euthyphro.ppt

(1)

(2)

(3)

Euthyphro and Socrates

discuss Piety or Holiness

or

(4)

Setting the Stage:

Why is Euthyphro at

court?

Serving as Prosecutor

Bringing Charges

(5)

Saturday Night on Naxos

(6)

Saturday Night on Naxos

An island renowned for its wine production.

Estates are large, and vineyards are

profitable. They require a large amount of hands in order for the operations to function.

It’s hard work in the Greek sun. Very hard work.

At the end of the week the work force (primarily slaves) has time off, and likes to blow off steam. How do you suppose they do this?

(7)

Boozing it up, of course.

Which invariably lead to problems with…

(8)

Likes to fight guy becomes belligerent when he drinks, and picks fights because.. well, he is likes-to-fight-guy..

This, unsurprisingly, had been an ongoing

(9)

Not knowing what exactly to do, the master of the estate tied up Likes-To-Fight-Guy and threw him into an

irrigation ditch while he sent someone to Athens asking for advice.

(10)

No food, no water, and exposure to

swings in temperature. Cold nights, hot

days..

Even as tough a guy as

Likes-To-Fight-Guy isn’t going to last long in that

situation.

He eventually died before the courier

could return from Athens with the

(11)

Euthyphro is pressing charges of

Negligent Homicide against the Master

of the Estate.

The Master should have known to

(12)

So, Who is

this estate

master that

you are

pressing

(13)

Oh. Sorry I

didn’t say

earlier,

but…

He’s my

dad.

Socrates

Euthyphro

(14)

Socrates is not at all sure that

Euthyphro is doing the right thing, or that his prosecution of pops is

“pious.” After all, this is Euthyphro’s dad we are talking about. Might the Gods consider this undertaking

(15)

•Euthyphro is confident

•He claims to know what piety or holiness is

•Just underneath the surface this is a discussion of moral good

•_{So, what is the pious or the good?}

Define it.

•Prosecuting wrongdoers?

•_{Not general enough. other things are}

pious or good that have nothing to do with prosecuting wrongdoers.

•_{Need the common element all good,}

pious or holy things have

•A definition!

•_{Example: Define shape. It’s what}

(16)

Euthyphro’s definition of moral good:

•

The Good, Pious or Holy things

are those things which are

•loved by

•dear to

•_{approved by}

•

THE GODS

This has some logical corollaries:

The bad, or impious things are those things..?

(17)

Euthyphro’s definition of moral good:

•

The Good, Pious or Holy things

are those things which are

•loved by

•dear to

•_{approved by}

•

THE GODS

This has some logical corollaries:

The bad, or impious things are those things..

•that are hated by, repulsive to, or disapproved by THE GODS

The things that are neither good nor bad are those things..

(18)

Euthyphro’s definition of moral good:

•The Good, Pious or Holy things are those things which are

•loved by

•dear to

•approved by

•THE GODS

This has some logical corollaries:

The bad, or impious things are those things.?

•that are hated by, repulsive to, or disapproved by THE GODS

The things that are neither good nor bad are those things.?

• toward which THE GODS have none of the above attitudes

Socrates examines logical consequences of this definition. He notes that Euthyphro’s situation parallels one in the divine realm that was very common knowledge in Greece. Euthyphro would have been very familiar with this tale from Greek mythology:

The story of Zeus

and

(19)

•loved by

•dear to

•approved by

•THE GODS

The things that are neither good nor bad are those things.?

Cronos was King. It’s good to be king. So, naturally he was jealous of his power, and wished to retain it.

However, he found out via prophecy, that one of his kids would overthrow him. So, he made contingency plans:

and

(20)

Euthyphro’s definition of moral good:

•loved by

•dear to

•approved by

•THE GODS

The things that are neither good nor bad are those things.?

Cronos made his wife (Rhea) promise to turn over each of his children as they were born. She dutifully turned over Hestia, Demeter, Hera, Hades and Poseidon. Cronos ate them. Now, you can’t kill Gods, but you can apparently confine them in this way !

and

(21)

Euthyphro’s definition of moral good:

•loved by

•dear to

•approved by

•THE GODS

The things that are neither good nor bad are those things.?

But, by the time Zeus was conceived, Rhea had simply had enough. She wrapped an appropriately sized stone in

swaddling clothes and turned it over to Cronos. Trusting her, he popped the stone, wrapping and all, like an

oversized tic-tac.

The story of Zeus

and

(22)

•loved by

•dear to

•approved by

•THE GODS

The things that are neither good nor bad are those things.?

She sent Zeus to Crete. Zeus grew up, learned of his

father’s less than stellar behavior, enlisted help from the Titans, overthrew Cronos and took over the kingship as prophesied. [Later, he would essentially repeat the crimes of his dad. Some kids

never learn.]

The story of Zeus

and

(23)

Now, if divine attitude is necessary and sufficient for having moral properties, then what can we deduce when divine

attitudes differ?

Love

It! Hate _it!

(24)

If divine attitude is necessary and sufficient for having moral properties, then what can we deduce when divine attitudes differ?

Applying the definition we have: •One god loves Euthyphro’s actions •One god hates Euthyphro’s actions •By the definition what he is doing is..

Both morally

good

and

morally

bad

at the exact

same time!

Is this how we normally think of things?

For instance: Can the act of rescuing a

helpless infant be anything other than morally good? Is it

(25)

If divine attitude is necessary and sufficient for having moral properties, then what can we deduce when divine attitudes

differ?

If we believe it’s not

possible for acts to be both

morally good

and morally

bad

at the exact same time,

we need to make some

modifications to the

definition!

Perhaps Euthyphro meant to

say that all the Gods must

approve or disapprove in

order for an act to be morally

good or morally bad.

Well, OF COURSE that’s what I meant. All the Gods

approve of me prosecuting dear old Dad. Of that I

(26)

If divine attitude is necessary and sufficient for having moral properties, then what can we deduce when divine attitudes

differ? _{Interesting solution, for if}

Socrates is right about these two Gods:

•We do not have all the Gods

approving.

•We do not have all the Gods

disapproving

•Logically, what follows?

The act must be neither good nor bad.

You know that the Gods are constantly bickering and

(27)

•

Euthyphro insists though,

that all the Gods DO agree

on this matter, despite

Socrates’ skepticism.

•

Assume he is correct.

•

If all the Gods concur in

their approval, then what

he is doing is morally

(28)

If divine attitude is necessary and sufficient for having moral properties, then what can we deduce when divine attitudes differ?

And, if there is only one

God whose attitudes we

have to worry about, that

too would seem to solve

the problem

(29)

If divine attitude is necessary and sufficient for having moral properties, then what can we deduce when divine attitudes differ?

With either of these

solutions, we still

have nagging

questions: Couldn’t

the multitude of

Gods have failed to

concur? Couldn’t

the one God have

had a different

attitude toward the

act in question?

What logically

follows?

•If so, then even when an act is, as a matter of fact good, it COULD HAVE

BEEN bad (and vice versa).

• IT COULD HAVE

BEEN neither good nor bad.

•All of this holds

even though nothing about the act, and its circumstances would have been different.

•And this would be

so, for every act.

(30)

Euthyphro Dilemma 1

• Is an action good because

God approves of it?

• Or

(31)

If divine attitude is necessary and sufficient for having moral properties, then what can we deduce when divine attitudes differ?

Rescuing innocent

babies from harm

could have been

bad, even though it

is good?!

Does that sound

correct?

•In given

circumstances an act is necessarily good, bad or morally

neutral, and cannot be one of the other two options UNLESS the circumstances change.

•_{This is a sort of} “modal status” for moral properties. Like a square

necessarily having four sides, rescuing innocent babies from

harm is necessarily

good.

This points out a feature we believe acts have with

(32)

In order to account for this modal invariance, we would have to claim that divine attitudes

never change, and could not have been different even in the past.

(33)

In answering these questions, we give an

account, a reason, for the divine attitudes, and begin to move into the realm of ethics, a

reasoned exploration of moral matters. If you were to explain

why it is God

approves of rescuing innocent babies from harm, how would you start?