Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Euthyphro dilemma essay
Euthyphro dilemma essay
Morality and the beliefs of god
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Introduction
The nature of morality is believed to have been heavily impacted by the enduring history of religion, yet philosophical conflict has arisen of over differing interpretations of Socrates question of whether ‘our moral virtues were designed as good by an omnipotent God, or whether they are good because God recognizes them as good.’
The argument stands on the presumed belief in the God of the bible, which results in a contradiction in the infinitely debatable question posed by Socrates. If God, as described in the bible, is the creator of the universe and all things physical and theoretical within it, morality cannot exist on its own terms and all things both good and bad are created because God designed them to be this way.
The depending interpretation of Socrates question may heavily influence the way in which a person lives their life, as the answer may influence a person’s perception of the character of God and consequently their moral response.
In this essay I will first outline the main points of controversy of the Euthyphro dilemma and the first theory of supernaturalism and in the second and third paragraphs reveal in more detail to the reader the main options of the second theory of supernaturalism and why it is more plausible for a Theist to say that God it a good maker rather than a good tracker.
The Euthyphro Dilemma
To be persuaded by my argument, all relating arguments for the Euthyphro Dilemma must first be understood to make the argument valid. As suggested by Henry Gensler (Gensler 2014, pg. 40), the two conflicting issues stated by the dilemma are entwined in a way that highly debatable pros and cons for each ensure that neither option is fully satisfactory. If an option is discarded, many valid po...
... middle of paper ...
... however may be due to moral stories being taken to literally by the interpreter, as well as excessive trust for an unknown source.
Conclusion
To conclude, all arguments made under the divine command theory are to some extent presumptuous and contain many circumstantial variables. As stated by Henry Gensler (Gensler 2014, pg. 43), the bible contains several ‘gray areas which can be interpreted differently’ depending on the tendency of people to interpret the bible in a way that reflects personal desire. However, if a belief in the God of the bible is adopted, then logic ultimately suggests that God as a good maker is the more plausible option. As stated in the thesis, God is described in the bible as the creator of the universe and everything within it, and therefore morality cannot exist on its own terms and all things are created according to God initial design.
Morality derives from the Latin moralitas meaning, “manner, character, or proper behavior.” In light of this translation, the definition invites the question of what composes “proper behavior” and who defines morality through these behaviors, whether that be God, humanity, or an amalgamation of both. Socrates confronted the moral dilemma in his discourses millennia ago, Plato refined his concepts in his Republic, and leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi would commit their life work to defining and applying the term to political reform. Finally, after so many years, Martin Luther King’s “A Letter from Birmingham Jail” reaches a consensus on the definition of morality, one that weighs the concepts of justice and injustice to describe morality as the
In Walter Mosley’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, the reader is introduced to Socrates Fortlow, an ex-convict who served twenty-seven years for murder and rape. Fortlow is plagued by guilt and, seeing the chaos in his town, feels a need to improve not only his own standards of living, but also those of others in Watts. He attempts this by teaching the people in Watts the lessons he feels will resolve the many challenges the neighbourhood faces. The lessons Fortlow teaches and the methods by which he teaches them are very similar to those of the ancient Greek philosopher for whom Fortlow was named: “‘We was poor and country. My mother couldn’t afford school so she figured that if she named me after somebody smart then maybe I’d get smart’” (Mosley, 44). Though the ancient Greek was born to be a philosopher and Fortlow assumed the philosopher role as a response to the poor state of his life and Watts, both resulted in the same required instruction to their populations. The two Socrates’ both utilize a form of teaching that requires their pupil to become engaged in the lesson. They emphasize ethics, logic, and knowledge in their instruction, and place importance on epistemology and definitions because they feel a problem cannot be solved if one does not first know what it is. Socrates was essential in first introducing these concepts to the world and seemed to be born with them inherent to his being, Fortlow has learned the ideals through life experience and is a real-world application in an area that needs the teachings to get on track. While the two men bear many similarities, their differences they are attributed primarily as a result of their circumstances provide the basis of Fortlow’s importance in Watts and as a modern-...
It appears that the problem of evil is a substantial one. While arguments exist that can challenge assumptions of the problem, it sometimes requires some definition contorting and does not answer all the challenges evil presents. The greater good defense presents some key insights into how we must perceive God’s actions but does not completely defend against the presented problems of evil. Therefore, a more plausible defense is needed to eliminate the problems evil creates with the Judeo-Christian concept of God.
While on trial, Socrates is badgered with questions only to respond with questions of his own. The question of impiety is brought into discussion. Socrates response was “Does any man believe in human activities who does not believe in humans? … Does any man believe in spiritual activities who does not believe in spirits? No one.” (Plato, The Apology, page 31-32) I took this to mean that one cannot believe in the existence of an object without believing in the creator of the object. The gods are viewed as necessary in this just society and their role cannot be brought into question, and therefore the presence of the gods in every person’s life is the necessary part of the justice system in the eyes of Plato.
Many people have gone through their lives conforming their beliefs and practices for the sake of fitting in or for the happiness of others, but Socrates was not one of these people. In “The Apology” Plato shows Socrates unwillingness to conform through a speech given by Socrates while on trial for supposedly corrupting the youth of Athens and believing in false gods. Although the title of the dialogue was labeled “The Apology,” Socrates’ speech was anything but that, it was a defense of himself and his content along his philosophical journey. At no time during the trial was Socrates willing to change his ways in order to avoid punishment, two reasons being his loyalty to his God and his philosophical way of life.
A foundational belief in Christianity is the idea that God is perfectly good. God is unable to do anything evil and all his actions are motives are completely pure. This principle, however, leads to many questions concerning the apparent suffering and wrong-doing that is prevalent in the world that this perfect being created. Where did evil come from? Also, how can evil exist when the only eternal entity is the perfect, sinless, ultimately good God? This question with the principle of God's sovereignty leads to even more difficult problems, including human responsibility and free will. These problems are not limited to our setting, as church fathers and Christian philosophers are the ones who proposed some of the solutions people believe today. As Christianity begins to spread and establish itself across Europe in the centuries after Jesus' resurrection, Augustine and Boethius provide answers, although wordy and complex, to this problem of evil and exactly how humans are responsible in the midst of God's sovereignty and Providence.
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.
Socrates: A Gift To The Athenians As Socrates said in Apology by Plato, “...the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more…”(Philosophical Texts, 34) Throughout history, many leaders have been put to death for their knowledge. In Apology, Socrates- soon to be put to death- says he was placed in Athens by a god to render a service to the city and its citizens. Yet he will not venture out to come forward and advise the state and says this abstention is a condition on his usefulness to the city.
The accuser believes that Socrates corrupted the minds of the children by introducing new concepts. Socrates is trying to teach and involve the minds of the youth by getting them to ask questions. It is very important that people are always asking questions about why things are happening. The next question that needs to be addressed is what does not believe in the gods mean? Socrates believes in God, but that is one God that rules the world, not multiple gods who together rule.
Socrates was a revolutionary thinker. He brought new ideas and processes of thought to Athenian society and his work still has its place in the world today. However during his time, his ideas were not always thought of as a good thing. Many viewed him as a corrupting influence on other people and accused him of forcing his ideas upon others. Perhaps most frequently the center of controversy was his thoughts on theocracy and piety as seen in the Plato’s Euthyphro. Socrates also appears at the butt end of Aristophanes’ comedy Clouds, where he is satirically ridiculed and seemingly corrupting the youth of Athens in his school, the Thinkery. Although virtually completely seen as a positive influence now, in ancient times, Socrates may have done more harm than good for his society.
In this literature review I will discuss both Socrates and Jesus Christ (Jesus). I will compare and distinguish them, by their trial, misdeeds (through the view of society), law, justice and punishment. In addition, I will write about their influence in today’s society and what impact they have made through time. Both Socrates and Jesus had many things in common yet, they we’re different. Both had different religious beliefs. While, Socrates was polytheistic, believing in several gods. Jesus, in the other hand was monotheism, believed in only one God. Both were charged, tried, and executed for their “radical” behavior with society. Overall, both men sacrificed themselves for the possible chance of change.
The purpose of this paper is to argue for the idea that even without a God, there can be a basis for morality. The structure of my argument will proceed as follows. I will begin my paper with the background information of the idea that without a God, specifically the Christian God, there is no moral basis. After detailing this false belief, I will go on to explain why it is indeed untrue due to various reasons. I will bring forth the conflicting views of St. Thomas Aquinas and the natural law theory before countering the arguments brought up by them.
How would you feel if someone called you a sophist? Before you answer, it's important to know how the meaning of this word has evolved. "During the fifth century, sophists were teachers, speakers, and philosophers who were paid to use rhetoric (Mardner 1)." But many people opposed their style of teaching. Socrates was a philosopher who disagreed with the Sophist's point-of-view. The main differences between the Sophist and Socrates were their views on absolute truth.
Philosophy can be defined as the pursuit of wisdom or the love of knowledge. Socrates, as one of the most well-known of the early philosophers, epitomizes the idea of a pursuer of wisdom as he travels about Athens searching for the true meaning of the word. Throughout Plato’s early writings, he and Socrates search for meanings of previously undefined concepts, such as truth, wisdom, and beauty. As Socrates is often used as a mouthpiece for Plato’s ideas about the world, one cannot be sure that they had the same agenda, but it seems as though they would both agree that dialogue was the best way to go about obtaining the definitions they sought. If two people begin on common ground in a conversation, as Socrates often tries to do, they are far more likely to be able to civilly come to a conclusion about a particular topic, or at least further their original concept.
When considering morality, worthy to note first is that similar to Christian ethics, morality also embodies a specifically Christian distinction. Studying a master theologian such as St. Thomas Aquinas and gathering modern perspectives from James Keenan, S. J. and David Cloutier serve to build a foundation of the high goal of Christian morality. Morality is a primary goal of the faith community, because it is the vehicle for reaching human fulfillment and happiness. Therefore, great value can be placed on foundations of Christian morality such as the breakdown of law from Aquinas, the cultivation of virtues, the role of conscience in achieving morality, and the subject of sin described by Keenan.