Euthyphro’s Dilemma Solved
I’ve been quite impressed with most of Greg Koukl’s work. I read his piece on Euthyphro’s dilemma today–and it is excellent. I encountered this dilemma back in a college philosophy class and didn’t know how to properly answer it at the time. This is something you may encounter, if you haven’t already. Even if you never encounter it, it is good to think these things through for your own understanding (in my opinion).
Bertrand Russell expressed the problem like this: “If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that He made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in
their essence logically anterior to God.”
Read the full article here:
http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/DigitalSG_0312.pdf?docID=6161
Ron Thomas 10:18 am on March 16, 2012 Permalink |
As you know what you mentioned is right up my alley. Yes, I am familiar with it, and I have done some reading on it. At the moment I am reading “The Consolation of Philosophy.” If you have not done so, Stephen, get yourself a couple three “history of philosophy” books. It is great learning – for me, anyway.
John Henson 11:58 am on March 16, 2012 Permalink |
The author touches on the Russell’s (and Plato’s) incorrect premise that there are only two choices.
However, the author is mistaken about an objective law handed down to Abraham. The Patriarchal Law had been in effect since after the Garden of Eden. Was that not an objective law handed down?
Thomas B. Warren, in his debate with Antony Flew, touched on this “dilemma” by asking which laws were observed in the Nuremberg trials. Of course, the law that was observed was a higher law.
Stephen R. Bradd 12:19 pm on March 16, 2012 Permalink |
Hi John. Your point is made. I suppose it depends upon how strictly Koukl is using the term “formally.” Clearly, as you have correctly noted, commandments had been handed down previously. Koukl wouldn’t disagree with this (I don’t believe). He is making a point about revelation & inspiration in a formal sense of writing Scripture (e.g., Moses was the first to do this, as far as we know).