Atheism and Morality: The Euthyphro Dialogues

This is the third in my series of posts on atheism and morality. In the first post (http://www.progressiveu.org/141649-atheism-and-morality-introduction) I introduced the topic by saying that I was motivated by an apparent attempt on the part of a theist to use the “Without God, all things are permitted” argument. In the second post (http://www.progressiveu.org/173939-atheism-and-morality-wgatap-basics) I outlined my experience and understanding of the argument. In this post I will argue that, contrary what many theists insist, God cannot be the basis for morality.

While I have my own version and will present later on in this post, the basic argument has been around for about 2400 years. The fact that the people having heard of it seems to be mainly restricted to higher level philosophy students, I think, bespeaks more to its uncomfortable theistic conclusions than to its degree of difficulty to understand.

The argument was first presented in Plato’s Dialogues in the conversation between Socrates and Euthyphro. I suppose everyone has heard of Socrates. No one really knows much about Euthyphro. His name in Greek means “true thinker”.

Socrates and Euthyphro encounter each other on the porch of King Archon. This is where court is held in
Athens. Euthyphro is there to prosecute his father for the murder of a murderous slave, while Socrates is there to defend himself on charges of corrupting the Athenian youth. Indeed it is this trial that will eventually lead to Socrates’ conviction and death sentence by poison. But in this dialogue both Euthyphro and Socrates are waiting for their trials to begin.

Socrates asks Euthyphro how it is that he can bring such serious charges against his own father. Euthyphro replies that he does so because he is a pious man. Socrates says that Euthyphro must be an expert in piety and that since the charge against him is basically one of being impious, he (Socrates) should be able to learn something from him that would be useful in his defense.

Euthyphro is flattered to be acknowledged as an authority on piety by such a renowned person as Socrates, so he says that he is willing to teach Socrates whatever he can. Socrates says, “Rare friend! I think that I cannot do better than be your disciple” and then begins questioning Euthyphro that will end up showing exactly who the teacher really is.

The first question Socrates asks is, “… what is piety, and what is impiety”. Euthyphro confidently responds that piety is doing exactly what he (Euthyphro) is doing – prosecuting one who is guilty of some type of sin.

Socrates says that cannot be all that piety is. Piety cannot involve just the prosecution of sin. Euthyphro tries to expand the definition but each attempt to do so gets shot down by Socrates’ questioning. Eventually Euthyphro comes up with a definition of piety that he thinks covers it. He says, “… I should say that what all the gods love is pious and holy, and the opposite which they all hate, impious.”

Socrates doesn’t stop there, of course. He enquires about what makes something pious or holy. He asks, “… The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved by the gods.”

In other word, Socrates is asking if it the act of the gods loving something that makes it holy, or was the thing already holy and that is why the gods love it. After some back and forth, Euthyphro decides that the gods love something because it is holy and not the other way around.

Well then, Socrates says, what makes it holy? If it was already holy then the gods could not have made it holy. To that, Euthyphro has no answer. Socrates ends the dialogue by saying that leads them back to square one. If we cannot say what makes something holy or pious, do we really know what piety is? He asks Euthyphro again, “What is piety, and what is impiety?” Euthyphro responds that he would like to go into it more, but it is time for him to go.

So how does this argument pertain to morality? In my first post on this topic I said I asked my protagonist a question that was equally as obnoxious as the one he asked me. I also said it had a point behind it. The question I asked my protagonist was, “If in the bible God had said it was a good thing to dip a baby’s feet into boiling oil for no other reason than to hear it scream, would it REALLY be a good thing?”

Some of you may recognize that from my second post as being the best example I could come up with for something that is a moral absolute. I can think of no circumstance in which this could logically be considered moral.

The point behind the question is that if God giving his approval to that act doesn’t make it moral then morality cannot be said to reside solely in God’s approval. What is moral and what is not moral is independent of God’s approval or rejection. The bible may or may not be correct in telling us what is moral, but what is moral does not depend upon what the bible says. Therefore, morality doesn’t come from God, it must come from elsewhere.

But if it comes from elsewhere, then where does it come from? I will give you my views on the subject in the next post.

Regards,

Darwin’s Beagle

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •    •    •    •