User:Atcovi/Ethics/Lecture1

Euthyphro's Dilemma


 * What is piety? Does God love piety because it is pious in it's nature OR is it pious because God commands it?

1st question
This means that piety is independent of God. God witnesses an action that he finds it to be (coincidentally) righteous or dislikable. It is independent of God's commandment - it is related to the action itself.

2nd question
Piety is dependent of God. Before God's commandment, morality doesn't exist - it only exists until God's commandments.

Socrates' Thinking
Socrates believed that the 1st argument (God is independent of morality) is correct, instead of the 2nd argument (God is dependent on morality). Socrates believes that if morality was dependent of God, morality would then be arbitrary (meaningless). Socrates believes that God could easily change his commandments day in and day out, therefore incapable of establishing a clear and solid line of morality.

Socrates questions Euth on why he loves a certain thing - to which he responds, saying "it is about something in that specific object that I love". Similar to chocolate - people love chocolate because of something in it (taste, ex.). Socrates believes God's love for certain elements is identical to humans: there is something specific in that action that is good.

Notes - 12/21/2022 - Socrates Euphryos
Socrates was a Greek philosopher who actually didn't write anything. All accounts are written by Plato.

The Sophists: "professional" philosophers. Rhetoric = persuasive speaking. Relativism = truth is dependent upon man's beliefs.


 * logos = logic & reasoning
 * ethos = credibility & facts
 * pathos = emotions

Socrates taught philosophy for free. The Socratic Method is a method to stimulate critical & quick thinking. It consists of rapid questioning and answering in order to detect defects in the student's arguments. Two conditions: be honest and no denial of obvious evidence.

Moral Question? – Are there truths so dangerous we ought not speak them/admit them?

Euthyphro by Plato

 * Euthyphro Dilemma
 * PKG-God vs. Divine Command Theory

Thiests argue that God commands good because he is All-Powerful.


 * God is the standard himself.
 * God's logic is beyond us

Week #1 - Part 1 Discussion: The Euthyphro Dilemma
Midway through the discussion in Plato’s dialogue the Euthyphro, Socrates claims that piety can only be one of two possibilities: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” Socrates' thinking is not only a critique on the Ancient Greek understanding of the connection between the gods and ethics but it can also be used to critique today's Divine Command theory (the idea that God commands what is good and what is evil).

Are God's actions good because the action itself is good? Or are God's actions good because he commands it?

Make sure you explain the fundamental difference between the two questions. Using Socratic thinking, which question seems more plausible? Why is the other question implausible?

Finally, do you believe in a secular ethics? In other words, do you believe that we can still have real universal ethical values if God does not exists? Explain why or why not.

Answer
'''Are God's actions good because the action itself is good? Or are God's actions good because he commands them?'''

The first question is asking if God's legislation on a specific action is based on the nature of the action being good. An example is that God legislated that the murder of an innocent human being is wrong because the action itself is void of goodness. The ending of an innocent life, that has done no harm, is wrong because the action itself is immoral.

The second question is asking if God's legislation on a specific action is based on God's will alone. An example is that God legislated prayer to him alone is good because he himself has commanded such an action. One could argue that this commandment is not good because it is a "waste of time", which would be refuted in that it is good because God commanded his servants to pray to him.

According to Socratic principles, the first question would be plausible. Socrates believes that God's love for action is because there is a certain good in that action. Socrates believes that the second question is not plausible because it would render the concept of "morality" void and that God would make decisions "willy-nilly". A possible counterargument to this is that God would not make "willy-nilly" decisions, but Socrates responds by saying that even if God were to make a decision off on his own goodness, it would still be because God himself found something great in that certain action.

''Finally, do you believe in secular ethics? In other words, do you believe that we can still have real universal ethical values if God does not exists? Explain why or why not.''

I personally do not believe in secular ethics. Humans are naturally evil creatures and are very easily inclined to their own self-desires. Unfortunately, atrocious actions have been done in the name of religion (actions of ISIS), but atrocious actions have been committed due to selfish and inhumane desires (antireligious campaigns in China during the 1900s). At this point, it is up to the individual themselves to decide on which side they agree with. As someone who follows a monotheistic religion & believes that humans are naturally lost and way too weak to legislate themselves, I believe that ethical values cannot be fairly legislated without the presence of a God.