Friday, January 26, 2018

The Euthyphro

I’ve realized today that I read the Euthyphro dilemma differently from how some other people do. I think some people read it as meant to be a real dilemma—a real philosophical question—whether the gods love the holy because it’s holy or whether things are holy because the gods love them.

Maybe it is a real philosophical question, but I don’t think that’s how the text intends it. I suspect that Plato (along, I expect, with Socrates) just straightforwardly thinks:

  1. The gods love the holy because it is holy.

  2. If the holy were defined as what is loved by the gods, then the holy would be the holy because the gods love it.

  3. There is no circularity in explanation. (Implicit premise)

  4. So, the holy is not defined as what is loved by the gods. QED

4 comments:

Walter Van den Acker said...

Alex

That may be how the ED was originally intended, but I think most people (not just some) read it as a real philosophical question because, unlike you, most theists do not want to be stuck on one of its horns.

Heath White said...

I'm not seeing the circularity. Some people think the legitimate government is the legitimate government because it has been voted in by the people, but that doesn't seem like a circular explanation. What is conceptually wrong with "the holy is the holy because it is loved by the gods"?

Alexander R Pruss said...

Heath:

Premise 1: The gods love the holy because it is holy.
Consequent of Premise 2: [T]he holy [is] the holy because the gods love it.

Looks like an explicit circularity in the order of explanation.

It would likewise be circular to say:
1g. The people have voted in the legitimate government because it is legitimate.
2g. The legitimate government is the legitimate government because it has been voted in by the people.

Heath White said...

I haven't looked at Euthyphro in a long time but I'll grant that 2 does not follow from 1 for the reason you cite. It's also the kind of thing Plato would point out. The premise would of course not support a charge that what the gods love is arbitrary...maybe that is a criticism that gets raised independently.