Comments on: The Euthyphro Dilemma: Splitting The Two Horned Monster http://rationalfaithonline.com/the-euthyphro-dilemma-splitting-the-two-horned-monster/ Exploring the rationality of the existance of God and the Christian Worldview Sun, 05 Dec 2010 20:18:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Rod http://rationalfaithonline.com/the-euthyphro-dilemma-splitting-the-two-horned-monster/comment-page-1/#comment-228 Rod Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:36:29 +0000 http://rationalfaithonline.com/?p=1157#comment-228 Hi again Chris, I'd be happy to add comment notification. Any particular WP plugins you'd recommend? Though it is central to the argument, the options, or 'horns' of Euthyphro's dilemma as presented by Plato were not subjective vs. objective morality, but more about the concept of God. Euthyphro said that: 1) Things are good because God commands them. This would make morality arbitrary. God could command that we beat up old ladies, and because He commanded it, it would make it good. That doesn't work with the Christian concept of objective morality. or 2) God commands things because they are already good. That would mean that the source of morality was something greater than God. There would be a higher moral standard that God was subjected to. This doesn't work wtih the Christian concept of an all-powerful God. The third option says the source of morality is the nature of God. This places the source of morality within God himself, and if he cannot command things in contradition to his nature, it means his commands are not arbitrary, but based on an objective source. This splits the dilemma presented by Euthyphro. As far as subjective vs. objective morality, I think that is a true dilemma. We have to pick one or the other, and objective morality is what makes more sense to me. I hope that helps explain Euthyphro. I got this from Dr. William Lane Craig, though it has been presented by many philosophers for a while now. If you're interested in finding someone who should be able to shed some more light on the subject, take a look at the <a href="http://rationalfaithonline.com/resources/" rel="nofollow">resources </a>page on this site and you'll find a link to some of Craig's stuff under "Top Christian Apologists and Scholars". Thanks for commenting! I'll check out some comment notification plug-ins, but if you have a suggestion, send it along. Hi again Chris,
I’d be happy to add comment notification. Any particular WP plugins you’d recommend?

Though it is central to the argument, the options, or ‘horns’ of Euthyphro’s dilemma as presented by Plato were not subjective vs. objective morality, but more about the concept of God.

Euthyphro said that:

1) Things are good because God commands them. This would make morality arbitrary. God could command that we beat up old ladies, and because He commanded it, it would make it good. That doesn’t work with the Christian concept of objective morality.

or

2) God commands things because they are already good. That would mean that the source of morality was something greater than God. There would be a higher moral standard that God was subjected to. This doesn’t work wtih the Christian concept of an all-powerful God.

The third option says the source of morality is the nature of God. This places the source of morality within God himself, and if he cannot command things in contradition to his nature, it means his commands are not arbitrary, but based on an objective source. This splits the dilemma presented by Euthyphro.

As far as subjective vs. objective morality, I think that is a true dilemma. We have to pick one or the other, and objective morality is what makes more sense to me.

I hope that helps explain Euthyphro. I got this from Dr. William Lane Craig, though it has been presented by many philosophers for a while now. If you’re interested in finding someone who should be able to shed some more light on the subject, take a look at the resources page on this site and you’ll find a link to some of Craig’s stuff under “Top Christian Apologists and Scholars”.

Thanks for commenting! I’ll check out some comment notification plug-ins, but if you have a suggestion, send it along.

]]> By: Chris http://rationalfaithonline.com/the-euthyphro-dilemma-splitting-the-two-horned-monster/comment-page-1/#comment-227 Chris Sat, 09 Oct 2010 04:55:55 +0000 http://rationalfaithonline.com/?p=1157#comment-227 Hi Rod, is there any way you can add comment notification to your blog? That would be pretty swell in keeping up on when people reply to comments... just a feature that I personally like... :) Ok, so I think I understand where you are coming from now. You are saying that morality is objective. This, I think, I knew. However, I would disagree that your argument necessarily splits the dilemma with a third option. You don't really offer a third option. You chose objective morality. The other choice was subjective morality. What you did do, however, was offer a different explanation as to why morality is objective. Do I not understand the dilemma? Is not our only two choices: subjective morality or objective morality? Hi Rod, is there any way you can add comment notification to your blog? That would be pretty swell in keeping up on when people reply to comments… just a feature that I personally like… :)

Ok, so I think I understand where you are coming from now. You are saying that morality is objective. This, I think, I knew. However, I would disagree that your argument necessarily splits the dilemma with a third option. You don’t really offer a third option. You chose objective morality. The other choice was subjective morality. What you did do, however, was offer a different explanation as to why morality is objective.

Do I not understand the dilemma? Is not our only two choices: subjective morality or objective morality?

]]> By: Basis of Morality | Rational Faith, The Existence of God, Revelation of The Bible and the Example of Jesus http://rationalfaithonline.com/the-euthyphro-dilemma-splitting-the-two-horned-monster/comment-page-1/#comment-223 Basis of Morality | Rational Faith, The Existence of God, Revelation of The Bible and the Example of Jesus Sun, 03 Oct 2010 19:50:07 +0000 http://rationalfaithonline.com/?p=1157#comment-223 [...] rather than doing the topic I had planned.  The comments I’ve been getting revolve around Euthyphro’s Dilemma and the third alternative I presented that splits the dilemma.  It seems that the new question is [...] [...] rather than doing the topic I had planned.  The comments I’ve been getting revolve around Euthyphro’s Dilemma and the third alternative I presented that splits the dilemma.  It seems that the new question is [...]

]]> By: Rod http://rationalfaithonline.com/the-euthyphro-dilemma-splitting-the-two-horned-monster/comment-page-1/#comment-220 Rod Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:23:16 +0000 http://rationalfaithonline.com/?p=1157#comment-220 Hi Again Chris, If God's nature is a certain way and does not change, God cannot act in contradiction to His nature, and morality stems from that nature, it takes the subjectivity away from morality and makes it objective. I don't see any confusion between subjective and objective morality in this case. Hi Again Chris,
If God’s nature is a certain way and does not change, God cannot act in contradiction to His nature, and morality stems from that nature, it takes the subjectivity away from morality and makes it objective. I don’t see any confusion between subjective and objective morality in this case.

]]> By: Chris http://rationalfaithonline.com/the-euthyphro-dilemma-splitting-the-two-horned-monster/comment-page-1/#comment-211 Chris Sun, 26 Sep 2010 18:32:15 +0000 http://rationalfaithonline.com/?p=1157#comment-211 Thanks for your response. I'm not yet convinced that your 3rd option does much good though. The first two options seem to be debating whether the good "thing" that happened is objectively good or subjectively good (as deemed by God). Now, you are saying that good things are good because God says so and he says so because of his nature and his nature is good because...well it just is. So it appears your third option is saying that it is both subjective and objective. Morality is subjective to God but it's not really subjective because God's nature was always good. ... hmmm I'm still trying to make sense of your position. Maybe there are some semantics that we need to agree on first... Thanks for your response. I’m not yet convinced that your 3rd option does much good though. The first two options seem to be debating whether the good “thing” that happened is objectively good or subjectively good (as deemed by God). Now, you are saying that good things are good because God says so and he says so because of his nature and his nature is good because…well it just is.

So it appears your third option is saying that it is both subjective and objective. Morality is subjective to God but it’s not really subjective because God’s nature was always good. … hmmm I’m still trying to make sense of your position. Maybe there are some semantics that we need to agree on first…

]]>