I made a post a little while ago about morality under atheism - I'd like to consider the flipside this time around. That is, morality under theism.
A common thread in several arguments I have had with theists is this idea that morality cannot function under atheism - the implication is that it does function under theism.
The Euthyphro Dilemma is an argument directed against the most common formulation of morality under theism - divine command ethics.
Divine command ethics is pretty simplistic - the basic idea is that god/s tell you what is good and what is bad, and that is then morality - it's just ethics straight from the deity.
The Euthyphro Dilemma is a very simple argument - it goes like this:
"Does God command actions because they are moral, or are actions moral because they are commanded by God?"
One of those responses must be true in a divinely-commanded ethics system, and both present a problem - the former response implies that morality is independent of God - that is, there is an absolute morality separate from God that God is bound to - which makes God's involvement in the whole morality thing somewhat unnecessary. The problems with the second option are somewhat subtler - first, it implies that what is moral is arbitrary - God could make a world in which murder was good and charity was bad, and that would be morality in that world. This is an issue for a system that purports to establish absolute moral rules - in particular, because God's 'divine commands' need to be interpreted. Secondly, it implies that the statement "God is good" is tautological - it is meaningless for Christians to tell us that "God is love", etc. etc., because he's the definition of the emotion. In such a world, a God who commanded the slaughter of innocents would also be 'good'.
Think about it. I'd be interested to hear your conclusions.
Defining moral good as being about 'compliance' implies a subjective morality - which is not consistent with divine command ethics.
I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of subjective morality myself. | |
This will give many people something to ponder over the next few days. And Traztx is right, the primary thing is that many visions are lies or hallucinations..
I find it funny that Traz posted that a day before the AP released an article that said about how a study shows that Jesus and/or his followers were under a hallucination-causing plant's effects when the 10 Commandments were given.. Living example. | |
One interesting thing about certain power plants is the experience of nonconsensual reality that is as compelling as the reality we experience in the ordinary state of consciousness. One realizes that belief in the ordinary experience is a matter of faith, because going there seems like waking up from a dream that is here. And returning here seems like waking up from a dream that is there. This can lead one to suspect the activity of the plant as not simply a source of hallucination, but a gateway between 2 hallucinations.
Now there is the problem of validating "reality", because a hallucination can involve a sort of mechanics. So if you pinch yourself and feel pain, is it the mechanics of reality that induces the pain, or the mechanics of a hallucination that induces the pain? So one point that can be drawn from this is that we cannot be certain to discount an entheogenic vision merely because it disagrees with ordinary consensual reality. It is a matter of choice, and a matter of faith to put either over the other. The difference is that when we put consensual reality over our own personal experience, we gain agreement but lose empirical honesty. | |
The Euthyphro Dilemma is a very simple argument - it goes like this:"Does God command actions because they are moral, or are actions moral because they are commanded by God?" Does the programmer require Mario to jump barrels because it is the point of the game, or is it the point of the game to jump barrels because the programmer requires it? Here's an interesting (IMHO) article on the question of whether divine commandments can, or should, be justified by appeals to reason: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2932146.html | |
Gughunter wrote:
The Euthyphro Dilemma is a very simple argument - it goes like this:"Does God command actions because they are moral, or are actions moral because they are commanded by God?" Dunno. The question isn't nonsense, though - it's asking whether there is an absolute reference point for 'the point of the game' that is external to the progammer. I'm not sure if you intended that question to illustrate an absurdity in the argument or not, but if you did intend that, I'm afraid I don't see it. Here's an interesting (IMHO) article on the question of whether divine commandments can, or should, be justified by appeals to reason: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2932146.html Read most of the first few sections, started skimming it a bit further down. Interesting, but makes some logical leaps and assumptions (and straw men) that I can't agree with - in particular, the idea that an 'abstract' sense of morality is inherently useless that appears to be promulgated, and this idea that attacking traditions implies moral subjectivity. Indeed, I would consider morality to be absolute. And the argument that we can't question tradition because it means that the average person will no longer have moral standards is not, in my mind, a good one. For starters, I would argue that American culture already has a pretty terrible ethical standpoint, and as such, it's 'shining examples' probably aren't worth defending (Lack of universal healthcare? What the hell?). Furthermore, as I've already mentioned, I think that an 'abstract' sense of morality - a thinking morality - is just as viable as one built on the unconscious impulses built into you when you were raised, and is, in fact, better - in particular, because it can handle change better, and can be changed by argument. Finally, I think the author of the article cheapens the moral and intellectual capabilities of the average person - I seriously doubt that the existence of gay marriage will cause your average, everyday person to devalue monogamy. (If that's even a problem - I have no issue with polygamy, assuming full consent and knowledge on the behalf of all involved). | |
What does this say about God? Is there a different God available for each religion? Or does 1 God command subsets of people grouped into each religion to comply with separate standards? Or is there error in the books?
Well look at the sources of divine authority. It comes from individuals who either experience or lie about experiencing a vision or illusion. What can anyone do to tell the difference? This question comes up in the Bible in various places and the answer given is to test it. Well you can't test everything. So people pretty much say "he accurately predicted that plague of slugs, so listen to him". The system is prone to error and because of this, believers still have to put trust in God and hope for the best.
There are other options too. In shamanic practice, you get your own revellations. The core of shamanism is more about methodology than theology. Since shamans get their own messages, their transfer of information between people is often methodological not theological. So instead of a shaman saying "God sez we gotta beat medicine drums at 120 BPM" it's more like "Woah dude, I tried 120 BPM and was finally able to see the color 'gendale'." Shamans don't have to worry about whether or not a prophet is honest. They just have to grapple with whether or not experience is real or illusion and whether or not it matters anyway.