on the contrary. The flaw in the "reasoning" behind as to why point one is wrong is simply the description of God's nature. Our God (Christian) is an all loving God who would never command the deaths of his own creations. You can't say "oh you will never know," because of the mere fact that we do know. We do know that God would not want us to kill anyone because then that would violate his many rules he has set out. Even if God commands you to do something, you can not reason why due to the fact that God operates on a higher scale of reason. He sees all outcomes and has a reason as to making you do something.
@@nicholasdo5763 bruh ever heard of the ten plagues lol. Also he commanded the invasion of Canaan. Never killing his creation lol 🤔lol I forgot he commanded Abraham to kill his own son also.
@@krispykreme2477 you haven't even mentioned the flood lol , @Nicholas Do .... Imagine lying to yourself that hard lmao
Very mind broadening. Gets u up in the night thinking a lot.
giorno giovanna
I'm currently taking an Ethics class right now, and this video was very beneficial. I've noticed that many people use the argument that our morality comes from our cultures, not God himself, but our culture gets their morality from somewhere as well. Is it God himself? God created people, which lead to the creations of cultures, families, etc. My other argument is that what God finds is morally good, is good. So let's say someone believes in DCT and follows what God believes is moral. If God said that killing people was morally good, and someone that follows DCT argued the arbitrariness objection, wouldn't that make Divine Command Theory wrong?
The good is expressed in Gods nature. God would not and could not say that killing people is good. That would be going against his very nature which He can’t do.
@@lennyrobo4293doesn’t that imply that god is limited and therefore not all powerful? If he can’t make commands that go against his nature like, “killing puppies is morally right” than we have another problem that questions how powerful god is
@@fantazypointz1054 God is all powerful and can do anything that is possible. It’s impossible to do certain things like draw a round square or be a married bachelor. If God is perfectly good how then could he command evil?
@@lennyrobo4293Well no that’s actually not true. God has ordered the killing of young, old, innocent, and guilty man, woman, child, and beast multiple times in the Old Testament, for a variety of different reasons many of which I find to be morally incorrect. There is also slavery, child abuse, rape, and other things condoned by God.
@@lennyrobo4293 That's not true, in all Judeo Christian texts God has commanded people to slaughter others or has done it himself, man, woman, child, and beast so your argument doesn't really work. Take the siege of the canities and the other nations surrounding Israel. No one was spared also there are many causes in the bible where other nations most people were slaughtered except for the virgin girls which God commanded Moses and his men to take for their pwn pleasure. If DCT was real this would be a good thing, wouldn't it?
Perhaps something worth noting is the framework with which Plato was working: Plato's original dialogue, obviously, was written in ancient Athens. That society was polytheistic and therefore many gods are added to the equation. The interlocutors depicted in the dialogue were trying to define piety, and one of the first suggested definitions was "that which pleases the gods." This idea was quickly scrapped because the gods of their tradition were frequently at each other's throats, making it very difficult to find specific, tangible things which would adequately please all of them.
Currently reading Euthyphro for class, and from my understanding, piety, and as such morality, stands on its own. The gods commanded piety because of it existing as a pious idea, so of course it wouldn't make sense for piety to be that which is commanded of the gods when the gods themselves interpret piety differently. Interesting stuff!
The number of gods does not change the principles though
Cheers mate youve explained this perfectly!!! Im going to do so well in my philosophy class now thank you
Glad we could help :)
In my Engineering Ethics class, we learned about Divine Command Theory and three arguments against it. The Euthyphro Dilemma was not one of them, but after seeing mentioned many times on RedditI figured I had to investigate and find out exactly what it is. One of the arguments that we went over in class said that "if DCT was correct, there is an objective will of God that is binding on all people. We could never know of the objective will of God that is morally binding on all people.So DCT is incorrect. I feel that this is a fair argument, we never could know of the objective will of God. Another argument we considered was known as the Arbitrariness Objection. It says that "if DCT is right then morality is arbitrary (because God could decide on it for any reason at all). Some moral wrongs are so for deep fundamental reasons are not arbitrary. So DCT is not right. An example used in class was that torturing kids for fun was fundamentally wrong. This argument is fair in my opinion, but I think the other argument is better. The third argument we discussed in class is known as the Emptiness Objection. It says that "if DCT is right then 'good' means 'willed by god'. Saying 'God's will is good' is saying something positive about God. Saying 'God's will is willed by God' is saying something trivial, not something positive.
So DCT is not right." In all honesty I don't really understand this argument. I understand the English, but I don't see why the point needs to be made. Anyway, onto the content of the video. I thought that the second point of the dilemma made a lot of sense. If morality is a pre set list of rights and wrongs that God follows, then what is the point of God. If he is all powerful and all knowing, surely he would be in charge of deciding what is morally right and wrong. This brings us to the first point, the one that I think is somewhat reaching. To say that morality is based on how God feels and that it could change at any moment does not make sense to me. If God is sitting at his heavenly dinner table and suddenly has some epiphany and decides that something which was morally wrong is now morally right, how is that information going to be relayed to humanity. It is not as if we have biweekly check-ins with God so he can fill us in on changes like this. I am not religious, but I imagine what God deems moral and immoral is written in the Bible, Qur'an, and other holy texts, which to my knowledge do not change and, with the exception of maybe font, format, and cover art, have been the same for many many years, and so God's morality is not something that can change at the drop of a dime, or at least is not something humanity can perceive. I think that if I were a very religious person, this dilemma, the other arguments I mentioned above, and Divine Command Theory as a whole would mean more and make more sense to me.
Nice comment, really enjoyed your input.
Have you considered that the dilemma is a false dilemma as it assumes only two options? A third option and taken by most theist philosophers is that Morality is a reflection of Gods nature and so found in him. Because God by nature is kind, loving and compassionate his commands reflect that nature. He could never say killing for fun is right because that conflicts with his nature. This implies his commands aren’t arbitrary either.
@Lenny Robo that relegates God to a deist conception and therefore doesn't answer the dilemma because it necessarily casts God as an agent with no free will which makes this God indistinguishable from nature itself. Besides all monotheistic religion breaks down if you deny the image bearer doctrine that man is made in his image. He gave us free will from the get go. If God doesn't have free will, why would he burden us with free will and claim we are made in his image? Goodness in the monotheistic worldview necessitates a morality whose only source is what God wills. God can not will something that is a natural attribute of his that he had no control in its expression or formation.
@@wisdomsnap8695 sorry I’m not sure how that follows that God has no freewill. Scripture is filled with His will. He chose to create us with free will.
God is perfectly good. He never chooses to do evil because that is what being perfectly good is. We on the other hand are not perfectly good and so we sometimes choose to do what is evil.
@Lenny Robo What choices can God make other than the single perfect choice in any given moment? Or do you ascribe to the idea that God can just change morality to whatever he wills? That he can just come down and decide at any moment that it is good to commit adultery for instance? If he can't, then he has no free will. Being incapable of choosing anything other than the perfect choice because it is God's "nature" is the definition of not having free will.
This RUclips channel is helping me to crack my Philosophy exams💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞💞
Glad we could help. Good luck in the exams.
This channel is very helpful, I really enjoyed the voibe!! THANK YOU
You're very welcome :)
I literally just read the euthyphro. its an amazing read
Now out of respect for it, capitalize the proper noun.
@@johnsmith1474 you have issues.
@@JesseShotland - Caesar non supra grammaticos. (Ref. the Council of Constance 1414.)
I also just read it and I felt like my brain pieces were being taken by the spoonful and all burned or frozen at random and thrown back into a different vessel
@@johnsmith1474 "Your mum gay" - Nelson Goodman
Amazing video. Very lucid. Thank you.🌸🙏
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
I am of the school of thought that God commands us to do good because God has full understanding of what is moral and what is immoral. If humans seek God and follow God’s Devine commands (according to religious text) then we will do good and live well. God has given us all an ounce of knowledge as to what is good and what is not. Even when we choose to do wrong, we still have a “feeling” that we are doing the wrong thing and we choose to ignore it.
How would you describe Divine Command Theory?
Actions are good because God commands them. Actions are wrong because they are forbidden by God
i'm telling you guys are phenomenal
Thank you so much! Glad you're still enjoying the content.
Great and simplified nice job
Thank you, glad you liked it.
It's a dilemma that really didn't need to happen because Its a false dilemma.
"What comes first, God or morality?"
It ignores the very real possibility that God simply is morality. He is goodness. It's intrinsic in His nature. Since subjectivity is derived from someone's feelings or opinions, then morality would not be subjective, as existing without cause, and a part of someone's nature.
@@Lexor1111 someone's essence. Who they are, intrinsically. The defining characteristics or parts that make up the whole of an individual.
@@ethanrichard4950 so you choose "God came first"
@@dorcas7222 No because The issue with the dilemma is that morality has to have come from outside of God, or it has to be an entity apart from God. Really, Goodness, Which morality is based upon in which you cannot have morality without, Is God. It is a part of His nature. It is His essence. Morality is God. They're not separate, Nor are they apart from each other created by one another.
It seems to be a Solution indeed, but i must asure you, that it is non. For the entire Dilemma would indeed disapear, but god too. It is simply wrong to say, that Something other then goodness is goodness, meaning it in the identical sense. For what is identical is one and the Same, and by that, has to it all the Same. But neither is goodness capable of anything, Nor is god supposed to be Not to. It further does Not solve the Problem of knowledge about it, as one would need to understand goodness again in the First place. Goodness, as Truth does neither need a source, Nor a 'garantie'. They are simply, what they are. Eternal and one. Just Like being.
@davsamp7301 Despite our saying God is goodness, it is not comprable to saying He is only goodness. Goodness is not a quality, as material.
If I were to say. God is wood, He can't be metal. Or if He were, He'd be percentages.
God isnt percentages of anything.
However, immaterial properties don't have percentages. They're not exclusive. You can be all powerful, all good, all loving, etc, without having percentages, or having to make all those identical.
If they're immaterial properties, then they're non-causal, but they don't replace the mind which causes.
If i'm correctly understanding your statement of the problem of knowledge about it, And if the "it" is supposed to be "goodness",
Then I'd say the problem of knowing good is solved if you are it.
There is no problem about knowing who @DavSamp is if you are him/her.
There's no problem knowing how to hunt for food, if it's in your nature to hunt, etc.
You say goodness doesn't need a source.
I'd like to know what your worldview is, as any refute I give will be less effective if I'm going against false ideas.
You say it doesn't need a source, it just is eternal.
Something, dependant upon unalive processes via reality, cannot be objective. If science was another way, so too, could morality be. Or if it comes from man, it's merely opinion.
I agree goodness is a fact, eternal.
It is so, as it is God's nature.
And He is eternal.
Wow. This helped me so much. THANK YOU!!
You're welcome, glad we could help.
@@PhilosophyVibe you didn't help you've misinformed people.
Would it be bad if morality is above god?
It raises questions about where morality comes from and why we should obey it- why would an omnipotent creator submit to a morality He did not create?
Also this question can invite circular reasoning, as it is morality itself that determines what "bad" even is.
You'd still have to explain where morality comes from, why we or God should follow it etc
@@jonathancampbell5231 reasonable argument. I like it.
moral badness isn't same as philosophical badness for example a philosophically
Why is God good? If by definition then goodness is synonymous with godliness. Circular and meaningless.
exactly. the ppl who say it's a false dilemma dont realise this
I don't think that's circular. It's basically one of the most fundamental logical rules that something equals itself. That A=A. It makes the question meaning less not the answer to the dilemma. If God and good are synonyms the the dilemma is just why is God God or why is good good. Does good decide what is good? It would be like asking does the color red decide what the color red is and does that make red arbitrary. If God and good are the same thing the dilemma breaks down.
@@mitslev4043 Your definition of the good is void of content. Using identity to prove the existence of the Good cuts both ways. God exists because the Good exists. But to insist that there can't be the Good without God is not arguing from identity. It's the classic fallacy of begging the question. Since you have already defined God as Goodness without any independent reason for its existence you have literally concluded with your premise. Circle. I could prove the existence of unicorns with that logic. Unicorns exist BY DEFINITION.
@@thethikboy except I'm not trying to prove God exists. I'm only solving a dilemma. But it's would not be circular even then. How would I be defining God as existing? I'm only defining him as goodness. Unless you think goodness exists? But even then we are talking about something different. Your outside source could be the emanations of goodness since we are talking about something metaphysical. We would have a sense of good.
@@mitslev4043 you're trying to prove the Good only exists because God does. That makes them synonymous BY DEFINITION since you have no other independent basis to affirm that God is Good. Basically it's no different than saying the Good exists because God is God. I'm getting dizzy with all the circular logic. There can't be objective reality including truth itself without God. Funny how the theorems of Euclid don't need a God postulate.
Is it one person doing the voices in the videos or two? I can't tell.
Yes I understand (said in a raspy voice)
I feel like Christians replie will be:
You are wrong because
Gaaaaaaawwwwwwd
Not necessarily Elijah,Christin here. (watching and learning like everyone else here). as someone in the faith for years now I have a few things come to mind as I approach this video. There is black and white morality in the Bible: Do not blaspheme the lords name. Pretty straight forward. No need to ever do it. Ever. And then we approach killing others as proposed by this video. My answer in a nutshell is Soverignty. This is not a cop out answer. Of course killing is immoral for us Christians. But I'llbring up a popular topic from the old testament. God instructed Israel to kill the Canaanites. Odd rite? Well the Canaanites had a vow to always oppose the God of Israel Isaac and Jacob and to instruct their future generations to also do so as well. As a JUST God he would have to sentence them ALL to damnation for generations..unless...he intervened and cut it off ahead of time before many more lives got involved. He is Merciful and just at the same time.
@@Taco-jitsu he's omnipotent right? So why don't he just change the minds of caananites. I mean he built everything just by word why don't he do it with his word again?
@@Taco-jitsu I advise you to watch a video called "god vs abortion" by a channel named darkmatter2525. So that you can see why your conclusion is irrelevant.
@@earl5270 He can Earl. Matter of fact there are places in the bible where he does. Just like when he hardened Pharao's heart against Israel. God showed he can and yet he shows that it is not his will to do so everywhere, every time. Wer're talking about an infinite being here. We have his laws and the scriptures and by them man has been judged. The canaanites swore to be at war with Israel forever. Big no no towards
Gods chosen people.
@@no-vo9bm It is actually not irrelevant. Based on the video. the darkmatter video twists the intention of God into a cruel narrrative. You mean to tell me the author of life cannot take life? How arrogant to believe an all powerful creator cannot rightly decide everything and anything is up to him, for him. Also it is quite western to believe God owes man anything at all. including a chance at life when all we deserve is death on account of sin. Yet his goodness gives you and I a chance to repent and rebel against him no more.
You sort of equivocate between divine command theory and theology generally. The Euthyphro dilemma has an easy solution for theists.
The easy solution is to pretend like the dilemma doesn't exist
@@isaacbruner65 the easy solution is that God and good are synonyms. Two words describing the same thing.
@@mitslev4043 Except they aren't and in order to make the leap you have to redifine God in the first place. I also have to ask: Is Gods character the way it is because it is good? Or is it good simply because it is Gods character?
@@claytonveno3710 not really. Because when we are talking about god we are talking about good as a think in its self. Not as an adjective. When I way God is good it's the same as saying a tree is a tree.
@@mitslev4043 You didn't really address my point, or my question for that matter.
I don't think this is much of a dilemma. I believe the second point is true: God commands what is morally good. The fact that he is bound by morality doesn't make him any less omnipotent, just as being bound by logic doesn't mean he's not omnipotent. It just means he won't choose to go against his moral character and do things that are immoral. Just because you choose not to do something doesn't mean you couldn't do it. Now, even God can't do anything illogical. For example, he can't move an unmoveable mountain because if he did, the mountain wouldn't be unmoveable, and he still wouldn't have moved an unmoveable mountain. Still, being all-powerful doesn't require to be able to do things that are not logically possible. Similarly, being all-powerful doesn't you must do things that go against what you would choose to do.
So who created logic? If he can’t move the unmovable rock then he isn’t omnipotent leaving the logic away and talking only on what omnipotent means.
@@anthonyllenrof God is logical. From him all rationality resides. What you Essentially said was ‘who created God’.
I see the morality similarly to 1+1=2
God created the universe with it's own rules, yes he can change it but it would make as much sense as making everything solid liquid and vice versa. At least in our own eyes that is.
A universe that is used to 1+1=fish would have problems understanding our 1+1=2 as much as we would have problems understanding a universe that is founded over different to our morality.
Nice take, very interesting
I disagree, morality is not something like 1+1=2. I think it is subjective in any case and it can only be 1+1=2 if you arbitrarily decide on a standard for your morality. One standard people arbitrarily choose is the bible or another standard would be human well being. Within these subjective standards you can then objectively come to moral conclusions
That is wrong, for morality cannot be subjective, or Else it would be nothing. Just Like knowledge or Truth itself.
Indeed, morality is of s similar Nature insofar, as it is logical and objective. But you make a thin mistake, when you suggest, that the Rules of the universe, or at least those of Logic and all related to it where Not only created, but also Out of many other possibilities. It is wrong, because there are no other possibilities and this World with at least These laws is necessary. Further, they cannot have been created, for they are eternal by Nature, for it would otherwise be contradictory.
🙏🙏
is this still aplicable from a theistic view point?
This is based on the anthropomorphic version, the Christian God but there's much more to this. Integral Theory created by Ken Wilber has helped put all into perspective(s).
The Christian God was not created yet by Greeks when this dilemma was written, however it is a precursor to Christian thought, which is why it seems so similar. To understand God in philosophy, one has to remove the cultural aspect on many people's perspectives of him, meaning, to remove all the stories presented in the Torah, the bible, The Qura'n, and more, but only see God as two things, All-knowing, and All-Powerful. We only now personify him because of our cultural understanding of God, but in reality the same argument presents itself when you depersonify him.
Thank you
Welcome 😀
How about Natural Law theory yo?
I really like their voices.
Thanks :)
What if God did create the rules of morality
And he commits to follow and abide by them himself no matter what
Meaning- he follows them even when it's difficult
Or he doesn't change them anytime after the original creation of these framework along with creation of the universe?
Regardless of whether or not God chooses to forever stay true to these rules, the fact still stands that he could in theory change them if he wanted to. If he created them, he CAN change them. He doesn't NEED to change them, just the fact that he CAN is enough to make morality arbitrary. Also, he doesn't exactly follow all of the moral commands he imposes on humans in the Bible. God (especially OT God) is lowkey an abuser, at least by the standards that humans are held to. And if we are held to a moral standard that God isn't also held to, morality makes no sense. Humans are supposed to follow God's example in every way, but if we did so by following the abusive actions he commits, we would no longer be moral.
@@purplespinach17 he cannot change them it is there before the universe began he is it and he cannot change. Its logically impossible its like asking can God make a stone he can not lift no he cannot
@D Sullivan He does have free will but his will won't ever change. Thats just the nature of him
@D Sullivan how is it a contradiction?
@D Sullivan I have the free will to punch my mother in the face but I haven't done so all my life and will never change
I would agree with 1st point, being for that which is Good is because because has so as the omnipotent and omniscient being, for example you would have to conclude that which God commands you to kill .. which he does in the Bible is done for the right reason never for evil, hence the moral laws in which he has placed. If God commanded me to kill someone it is not wrong bc God has commanded me for the right reasons it could never be the incorrect one, and also God has the right to take away life if he is the all mighty and knowing creator
Perhaps scholastic realism can solve this problem?
Great 👍🏻
Thank you.
Perhaps this isn’t a dilemma, as there is an alternative, and thus it is not an inescapable dilemma. Which is “God wills something because God *is* good.” God himself is the paradigm of goodness, and his will reflects his character. God is loving, kind, fair, impartial, generous, and so forth, and therefore there would be no possible world in which hatred is good.
Really? Which God are you talking about? Because you can easily find a lot of violent and ferocious commands in the sacred texts of all religions. So, go and kill the infidels.
Dream Weaver I’m not referencing any specific religion. I simply stated a solid argument, this isn’t truly a dilemma anymore in modern philosophy. As it is an escapable dilemma and therefore not a true dilemma. God himself is the paradigm of goodness, any deviation from that definition would be a misrepresentation of God and thus is made up by man. I think you have missed the point and are hung up on non-philosophical ideas.
@@astroedsastrophotographych4562 I agree with you, God is goodness; unfortunately, this kind of knowledge, which allows escaping the dilemma (it requires to know what God is and/or what goodness is) only belongs to God, while is unknown to humans. What Socrates meant was simply that you cannot use God as a moral argument.
Dream Weaver This is flawed reasoning. Why is it flawed you may ask, because while man can’t have a perfect understanding of God which is the paradigm of goodness, he can have a finite knowledge of goodness.Thus he can use that finite knowledge of goodness as a basis for a moral argument.
@@astroedsastrophotographych4562 Finally, we agreed. Human beings only have a finite understanding of what good (human morality) is. This is what Socrates and Kant meant claiming that we do not have acces to absolute knowledge, neither of God nor of His nature (absolute goodness). What we have in religion is revelation(s) and faith. This is what God meant for us, because if we 'knew' about Him there would be NO freedom of choice, nor value in faith. Can we agee on this, AstroEd's?
First, morals exist in the real world, they don't come from holy books.
Second, the right option is the third option, which says: Something is good when it comes from God because God is good.
The God I believe in though is not overcome by whims and fancies.
What if morality IS God?
I don't think that solves the dilemma. If we identify God's nature with good, we've just created a new dilemma: Is God's nature said to be good in virtue of God having it, or is God's nature said to be good in virtue of some other standard? All we've done here is push the problem from God's will/command to God's nature, solving nothing. Not only this, but if we equate God's nature with good, then it raises the question of why we ought to do things that align with God's nature anyway. More questions and objections arise, like, is something good because it reflects God's nature, or does God's nature reflect what is good? Is God's nature good because it reflects an external standard of good, or is it good because God's nature is the standard? Is God's nature subject to his will, or is his will subject to his nature? Does God choose his nature, or is does god have no control over his nature? In all of these questions, one answer makes God irrelevant and the other makes morality abitrary. Also, if God = objective moral goodness, then the moral argument (without God, objective morality can't exist and since objective morality does exist, then God exists) reduces to: Without God, God can't exist. God exists, therefore God exists.
I don’t follow. Even if it’s true that we could not know the will of God how does that mean DCT is false?
Please please please do Wittgenstein’s private language argument
Hi Alisha. We have covered it a little bit in our Philosophy of Mind Part 2 Video:
ruclips.net/video/1MZGRHdIjfw/видео.html
We are looking to do another video exploring it deeper.
But if god is omnipotent wouldn’t god be everything? Including morality itself?
Yes, and that is the resolution to the paradox. God is in of himself this standard, therefore it is not external, or arbitrary.
@@Jhostly Ok but why should ought we do things that align with this standard?
I would still side with option one where God is the one who decides what is and what isn’t good. I don’t see it as a problem that it can be changed as however God decides since given that God is the creator, he is the one who decides. This specially since objectively good and evil are human concepts that also change with time and between cultures, so even having God as the ultimate authority who chooses is more stable than how it is and God doesn’t necessarily need to have a changing morality, being a perfect being he may already have created the perfect morality (which not necessarily aligns with ours)
Saying “he may already have created the perfect morality” is saying that morality doesn’t come from god.
If god is the standard, whatever moral preferences he happens to have at that moment *is* the perfect morality, by definition, so there wouldn’t be a separate standard by which to judge if something is good or bad.
If any deities exist, I hope they’d be bound by morality
Can you make a video on absurdism
Thank you for the suggestion, will look into it.
3:31 am vibes
Who is putting all these addresses in the comments??? What is going on!
God is the standard for good.
This isn't a dilemma for monotheist depictions of God (as is the depiction in this video). It's a dilemma for polytheist systems like ancient Greece, which this theory is derived from. The idea that morality must be above the gods is true, but it merely points towards a monotheistic worldview---that God is not only the enforcer of morality, but he himself *is* the morality that's being enforced.
Then what is God and what is morality?
Let the semantics war begin!
@@louisuchihatm2556 My instinct is to say that (1) God is divine good and (2) morality is a human intuition in which the heart informs the mind that good is better than evil. Thus, to live morally is to act in a way that manifests that divine good.
@@williamt0ll "God is morality that's being enforced"
"morality is the intuition on which the heart imforms the mind that good is better than evil."
The task you clearly have is connecting the two above sentences.
That is: how this intuition is God metaphysicaly.
@@louisuchihatm2556 I was unclear. The first sentence wasn't meant to claim that God and morality metaphysically one and the same thing. Morality as an intuition can be likened to the knowledge of good and evil, so it emanates from divine truth which ultimately is God. I do not mean to reduce God to a mere human intuition.
We discussed this dilema in my phosophy class. This dilema was the straw that did it for me as a believer. I'm now a stern agnostic.
Where would you say morality comes from now?
@@avivastudios2311 does morality needs to come from somewhere? Many find their being an origin for things to be a form of comfort or reasoning. It's how we deal with an indifferent reality. Our type of reasoning does not meld with reality thus we create reasons as to why. These reasons are all very human. However an indifferent reality lacks a human answer . To us it is too much. So for morality I feel its all just ever present without the whims of a deity(s). I liken to be the same as emotional reactions, intuitions, dreams and even things like energy and gravity. This is also not a halt to searching for a reason why things are. This is just the present answer I have. Henceforth I feel the christian deity at least as interpreted by believers today, alongside this dilemma is logically impossible.
@@seermayton-el3488 I don't remember the last time an agnostic said it was logically impossible for God to exist. That's weird. Did you change your mind, dude?
Even if I wasn't a Christian, I wouldn't say that it was logically impossible for God to exist. That doesn't make sense. Especially since the God in question doesn't necessarily have to be the Christian God. So if I'm agnostic I'd be open to different types of deities and ideas like polytheism and deism. Maybe there's a God who is completely neutral.
@avivastudios2311 your definition of agnosticism is partially true. Agnostics in the truest sense philsophically are individuals who are searching for evidence of deity and therfore suspend a stance. Some are more hardline and say there is no way to prove whether or not a deity(s) exist. Soft agnostic leave the door open. An atheist is someone who denies belief in any deity(s). They seek to take an even stronger stance than a hard agnostic. This is what distinguishes the two. I think for me the impression I give is that of scottish philosopher David Hume. Many think he was an atheist due to how much he criticized religion. However he was more of an agnostic searching for the truth. Many define god(s) in many ways. I was speaking within the context of the the Christian and to put it to a greater extent Abrahamic god (God of Chistianity, Islam, Judaism.) Since that was my faith beforehand. From my learning of concepts like in the video I found it to be logically defunct. My stance in my previous statment does not rule out a deistic god. However that falls out of the perview of the mythology involving the Abrahamic god. Similar to there being multiple gods within the Abrahamic faiths. All this being said the god of the Abrahamic faith does not work within the concept of what we in my class call the All-PKG god. That being a god that is all powerful, all knowing, all good. This deity does not work within the bounds of the Euthyphro dilemma. One concept dminishes gods power. The other dminishes gods goodness and renders morality and our reaction to it trivial. Hence my statment
@avivastudios2311 your definition of agnosticism is partially true. Agnostics in the truest sense philsophically are individuals who are searching for evidence of deity. Some are more hardline and say there is no way to prove whether or not a deity(s) exist. Soft agnostic leave the door open. An atheist is someone who denies belief in any deity(s). They seek to take an even stronger stance than a hard agnostic. This is what distinguishes the two. I think for me the impression I give is that of scottish philosopher David Hume. Many think he was an atheist due to how much he criticized religion. However he was more of an agnostic searching for the truth. Many define god(s) in many ways. So within the context of the the Christian mythology and to put it to a greater extent Abrahamic god (God of Chistianity, Islam, Judaism.) I find it to be logically defunct especially given the dillema in the video. While my statment may have been a hardline it was within the context of my former faith. I was not rule out a deistic god however that falls out of the perview of the mythology of the Abrahamic god. Similar to there being multiple gods within the Abrahamic faiths. Each of these don't work within the rules and myths involving the abrahamic god though. In the faith god is personal and is as each one state "the one true god" Henceforth given the topic and its context I gave my claim
there is a missed point here. ITs not up to how god feels its about what god commands. on top of that, god doesnt come to you to command you to kill.thou shalt not kill.
You should read the Old Testament. Glad he’s grown out of that phase though.
@@jeffhampton7405 you should read the Old Testament then read the New Testament. God sent his son to bring a new covenant which did away with the ways of the old.
Wait a minute. Command and Create are entirely different. If God created all that is Good, then it would reason that God is Good. If god commanded you to slew your neighbor. Then you would have to analyze the command in detail. You might not be commanded by God but by something else entirely. Euthyphro called it, Piety is justice in relation to the gods, plural. This video puts forth the idea of a singular God.
Did God create everything? If so, he also created all that is bad, and it would reason God is bad.
Also, the Bible details God slaughtering and telling people to slaughter in like every other chapter. Was the Bible written by something else entirely?
Couldn’t you argue that because God is all-knowing and benevolent, He is able to decide what is the most moral way. He isn’t being given this by a superior, it’s what He has concluded with his omniscience. God set these morals because He knows that they are the best.
Still arbitrary but nevertheless trustworthy. I would state it as "Morality is decided upon by God. He creates it as part of the universe. Because it is as much a part of our universe as Gravity and chemistry, we can take the morality he created to be as fixed as gravity and chemistry, but not so fixed as 1+1=2
@@coreygossman6243 That sounds better.
Even If so, it would Not solve the Problem, for If one knows Something, this Thing is that to which i refer, and is therefore Not only Independent of the act of knowledge, but also its reference.
No God is to be trusted more then anyone Else, for everyone can say, that they have understood it all. And to then say, that a god would alone be capable of that, would Change nothing on the Point, that Noone is to be trusted more then Others for talking about it, If they dont demonstrate greater wisdom. But to do so, one must bring Others to understanding of These Things, which implies the Same Independent Nature of our object of reference again and our own Powers of reasoning, which are the Same as those of any god.
@@coreygossman6243 It seems alright but it's just the second argument again, you are saying its fixed and unchangeable by God, meaning God is no longer all-powerful because he created something he cannot change. You say that God decided morilty based upon something as well, which implies it still exists outside of him, implying he's only knowledgable of morality not the creator of morality.
If you say "Well it isn't fixed for God, but he chooses not to change it" but the fact that he CAN change it, it is implying that morality is arbitrary. Which is the first argument again.
The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dichotomy limiting the Divine Command Theory to just two possible outcomes which has been explained great in the video. There is a third premise and has been answered many times theologically. That God's very nature is the standard of goodness and his commandments to us are expressions of his moral nature. Therefore morality is not arbitrary or independent of God, because God's own character defines what is good. The morally good or bad is determined by God's nature and the morally right or wrong is determined by God's will. God wills something because he is good and something is right because God wills it. This has been well defended by philosophers such as Robert Adams, William Alston and Phillip Quinn.
@MultiBagram Hi, I think you're missing the point that has been made by these philosophers, I think it's a valid answer to the dilemma and not an evasion of it, most scholars would agree which is why the modern skeptic doesn't use this argument in their debates with theologians. God himself is the paradigm of goodness, and his will reflects his character. God is by nature loving, kind, fair, impartial, generous, and so forth. Therefore, he could not have willed that, for example, hatred be good. That would be to contradict his very own nature. So therefore God wouldn't will something to be the opposite of his very essence. It just doesn't follow that God would change his very nature to fit a certain narrative. It is very well explained further by Dr William Lane Craig much better than probably I'm explaining it for you.
@MultiBagram It’s all good man, I’d have to ask as I don’t know your worldview but to say God in the bible does some horrible things I’d have to ask by what standard can you call it “horrible” as it’s heavily argued morality comes from God without the acknowledgement of God morality is just relative to the individual and there is no universal law or morality. Yet I’m sure we’d both agree it’s wrong to torture babies. It’s no longer a relative premise. I disagree though I think WLC is hugely knowledgeable on these topics and has had great debates on these questions. Ultimately I seek truth. And always do my best to not have a biased approach to arguments and look into both sides. If you have any material that you could point me to that you’ve found useful for your views please let me know.
@MultiBagram If you take God out of the equation then there is no morality? What do you then begin to replace it with? Without a moral law giver we would have to concede that everything is relative and it's only through our subjective notions that we call something wrong or good. If we're being consistent without the moral law giver we can't say what Hitler did to the Jews during WWII is wrong. From his point of view he thought he was doing right for the greater good of his people. We can take a step further and say this could just prove the case with eugenics or (survival of the fittest) but I don't believe for a second that we can keep that up for long or remain honest with that notion to admit that it was all relative that Hitler did what he did. I hope you're getting the point I'm trying to make here lol. CS Lewis had said that for morality one must have an idea of a straight line to call it crooked.
To take away God from morality is self defeating and something that is quite hard for the skeptics to grapple with and find an alternative. Now it's not to say that those who don't believe in God don't have good values. Of course they do, which just shows that there is a universal understanding of when bad things happen in the world we have empathy and know this isn't right.
Although I don't think it's an important point to make but will say it anyway, in terms of the animals I think it would be fair to see we're far more complex creatures than animals and it is God's spirit that has been imprinted on all mankind as being created in his image. This means we understand and have a conceivable amount of knowledge of morals. I'll keep this next point short as I know I've drafted a lot here and I'm enjoying our conversation, but sin entered into the world. This has the effect that we see today of the world. Suffering is something you despise, me too. So does God. And we're promised that he will make it right.
@MultiBagram no its OK completely I do like the thought provoking dialogue, I really do and likewise you've been respectful also. I will admit when you read some passages in the bible on the surface I can see why most would be uncomfortable, but as with anything and especially when it comes to the bible there is always context. The bible hides nothing to the imagination of how brutal people can be and the way the bible is written over the thousands of years by authors it can stand up to be scrutinised and be tested historically. And has stood up to the criticisms. As archaeologists and scholars further test and look into biblical readings it backs it self to show truth. As for your comment on the wars I can think of many wars and the worse wars to happen that haven't been motivated by religion. Not to play a tit for tat game but I'd indulge you to read the Gulag Archepalago that will show you what replacing God with a social structure will become. Now I agree, if I didn't believe in God doesn't mean I'd be on a war path, but what would it matter? If I went to go and blow myself up in a school I've got away with causing that misery. I'm dead, therefore it doesn't really matter what misery I've caused. It means nothing and I've fulfilled what I wanted to do and take innocence with me. Religious leaders didn't do much to help.. you'd have to be more specific on who you're speaking of? I'd say on the assumption that also many non religious people didn't do much to help? It lacks any substance to say all because religious people didn't help to the standard you'd see fit that it makes anything what we've talked about untrue. Same as the western world statement that people are better behaved. We still see horrible crimes happening. And I believe this commits the genetic fallacy. All because the western world may appear to be more socially abiding to laws than anywhere around the world it still doesn't answer the main points of morality. Thanks for your comments though MultiBagram and I hope that maybe I've shed some new light on any of your statements if not I'm sorry and I implore you to keep asking these kind of questions and someone can give you a satisfactory answer. Thanks again and take care!
@MultiBagram I'm a 90s generation guy lol! Although it was showing of the communist state history would also show in order for it to be so effective they wanted to remove all theology from its state and I believe even made their own faith system in the structure they was implementing. However there is statistics showing that there is an increase of Christian followers in these oppressive states that aren't by the majority of Christians. We see many persecuted for their beliefs by other religious sects and government leadership. I'd have to find my sources when back at home for you. But yeah im enjoying this discussion :-)
God IS morality. God does not change.
That presents a challenge to his supposed omnipotence. Also, is God's nature subject to his will, or is his will subject to his nature?
Would you say murder is immoral? If so, why did god flood the earth, destroy nenova, and kill all the egyptions firstborn children?
God has committed a lot of atrocious acts in the bible that would be consodered immoral by todays standards, yet you say he never changes.
It's funny because the the Euthyphro Dilemma's 1st point applies to all of humanity, where we make our own right and wrong on a whim and its based off culture etc. Without a God morality doesn't exist and it all comes down to what you believe and what I believe.
If God = objective moral goodness, then the moral argument (without God, objective morality can't exist and since objective morality does exist, then God exists) reduces to: Without God, God can't exist. God exists, therefore God exists.
You could still have a moral framework as society. For me, it's based on whether or not something causes harm, which a lot of factors could be put into play. Harm = the worsening of our species. It's not just for me but it's also for a lot of others.
The issue with gods morals is that it's inconsistant. There's been many people in history who have "dreams" or "visions" of god commanding then to do atrocious things, and then they go do said thing. Thry don't do this thing because of a lack of moral foundation. Rather, they do it because they believe god told them to, and their moral foundation is founded upon gods will.
This makes it so the moral framework of "gods will" is objectively more flimsy and up to interpretation. For example, the bible is interpreted in so many different ways, which in turn creates denominations, which all follow a different set of morals. Some believe lgbtq is moral. Some believe speaking in tongues is demonic, even though speaking in tongues is extremely important in pentecostal denominations.
In this sense, morality from god is objectively flimsy due to it being up to interpretation. Morality based on harm and the betterment of our species, however, isn't up to interpretation because harm is a very objective concept.
Well the point of the euthyphro is that morality is either what we decide is good or what god decides is good. There isn’t a strong foundation either way
derive morality from evolution. its not pretty but it works universally and objectively. and its compatible with determinism so no free will.
This debunks one of PragerU's central belief
No, it doesn't.
@@camwg Because God decided so.
@@dreamweaver9165 No, because it fails to address a monotheistic understanding of God. Socrates interlocutor was a polytheist, Euthyphro does not present a dilemma for monotheists. Saying yes it does only serves to highlight your own ignorance, willful or otherwise. Something for you to listen to so please educate yourself so that you don't unintentionally display ignorance. As has been pointed out to you this is settled stuff amongst academics in the field of philosophy of religion regardless of whether or not they believe in the existence of God.
www.rightreason.org/2008/episode-004-parodying-plato/
@@camwg Actually, the argument is valid also, and I would say more, for a single God. Socrates is not discussing a theological notion of what God is, and then what the good is, but rather a gnoseological problem: can we know (and not only believe by revelation) what God is and then what goodness is? No, we do not. God cannot be used as a moral argument. You will find people justifying the most wicked actions in the name of THEIR god. As human beings we must accept our finitude and the fact that God has chosen to prove us through faith and doubt. PS In Plato's dialogue ignorance is better then believing ourselves wise.
@@dreamweaver9165 I first read the dialogue more than 25 years ago sunshine. Physician heal thyself. It is predominantly online atheists unaware of the fact that Euthyphro does not present a dilemma for monotheists and never has who make the argument. In fact it is my position that Socrates himself was a monotheist. You were provided a link so that you might educate yourself please take advantage of it.
"Morality is... what God wants.... In this case, morality becomes completely arbitrary." This conclusion seems intentionally misleading. Are you claiming special knowledge that God's wants are completely arbitrary? By definition of the argument, it is not completely arbitrary, it based on the character of God. If morality is declared by God, then by definition, it is not arbitrary. Maybe I am missing a step that was simply left out of the video.
At present I believe in DCT but because all of Gods commands are just and loving and because God himself by nature is loving and just and always has been so his moral code is not just because he whims but because he is loving and just therefore its not arbitrary or non reasonableness but because of love and justice which is who he has always been.
Please tell me what is wrong with this thought?
God's commands are based off of his Wisdom, and he is perfect, so it's not arbitrary.
Arbitrary means: being based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
God's commands are based on his perfect wisdom, so it does not classify under that definition of being arbitrary.
(from the Islamic paradigm)
But wisdom implies he's originating it from somewhere other than himself, meaning that it's something he cannot change, meaning he is no longer all powerful but is at the will of morality itself. This also implies that morality is more powerful than God.
It is a false dilemma. Something is not good because God commands it, nor does God command it because it is good. God commands that which is good because He is good. Objective moral standards and duties are founded on God nature which is good, perfect, just, loving, etc... God is the good.
There are rebuttals to this position. For one, we end up at the 'who created the creator' argument.
Did God create his own nature?
If he did, then his nature is not good. Goodness is being defined as whatever flows from God’s nature, but if the nature was created by a being who did not already have the nature before creating it, then why would we call it good? What did God have in mind when he chose how to create his nature? Surely it was not ‘whatever flowed out of his nature.’ This is generally a convoluted and plainly undesirable position, so I doubt anyone will take this one.
If he did not create his own nature, then we encounter even more problems.
@@RhetoricalMuse "For one, we end up at the 'who created the creator' argument." You would have to make up a "created god" to make that argument. Of course that would be a fictional god. If the God of the bible is real as the evidence suggest, then he is eternal, uncreated. He is the first, uncaused cause. God just is, and always was. God "creating his own nature" is a logical contradiction. Nothing can be the cause of itself. And in the case of God, he is uncaused. If you are an atheist, you still have to find a uncaused cause at the beginning of it all otherwise you end up with a infinite regress. 200 years ago, the leading scientific position was that the universe was eternal, therefore uncaused. But we now have scientific evidence showing that the universe had an absolute space, time, matter beginning. This is a real problem for atheists since you still have to find a cause that is immaterial, timeless and spaceless. Sounds like God to me.
@@elkhuntr2816So god doesn't have free will? He is not personal nor is he all poweful. If god's nature is not the result of his own decision, and he can't change it, then he is not powerful or capable of decision making. Yes? Every part of existence, including god's, is deterministic. Yes? If I threw a baby, that would be part of god's nature. God is incapable of doing anything about it.
And there is no scientific evidence showing anything about the universe's beginning, classic theists making stuff up. Show me the paper that establishes such consensus, you can't.
This is a false dilemma. God commands certain things because He is good. Why didn’t you mention this?
Excellent video.
My response:
Allah is good and doesn’t accept anything but good.
Allah created us with attributes that recognize His qualities of goodness.
He commands us with Good.
602 Jefferey Throughway
What if God doesn't arbitrarily decide morality, nor does he observe it outside of himself, but observes it in his own nature?
If God designed the framework of logic and the laws of nature for our universe, why could he not also radiate moral facts, attributed from his own nature?
What if morality is a product of God, because goodness is an attribute of his? Can we, without looking elsewhere, accept the divine command then?
If a god accepts moral facts outside of himself, the source of those moral facts is probably still conscious. It's a shame they don't teach this in philosophy courses today, but that is the answer to this dilemma.
Quite clear, and this is exactly what is taught by the Christian Bible, that the moral law is not a standard but is intrinsic to God. The law is based on God's character.
@@johnharrison2170 so it's just begging the question?
Can you expand?
Euthyphro is a false dilemma because there’s a third option: God observes His own nature.
Which makes more sense because He wouldn’t really be God if He was bound by logic outside of Himself. Only God, the true creator of logic, is also capable of emanating moral logic.
i think God is intrinsically good but it would still exist if he didnt exist if his nature was different and what is according to his real nature morally bad that wouldnt make it morally good i think the second option is true but the problems/arguments that follow arent valid
No, God is morality. Problem solved.
This dilemma makes no sense when trying to apply it to the Abrahamic religions. We must remember that went to Greek philosophers were dealing with anthropomorphic Gods that acted exactly like humans and we’re not all knowing all powerful omnipresent or omni-benevolent. This dilemma makes no sense because God in these religions god is the very definition of what it is to be good. So God doesn’t get his morality from a higher being than him and whatever he says is not moral just because he says it. It is moral because it is a part of his divine nature. So this dilemma cannot be applied.
The problem with the dilemma is that it fails to take into account God's nature. God is the standard of goodness (as you would expect with God being our creator ). However morality is not arbitrary because God has an unchanging nature....
I don't think this solves anything. If we identify God's nature with good, we've just created a new dilemma: Is God's nature said to be good in virtue of God having it, or is God's nature said to be good in virtue of some other standard? All we've done here is push the problem from God's will/command to God's nature, solving nothing. More questions and objections arise, like, is something good because it reflects God's nature, or does God's nature reflect what is good? Is God's nature good because it reflects an external standard of good, or is it good because God's nature is the standard? Is God's nature subject to his will, or is his will subject to his nature? Does God choose his nature, or is does god have no control over his nature? In all of these questions, one answer makes God irrelevant and the other makes morality abitrary. Also, if God = objective moral goodness, then the moral argument (without God, objective morality can't exist and since objective morality does exist, then God exists) reduces to: Without God, God can't exist. God exists, therefore God exists.
@@real_dirty_dan You have misunderstood the "problem". You claim - "In all of these questions, one answer makes God irrelevant and the other makes morality abitrary". The point is God is neither irrelevant nor arbitrary . Gooness comes rom God. God is the standard. Clearly if God is the standard then God is not irrelevant . So why is morally not arbitrary ? Because God is unchanging. He is the same yesterday, today and forever.
@@shogiwar There are definitely some issues I have with this response. Firstly, if goodness comes from God but God is good by definition, this is fallacious reasoning. If God is good by definition, then goodness is synonymous with godliness, making the concept of goodness circular and meaningless. Another question arises: Why ought we do things that are considered godly anyway? Why does God command that we do things that align with his nature?
If God is the supposed standard, but goodness can exist independent of him, then that would of course make him irrelevant when discussing goodness and morality. You say that God is uncahnging, therefore morality isn't arbitrary, but that would just mean that morality isn't dependent on God. And let me ask you this. What reason does God have for commanding the things he does? If God has a reason for commanding what he does, then it's that fundamental reason (that exists outside of god) that is the basis for that command (Ex: don't steal, don't murder, love your neighbor, etc). But if God doesn't have a reason for what he commands, then what he commands is abritrary, even if he is unchanging. (Watch this vid 1:28:40 - 1:40:30: ruclips.net/video/_cPfxjwAubY/видео.html&ab_channel=CosmicSkeptic). You could try to make an argument to explain this away, but it almost always goes back to the same, or a similar premise, leading to an infinite regress.
I think that the ED fails as an objection to DCT because it does not understand that Morality is God. In other words Morality is a personal being. So when the ED asks is something moral because God says it is? Or does God say something is moral because it is moral? It is asking is something moral because Morality says it is? Or does Morality say something is moral because it is Moral? If the ED is valid it can be used to attack all kinds of things. Is something circular because Circularity says it is? Or does Circularity say something is circular because it is circular? This is why the ED does not bother a lot of Theists because it is obvious that something is moral/circular because Morality/Circularity says it is. So all that to say the ED only works to disprove a version of DCT where the God giving the moral law is not Morality itself. Morality is a personal being, that being we call God.
@D Sullivan how is it circular?
@D Sullivan that is not circular, that is definitional. I was showing how the ED fails to defeat that definition of morality. You are correct that I did not put forward an argument for that definition. But I was not trying to. An argument for that definition would look something like this,
Premise 1) If morality is not the Divine Nature then morality is not objective.
Premise 2) morality is objective.
Conclusion ) morality is the Divine Nature.
@D Sullivan if I propose a morality as a God, you will never stop questioning. We need to ask ourselves which definition of morality works better? And as I pointed out the ED is not a good objection to the DCT definition of morality because it is not even attacking what most people mean by DCT.
You ask why not morality without God? Here is an argument why you can't have morality without a God,
Premise 1) If there is no God then humans are just animals.
Premise 2) Animals have no moral responsibilities or duties.
Conclusion) If there is no God then Humans have no moral responsibilities or duties.
I think the problem of evil that you have brought up fails for a couple of reasons.
A) the problem of evil if true does not prove that there is no God but only that He lacks some traditional Omni property.
B) I think that a strong argument can be made that if there is no God then morality would not exist. So the existence of moral evil would actually be evidence for the existence of a God not evidence for His non-existence.
C) Just because you can't think of a good reason why a God would cause or allow evil to exist it does not follow that there is no good reason for a God to cause or allow evil to exist.
You might be interested in Paul Draper's Aesthetic Deism. Many believe that it is more likely than traditional Theism.
@D Sullivan no problem. I get so embarrassed when people who are on my side of an issue behave rudely to people in the comments. I appreciate your politeness as well.
My argument for God being morality would start out with my animal argument from earlier to establish that God is the ontological ground for morality. Then I would try to get something like the following to work.
Premise 1) If God is the ontological grounding for morality then
a) God created morality,
or
b) God simply is morality.
Premise 2) Not a.
Conclusion) therefore if God is the ontological ground for morality then God simply is morality.
I would actually appeal to the ED to defend Premise 2. If God created morality then morality would be arbitrary. But morality is not arbitrary. Therefore God did not create morality.
Where's the problem? Why does the divine command theorist need to think God might well command abhorrent stuff tomorrow?
its not that he would, but that he is capable of it.
Obviously option number two is the correct one. Religion and god were invented by people, so religion got its morality from people, not the other way around. I like how the 10 Commandments were referenced, because anybody who wants to have this discussion is obviously unaware that the code of Hammurabi which predates the 10 Commandments by about eight centuries has far more legal and moral relevance today
Lol at you when you use obviously 😂 bless your heart
You are confusing ontology and epistemology. The question is not what is the good but rather is there really any good at all.
@Seb13 imagine saying something as foolish as “the only thing you know, is that you know nothing” 😂🤣
“Obviously” = bad philosophy.
Anything is possible when you lie
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Good content, but what's with the second guy? It sounds like the philosophy TA woke up his stoner roommate to read lines for this new teaching aid he was making.
Can you stop depicting God as a man in the sky please. Many people don't believe God is a man in the sky. And this seems to make believing in God seem rather pathetic.
What is God?
🤔 Demonstrate god, then we can ask god what is moral 😮.
The dilemma is a false dichotomy as it there's a third possibility which is that goodness is a necessary, intrinsic part of God's very nature and it exists by virtue of God existing. Since it is part of God, God can't be subject to it (solving dilemma option 1) and since it is grounded on God's existence and not God's commands, it is not arbitrary (solves option 2).
Saying “goodness is an intrinsic part of God’s nature” assumes an outside standard by which to judge him. Otherwise it’s just saying God is godly, which is a meaningless tautology.
You haven’t added a third prong. You just restated the dilemma. Is god’s nature good because it conforms to an existing standard of goodness? Or is something good because it conforms to God’s nature? If God’s nature were reversed, would goodness become evil, and evil good?
@@jeffhampton7405 I think what is meant here is that God’s nature contains certain properties that comprise God to be what God is. One property of God is God’s perfect goodness. This is what is meant when that person says “goodness is an intrinsic part of God’s nature”. Goodness is one of God’s eternal properties. So I don’t see how applying the property of goodness to God’s nature is judging God on an external standard from which the property of goodness resides when goodness resides in God itself. Also, I would say like to point out that when you say “restated the dilemma”, you did not accurately restate the dilemma. Specifically, you said “…or is something good because it conforms to God’s nature” is not restating point two that says “does God command it because it is morally good”. When you attempt to reiterate point two, you are asking if something is good because it conforms to God’s nature. However, point two in the actual dilemma asks if God commands it because it is morally good, insinuating an external standard of goodness. But your reiteration of the second point says God is the standard of moral goodness itself, and so something is good if it conforms to the standard that is God itself. I’ll try give an example of where you are going wrong. If we want to describe what the concept of structure is, we would look to what properties structure has. Structure has the property of order. Now, order doesn’t have to come from an external standard, but rather, order arises as a property of structure. With regards to goodness and God. Goodness doesn’t come from an external standard and then placed on describing God, Goodness arises as the property of God, just as order arises as a property of structure.
@@tyronrm6732 Because to say “God is good” is to say that God’s nature conforms to an existing standard of goodness.
If goodness is defined as that which conforms to God’s nature, then saying “God is good” is absolutely meaningless. Whatever he is would be good. If his nature was to skin babies, then skinning babies would be the highest good.
The only way “God is good” could have any meaning whatsoever is if his nature matches an external standard for what is good. Otherwise you’re just saying God is God.
@@jeffhampton7405 Not necessarily. The properties you use to describe Goodness, are the exact same properties you use to describe God. They are one in the same thing. So, in some sense, yes, Good is God. God is Good. God is God. You can't exactly say, "if God's nature was to skin babies, then skinning babies would be the highest good". That is like saying, "If the nature of structure was disorderliness, then disorderliness would be structure". However, the concept of structure can't remove it's property of orderliness, otherwise, structure isn't structure. If God's nature is to skin babies, then it is not God. God cannot be opposites. God can not not be God. Concepts are bound by their properties without the properties necessarily being from an external standard. God cannot remove the inherent property of Goodness. You create an unnecessary paradox by separating the two concepts as if they are mutually exclusive. Can you have structure without order, or order without structure? I would say no. Does order conform to structure, or does structure conform to order? If one supersedes the other, then I am likely to agree with you. However, I do not think this is the case. I wouldn't think one comes before the other. Simultaneously, by saying structure, you are saying order. Similarly, if I say God, I am saying Goodness. So, yes, God is God, but that is not necessarily meaningless.
Beautifully said Tyron!
There's no dilemma here. The problem with the first option is that, it assumes God would think and reason and act like a human being (a teenage human being). And option 2 is just ridiculous.
Great video really enjoyed it
How do you know god doesn't go off of a whim? There's plenty of points in the bible where god commits immoral acts that kills innocent people. Such as when he killed every firstborn child in egypt or when he sent meteors to strike nenova. For a god who supposedly isn't "controlling," he sure controlled a lot of people in the days of the bible by murdering them. Furthermore, there's nothing in the bible that says god DOESN'T go off on a whim, so it's logical to assume that god sometimes does things on a whim, which is where the dilemma lies. Morality isn't objective in this sense, but based on how god feels or his intentions in that moment.
You haven't even brought forth an argument for why the second is silly. Believing that god commands things simply because they are good implies that morality is something that god discovers and creates, which means morality still exists without god.
Then what is your solution?
I agree that the second option is silly. If there is *greater* morality apart from God, then *that* becomes God (or at least a moral branch of a greater God... but nonetheless still God).
@@No_Complyinteresting idea. But then comes questions: why the greater morality needs a god to exist? Does morality need a god to exist?
@@rikuvakevainen6157 I don't have a great answer here, but the first thing that comes to mind is that Morality would need a vessel to deliver itself unto humans (which could be the Judeo-Christian God and the 10 commandments, for example).
Tangent: But if the supreme morality becomes God, then your questions becomes "Well why does God need God to exist?" or "Does God need God to exist?"
My head hurts.
Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dichotomy/false dilemma. There is a third option. the good/righteous/moral flows from Gods nature. He is the source and as it is His nature He cannot act against His nature. Nothing arbitrary or variable and it establishes the ONLY possible grounding from objective morality. Thus, there is no dilemma.
2633 Rath Rest
4978 Maggio Trace
Eudemonia n Natural Law
This is a false Dichotomy! There is third option. Namely goodness is in the nature of God. He is the good. Why is this so hard to understand?
There's no difference between saying "God is good" and "It is in God's nature to be good". So, is God good because God is good? Either being good really is good, or it's just whatever God is. If it's just whatever God is, it's not objective.
3555 Raleigh Crest
Purple guys feels like some sort of straw man.
God commands that which is morally good becaue god IS that which is morally good
This doesn't solve the problem at all. By what metric is God that which is morally good? According to who? If God is that which is morally good only according to himself and his own will, then morality is still based on the arbitrary will of God, and anything can be moral as long as he thinks it should be.
@@isaacbruner65 God does not make a choice it just is his nature. So it's not arbitrary as he does not make a choice to be moral goodness that just is how he is. There is no choice made that's what it means for it to be objective and not arbitrary.
@@carterwoodrow4805 if God doesn't make a choice, but he is just by his nature "good", then goodness and the nature of God are the same thing, so you're still not solving the problem, just rewording it.
By what metric is the nature of God good? According to who? Is the nature of God good because God says it is? Or is the nature of God objectively good (which again implies an objective morality outside of God's nature)?
Let me put this another way. In your own words "God commands that which is morally good." So does that mean anything God commands is good? What if God told you to murder someone? You might object "God would never order that" but you have never given an explanation for what is stopping God from doing anything he wants, if he by his nature is morality.
@@isaacbruner65 yes I agree goodness and the nature of God are the same thing. This is due to metaphysical necessity.
@@carterwoodrow4805 did you just not read the rest of my comment or did you choose to ignore it?
If God told you to murder someone, would that be a moral thing to do? And if it's not moral, how could it not be? And if you say God wouldn't ask that of you, why not?
81830 Alize Expressway
31761 Deanna Prairie
on foenem grave
The first premise assumes that God is changing and will make morality into that just pops into his head. That goes against the basic principle of the Abrahamic God that he is unchanging and perfect. If God is a perfect and unchanging being then he will never change his mind and the moral commands he gives will always be valid throughout eternity.
But that presents a challenge to God's omnipotence. And is God's nature subject to his will, or is his will subject to his nature?
So God has no free will?
Euthyphro does not present a dilemma to monotheism.
Actually, it is the opposite. Socrates notes that different gods would imply contrasting notions of good and right; then he goes over to discuss a monolithic idea of divine command, that is a single notion of good and evil.
False dilemma.
Third option. God is the pefect good.
615 Schumm Junctions
So following the first one, if morality is a concept created by god, and acting morally is acting the way god wants us, and acting the way god wants us gets us into heaven, then what is wrong with this point? Wouldn’t morality just be synonymous with gods will? If we act amorally we sin, if we act against god we sin?
The point is that if god chooses morals, then they can change on the whim and aren't objective. Rather, they are fluid with what god wants at the time.
Nenova being struck down and the firstborn children of egypt being murdured, or the earth being flooded are all very good examples of this. God, who is supposedly not "controlling," commits these atrocious acts of murder. Since god can only be moral, this would then make what god did moral even though murder is a sin.
What if god told you to murder a ton of people in his name? He's done it in the bible, so why not now? That's what this video is talking about.
What if God changed His mind on how He wants us to act, and deliberately didn't tell us, dooming us to fail (on purpose)? What then?
This dilemma comes from a misunderstanding of God. God is the very foundation of reality. Thus, if one believes that morality has a foundation and is objective it has to be rooted in God.
So I can say that morality is a undiscovered law of nature.. no god needed
@@descartergosum What do you mean by an undercover law of nature? Also, this was a response to the dilemma, not an argument for God.
LinebackerTuba I’m making an argument for morality without a God
@@descartergosum My point is that your argument is irrelevant to my comment. However, I'm still interested in what you mean by an undercover law of nature?
LinebackerTuba ruclips.net/video/mdZfJ_yjPkE/видео.html starts at-16:11
False dilemma that was solved hundreds of years ago. Next.
What is the solution? That God is good by his very nature? Unfortunately, I don't think that solves anything. If we identify God's nature with good, we've just created a new dilemma: Is God's nature said to be good in virtue of God having it, or is God's nature said to be good in virtue of some other standard? All we've done here is push the problem from God's will/command to God's nature, solving nothing. Not only this, but if we equate God's nature with good, then it raises the question of why we ought to do things that align with God's nature anyway. More questions and objections arise, like, is something good because it reflects God's nature, or does God's nature reflect what is good? Is God's nature good because it reflects an external standard of good, or is it good because God's nature is the standard? Is God's nature subject to his will, or is his will subject to his nature? Does God choose his nature, or is does god have no control over his nature? In all of these questions, one answer makes God irrelevant and the other makes morality abitrary. Also, if God = objective moral goodness, then the moral argument (without God, objective morality can't exist and since objective morality does exist, then God exists) reduces to: Without God, God can't exist. God exists, therefore God exists.
@@real_dirty_dan *"If we identify God's nature with good, we've just created a new dilemma: Is God's nature said to be good in virtue of God having it, or is God's nature said to be good in virtue of some other standard?"*
=That is not a dilemma. You've just taken the solution to the Euthyphro dilemma, and butted it up against one of the original horns of that dilemma, and called it a new dilemma when in fact it is not. You seem to just not like the solution. Too bad, frankly.=
*"All we've done here is push the problem from God's will/command to God's nature, solving nothing"*
=It solves the false dilemma. Which is the entire objection under consideration. So, it can be rightly said that it solves everything.=
*"Is God's nature good because it reflects an external standard of good, or is it good because God's nature is the standard?"*
=Again, you're just taking an original horn of the Euthyphro dilemma and butting it up against the very solution to that dilemma and wrongly claiming it presents a new dilemma=
*"Does God choose his nature, or is does [sic] god have no control over his nature?"*
=Option B. By necessity one cannot control what is necessarily the case. This is similar to how God cannot control whether He exists or not. A necessary being cannot choose to exist or not to exist. If God exists, there is no possible world in which He does not exist. Being omnipotent does not entail the ability to do logically impossible things.=
*"Is God's nature subject to his will, or is his will subject to his nature?"*
=If and only if you equate "subject to" with "flows from", then option B. If you don't, then I'm afraid this is another false dilemma, and you appear to be going for the world record. I can see quite clearly that you have no credible objections to the solution of the dilemma, so I will go ahead and end our interaction at this point. Go get a philosophy degree. Or get your money back if you in fact have one. Take care.=
The trinitarian God each with their tripartite natures solves this dilemma.
So I can say that morality is a undercover law of nature.
The God himself is good. God himself is morally good intrinsically. It's like someone with the IQ of >160. He is intrinsically genius. So for someone who wants to be smart for example, therefore has to study with him. God is intrinsically good. Therefore we have to follow him to be good. Neither because He commands or invents it as a reason, but because we see Him as good itself. I don't find any difficulty in this.
44723 Dayana Keys
how about taking the first horn and saying that god's commands have a causal relationship to his goodness
Circular reasoning. God's commands are good because God is good, and God is good because he commands good things. This does not explain where the idea of what is or isn't good comes from. Either things are good because God decided they are (horn 1) or they're good regardless of what God thinks (horn 2).