Euthyphro’s Dilemma
Euthyphro: Well, I should certainly say that what’s holy is whatever all the gods approve of, and that its opposite, what all the gods disprove of, is unholy…
Socrates: We’ll soon be in better position to judge, my good chap. Consider the following point: is the holy approved by the gods because it’s holy, or is it holy because it’s approved?
Well assessed.
Luke your point on foreknowledge is excellent. Although they are in no way Christian, Frank Herbert’s Dune books offer a great journey into the omniscient perspective.
Jamie I find pragmatism to hit the nail on the head.
This question reminds me of the logic fallacy in the question as to whether God can create a rock so big that he cannot pick it up. The reality expressed in the question is whether or not God can cause two mutually exclusive things not to be exclusive.
(The problem thus created being that two items cannot both exist and be mutually exclusive of one another without a change in the definition of the word exclusive – such a change would of course also invalidate the idea behind the wording of the original question.)
Morality does not exist where there is only one. Morality requires multiplicity. God created multiplicity. Multiplicity inherently requires love to function. (Love being the good of all parties.)
(Morality is a social code of behavior, it is only possible where there is a second individual with which the original individual can form a behavioral relationship. At least two parties are needed.)
Let me pose a new question: Would God create multiplicity and then defy it’s functionality by declaring something unloving to be “good?” This would put God in the position of being self contradictory in His actions. Love allows multiplicity to work, sin causes it not to work. Either God wants multiplicity or He does not.
(The only other argument being that God might have created us, and now sustains us purely for the opportunity to take pleasure in inflicting pain on His creations. This would be like a torturer taking care to keep victims alive so that he can continue to torture them. This would be the policy of a sadist.)
Or, He is not self consistent – in which case everything falls down into meaninglessness as there is no definition for reality without logic (consistency) and ideas like “exclusive” become impossible since they are in conflict with the absence of consistency.
Jamie: Stanley Milgram created what he called Stages of Moral Development detailing your note on progression beyond “mom said” morality.
Luke/Alex I take the position that no hidden thought or deed is harmless – ultimately we are all connected and so everything we do is either loving or unloving – enhancing multiplicity or tearing it down.
——————————–
So, to answer Socrates,” is the holy approved by – God – because it’s holy, or is it holy because it’s approved?” Holy is holy because it is approved by God, but God is not like the Greek god’s who were inconsistent. God created us because He wants us and His love for us and desire that we love each other is consistent with His creating us. He does not inconsistently tear us down or endorse our being torn down by approving and declaring holy unloving behavior in either himself or others. His act of creating us made loving us the consistent behavior toward us – and to be consistent, as God is, means to be constrained by commitment one’s own actions. God is faithful. Once He created us He approved love because love then became holy and consistent.
