Suppose Callicles worships Apollo. Callicles is doing something he shouldn’t do: he is worshipping a being that doesn’t exist. So one root of Callicles’ practical mistake is a mistake about the non-normative metaphysics of the world, which does not include Apollo.
But is that the only mistake Callicles is making? The western monotheistic tradition appears to criticize people like Callicles morally for their worship. One way to pose the question is this: Supposing Callicles were right about the existence of Apollo, would he be right to worship him?
The answer seems to me to be a clear negative. If we met an alien with Apollo’s intellectual ability, moral character and technological power, then being impressed might be called for, but clearly worship would not be.
Thus, Callicles is worshipping someone who wouldn’t be worthy of worship even if he existed. That’s a moral mistake.
10 comments:
Alex
How can Callicles judge Apollos moral character? He may believe in divine command theory. or it it also morally wrong to believe in divine command theory?
In the hypothetical case in which objective morality exists, a moral mistake can only be made by someone who is aware of morality.
I guess the idea is that Callicles could, indeed, judge Apollo's moral character to be less than perfect. After all, the greek gods were flawed. It's plausible that Callicles would realize Apollo is morally imperfect, and then Callicles should conclude Apollo is not worthy of worship.
Atno
I also judge the Catholic God's moral character to be less than perfect, based on what I think is moral. But based on what Callicles thinks about morality, Appolo is not less than perfect.
I am not saying Callicles is blameworthy. But he is morally mistaken if he thinks that Apollo is morally perfect and he is morally mistaken if he thinks someone so morally imperfect is worthy of worship. So either way he is morally mistaken. That Callicles might be justified in his judgment does not take away the mistake.
As to the question of how an ancient Greek could figure out Apollo's moral imperfection, well, Socrates did, so there was some possibility. But of course Socrates was brilliant. In any case, whether or not one could figure out the truth does not affect whether one is morally mistaken.
Any positively existing individual cannot in principle be the principle of individuation as such, since it is already individuated. Therefore, as we read in the Parmenides, the One is not and is not one. It is instead a negative principle which simply dictates that for a thing to exist it must be a whole unit, an individual. As the One is supra-essential, so it is wholly beyond ontology and is thus "above" it. As nothing can be above any concept of Deity, Deity is itself supra-essential and also fully transcendent. As the One does not cause individuation but is only a bald statement of what constitutes individuation, it does not cause and therefore does not limit the amount of Gods that there are. Therefore, Apollo exists without being a mere being.
But, why think Apollo does not exist, or that if he did, he would be a creature? In the Platonic tradition, each God is supreme and worthy of worship. And this philosophical doctrine is mirrored in polytheistic worship again and again, such as can be seen in ancient Greek or Egyptian hymns or Indian sacred myths. The impression that deities other than YHWH or one abstractly conceived are obviously not worthy of worship is not an impression shared by polytheists, nor by those familiar with the Platonic tradition whose authors (from Plato to Damascius) make it abundantly clear that the Gods are worthy of worship.
Odd that after the Euthyphro comes the Phaedo, where Socrates calls himself the slave of Apollo. Not the slave of "truth", but of APOLLO, the God. It's as if Socrates, Plato, and those who followed after took polytheism seriously.
Alex
There is no such thing as a moral mistake.
Well, it's a mistake wrt what one should do. People should not worship money. People should not enslave others. People should not worship imperfect beings. Seems very natural to call these things examples of moral mistakes, whether or not someone is blameworthy in a specific case. I don't see what's the issue with the name.
Atno
Nobody should make a mistake, so a mistake is always in some way wrt what one should (or should not ) do. Adding "moral" to it simply doesn't give any extra information, unless one is a consequentialist, but according to Alex, consequentialism is false.
Post a Comment