![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See Talk:Divine command theory -- Tagishsimon 10:33, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I am not a wikipedia person, so I don't know the right format for submitting this, but someone needs to look at this article -- it is REALLY incoherently written in parts. This is really unacceptable.
I agree...it is quite confusing and needs to be fixed so that it makes more sense. -- 210.84.41.237 09:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Is a JayZ reference to the dilemma really important enough to be included in the introduction to the topic? A Laughton ( talk) 03:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The See Also section should provide a link to Divine command theory. So to anyone who can edit: please consider it! 160.36.37.249 ( talk) 14:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a very bad article:
I would like to improve this article:
Does anyone have any objections or suggestions? Thanks. Fsdjfsdfk ( talk) 03:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone suggested accidentalism as a solution for this dilemma? That that the gods love what is pious is simply a happy coincidence? Pmurray bigpond.com 04:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4.240.108.8 ( talk · contribs) has been making extensive changes to the article. Some of them changed clear and precise to less clear and precise language (such as "implies that" to "leads to the view that"), some changed one stylistic approach to another, and some turned U.K. in to U.S. English, but the main section is this:
Some of this can usefully added, but some isn't really acceptable: "is wildly contingent" is not only unencyclopædic style, but is less clear than "is arbitrary, based merely upon god's whim". It also introduces technical terms where they're not needed (as does "normative force" which, in addition, surely misses the target; it's not the normativity of "god is good" that's at issue, but its status as a meaningful evaluation). His or her fourth point isn't very commonly raised, and is surely implicit in the other points. The final point contains material that could be made use of, but is in fact a discussion of the article's first point. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 21:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to be clearer:
This approach is, however, essentially a rejection of the Divine Command Theory in favour of the other horn; that is, it depends upon the notion that goodness is a property of god, and thus not under god's control.
It isn't clear how this is a rejection of one horn in favour of the other. Doesn't this solution do what it is supposed to: that is, it chose neither the option that morality is independent of God nor that morality is solely dependent on God's dictates? In that case, then wouldn't the criticism that goodness is not under God's control, regardless of how valid it may be, be a different argument altogether. That is, wouldn't that be a criticism regarding God's omnipotence rather than whether good is independent of Him or a whim of His? Hairouna 02:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Why does this article fail to capitalize the proper name 'God'? I realize that some people don't want to capitalize pronouns for God for various reasons, but the name 'God' in English is a proper name, and we capitalize proper names in English. That's a standard rule of written English. If we were using it as a common noun by talking about gods in plural or a god or the god with articles, that would be another story, but this article uses the proper name and fails to capitalize it. That's simply poor English. Parableman 13:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't in fact my point. There are a number of reasons for not capitalising "god", some more important than others. If the reason for capitalising the word is that it's a proper name, however, that's just a mistake. "Jahweh" is a proper name, "Allah" is a proper name, "Jesus" is a proper name — "god" isn't. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 21:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Not all common nouns demand articles (mass nouns, for example, including names of abstractions like "rudeness" and "arrogance"); moreover this usage is very common, especially in academic works. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Μελ, are you claiming that 'god' is a mass noun? No, 'god' clearly follows the same paradigm as any normal count noun: "Jane talked to the cat" / "Jane talked to her cat" / "Jane talked to a cat" / "Jane talked to cats" / "Jane talked to Cat" Following this completely normal paradigm, it is blazingly clear that in "Moses talked to God" that 'god' is being employed as a proper noun. As an atheist myself, I think that it's good to NOT treat 'god' as a unique noun following its own grammatical rules. 2600:6C54:4180:923:E2F8:47FF:FE40:958A ( talk) 17:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
From the article:
This is covered in divine command theory, and I don't think it necessarily applies. Saying that morality is defined as God's will does not necessarily mean to be a motivation for acting morally. After all, some people would say we should follow God's will simply because he will reward us for it. This does not commit the fallacy, and neither do other possible responses. The fallacy only pertains if someone says, "we should be moral because God wants us to", without providing further explanation. -- Catquas 04:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that you're wrong, but more importantly, your claim is "original research". The article states what is a common argument. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
There was a lot of discussion of this issue in Islamic philosophy/theology... AnonMoos 15:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of logical completeness I have added that the problem rest on the assumption that God both exists and is good. If you think either of these are not true, when the problem does not exist.
Someone removed this addition claiming that it was original research. I disagree. No one questions that the dilemma only exists if you assume that God exists and is good. A very minor piece of very basic logic is not original research which no-one seriously questions, is not original research. I am putting it back. -Sensemaker
First, no original resarch doesn't lead to everything being quotation, but it does mean that everything has to be cited (my objection, however, doesn't rest upon the original-research claim). Secondly, I suppose that there's room somewhere in the article (probably in the lead) for the comment that the dilemma holds only for the believer. Thirdly, you're still ignoring what is perhaps my main point: your version is simply false. The dilemma doesn't depend upon the belief that god is good. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 16:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite agree that being a dystheist is the same as choosing one end of the horn. However, if you are a dystheist, the euthyphro dilemma is not a dilemma, the choice is competely obvious from the definition of dystheism. You have already made your choice. There is only one choice that does not contradict previous choices I have made. Can I when call it a "dilemma"? If I have already stated that I do not eat any beans, can I call it a dilemma to whether I shall eat green beans?
Still let's compromise. We could say something like: "The entire dilemma rest on the assumption that God exists and is good. If you believe God does not exist (atheism) the dilemma does not exist at all. If you believe God is not necessarily good, you have already made your choice and you belong firmly to the first horn of the dilemma."
That the prisoner's dilemma applies to a prisoner is explicitly mentioned in the title and that moral dilemmas apply to people with moral is implicitly stated in the title "moral dilemma". If the title of the euthyphro dilemma likewise explicitly or implicitly stated that the problem that the problem is limited to theists i.e. it was called something like "theist's dilemma" I would consider the title sufficiently explanatory and no explicit "applies only to theists"-comment would be necessary. I am not familiar with Haldane's dilemma. I will look it up.
Furthermore: not mentioning the very valid possibility of God (few theists would deny that God not existing is a relevant possibility -albeit one they do not believe in) not existing would mean that the entire article is written from a theist point of view. Wouldn't that violate the NPOV? -Sensemaker
Now I have read about Haldane's dilemma. It will exist in a world there evolution does not occur, but will be limited to breeder's problem. Not even creationists deny that breeding works. A world there neither breeding nor evolution works is not an option anyone has seriously suggested. Thus it is not a valid option. Thus it need not be explicitily explained.
Furthermore, that the Haldane's dilemma is used as an argument against evolution is explicitly mentioned in the wikipedia article -thus logically implying that the dilemma wouldn't arise on a planet where evolution does not occur. -Sensemaker
-Sensemaker
No, sorry — this just doesn't wash; any dilemma is no dilemma for someone who's already made up her mind on one of the two horns. That just doesn't need saying. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 13:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course the dilemma can't depend upon the belief that god is good, given that one of its two horns makes meaningless the claim that god is good. And of course it's a dilemma for the dystheist, just not one that interests her because she's already chosen a position that is consonant with one of the two horns (I also refer to it is a dilemma, and I'm an atheist).-- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 13:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I have now edited the article so that it talks about this dilemma as a dilemma for theistic philosophers -thus indirectly stating that it does not apply to atheists. I can live with the article in its current form -though I would have preferred a more explicit mention- and I now offer that as a compromise. -Sensemaker
As your view was discussed and failed to achieve consensus, why do you insist on including it? -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 10:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
With all imaginable respect, I submit that Ezzi386's edits of 9 November are at best less than encyclopedic in style and at worst shallow and circular. He has deleted the point about the naturalistic fallacy and then goes on to commit that very fallacy. The paragraph that begins with the word "Alterability" is not even readable.
The treatment of the original dilemma (on piety) and its monotheistic application (on morality) should be divided more clearly. They are, of course, closely related, but the dialogue should be shown for its role in the emergence of monotheism altogether. Piety is, after all, something fundamentally different from "goodness", but since the latter concept emerges out of the former at precisely this point in history, it is difficult and vexing to keep them apart. All the more effort at clarity is needed. dab (𒁳) 12:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree that Plato indirectly had a huge effect on the way that early Christianity developed (and some effect on the Judaism of the time and a little before); I'd draw back from saying that that effect was on the development of monotheism (though "as-we-know-it" could cover a multitude of sins, as it were). I agree with your implication (it is your implication isn't it?) that Judaism was henotheistic rather than monotheistic, at least until the time of Jesus, and probably for some time afterwards. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 11:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That afterthought is fascinating; complete OR, of course, but really interesting OR. I'll have think about it.
This paragraph is hard to comprehend because of the use of the phrase "other horn" at different points:
This approach is considered by its opponents to be a rejection of the Divine Command Theory in favour of the other horn, depending on how the other horn is construed; in particular, it depends upon the notion that goodness is a property of God, and thus not under God's control. If the first horn is seen as bad because it takes God to be bound by morality, and thus in some sense irrelevant to the existence or discovery of it, then this response does not help. But if the other horn is seen as bad only because it requires an external limitation on God, then this response solves the problem and is not equivalent to the first horn.
Some of us are left wondering which is currently the "other horn" in the last sentence.
The explaination of the dilemma introduces the first horn of the dilemma as 'that which is moral is commanded by God because it is moral'. The second horn of the dilemma is 'that which is moral is moral because it is commanded by God, known as divine command theory'.
If you are familiar with the subject and understand this paragraph, please replace each instance of the phrase "other horn" with either "first horn" or "second horn" as appropriate in each case.
"Gnosticism and other dualistic schools similarly postulate that God is identical with goodness, which turns the dilemma into a tautology."
In Gnosticism The True God didn't have anything to do whit this material world, and so had nothing to do whit morals. In dualism Good and Bad belong together, one cannot excist whitout the other. What is considered good or bad is matter of opinion culture and religion. Not something that has anything to do whit even, well gods.
82.215.228.44 ( talk) 21:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
How does Gnosticism imply relativism? 68.192.134.169 ( talk) 17:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the following:
Firstly, I think we need a source for the section as a whole. Secondly, can we perhaps get some indication of why such a distinction cannot be maintained? I don't think this added anything to the article as it now stands. Thoughts? Gabrielthursday ( talk) 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Positing the non-existence of God would solve this dilemma in a flash... but I guess that would go against the tone of the article, which assumes existence throughout. 94.192.99.211 ( talk) 08:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Should have something on Islamic discussions of the subject... AnonMoos ( talk) 01:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
A while ago, an editor removed a link in the References section saying "A Christian Answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma" was not acceptably credentialed. More recently though, one of the world's leading Christian websites, creation.com, linked to this article from their Euthyphro Dilemma article, at: http://creation.com/what-is-good-answering-euthyphro-dilemma
The article itself is *archived* at one of the web's most popular theology forums, TheologyOnline.com. Also, it is ranked *6th* out of 96,000 by Google for "euthyphro dilemma". The article's popularity seems to arise because it does add significant content to the debate. Is there a chance for a reconsideration?
or perhaps:
Call-in talk show host, M-F 5pm E.T. at KGOV.com 800-8Enyart ( talk) 05:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the idea that morality can change throughout time the Anything Goes Argument itself or merely an example? If the latter, I think it should be removed, as it seems to imply that God is within time.
This article is tagged for copy editing. I am planning to copy-edit it in the next few days as part of this month's Guild of Copy Editors' copy editing drive.
I would also like to clean up the References. Right now, they are formatted in a multitude of ways, with lots of op. cit. references (some of which may be unclear, since some authors have multiple titles cited). I am planning to introduce shortened footnotes, probably using {{ sfn}}. Is there any reason why I should not do so? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 03:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
When talking about rejection of the dilemma, it should be very clearly espoused that these people are arguing for a "Trilemma" to reject the dilemma - and what this 3rd horn is. 182.255.99.214 ( talk) 11:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw at the bottom of the article that there was a reference to a Youtube video by 'Darkmatter2525' about the dilemma. Is that really important enough to be included in this article?
Randomresearcher42 ( talk) 03:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Euthyphro dilemma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See Talk:Divine command theory -- Tagishsimon 10:33, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I am not a wikipedia person, so I don't know the right format for submitting this, but someone needs to look at this article -- it is REALLY incoherently written in parts. This is really unacceptable.
I agree...it is quite confusing and needs to be fixed so that it makes more sense. -- 210.84.41.237 09:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Is a JayZ reference to the dilemma really important enough to be included in the introduction to the topic? A Laughton ( talk) 03:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The See Also section should provide a link to Divine command theory. So to anyone who can edit: please consider it! 160.36.37.249 ( talk) 14:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a very bad article:
I would like to improve this article:
Does anyone have any objections or suggestions? Thanks. Fsdjfsdfk ( talk) 03:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone suggested accidentalism as a solution for this dilemma? That that the gods love what is pious is simply a happy coincidence? Pmurray bigpond.com 04:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4.240.108.8 ( talk · contribs) has been making extensive changes to the article. Some of them changed clear and precise to less clear and precise language (such as "implies that" to "leads to the view that"), some changed one stylistic approach to another, and some turned U.K. in to U.S. English, but the main section is this:
Some of this can usefully added, but some isn't really acceptable: "is wildly contingent" is not only unencyclopædic style, but is less clear than "is arbitrary, based merely upon god's whim". It also introduces technical terms where they're not needed (as does "normative force" which, in addition, surely misses the target; it's not the normativity of "god is good" that's at issue, but its status as a meaningful evaluation). His or her fourth point isn't very commonly raised, and is surely implicit in the other points. The final point contains material that could be made use of, but is in fact a discussion of the article's first point. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 21:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to be clearer:
This approach is, however, essentially a rejection of the Divine Command Theory in favour of the other horn; that is, it depends upon the notion that goodness is a property of god, and thus not under god's control.
It isn't clear how this is a rejection of one horn in favour of the other. Doesn't this solution do what it is supposed to: that is, it chose neither the option that morality is independent of God nor that morality is solely dependent on God's dictates? In that case, then wouldn't the criticism that goodness is not under God's control, regardless of how valid it may be, be a different argument altogether. That is, wouldn't that be a criticism regarding God's omnipotence rather than whether good is independent of Him or a whim of His? Hairouna 02:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Why does this article fail to capitalize the proper name 'God'? I realize that some people don't want to capitalize pronouns for God for various reasons, but the name 'God' in English is a proper name, and we capitalize proper names in English. That's a standard rule of written English. If we were using it as a common noun by talking about gods in plural or a god or the god with articles, that would be another story, but this article uses the proper name and fails to capitalize it. That's simply poor English. Parableman 13:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't in fact my point. There are a number of reasons for not capitalising "god", some more important than others. If the reason for capitalising the word is that it's a proper name, however, that's just a mistake. "Jahweh" is a proper name, "Allah" is a proper name, "Jesus" is a proper name — "god" isn't. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 21:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Not all common nouns demand articles (mass nouns, for example, including names of abstractions like "rudeness" and "arrogance"); moreover this usage is very common, especially in academic works. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Μελ, are you claiming that 'god' is a mass noun? No, 'god' clearly follows the same paradigm as any normal count noun: "Jane talked to the cat" / "Jane talked to her cat" / "Jane talked to a cat" / "Jane talked to cats" / "Jane talked to Cat" Following this completely normal paradigm, it is blazingly clear that in "Moses talked to God" that 'god' is being employed as a proper noun. As an atheist myself, I think that it's good to NOT treat 'god' as a unique noun following its own grammatical rules. 2600:6C54:4180:923:E2F8:47FF:FE40:958A ( talk) 17:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
From the article:
This is covered in divine command theory, and I don't think it necessarily applies. Saying that morality is defined as God's will does not necessarily mean to be a motivation for acting morally. After all, some people would say we should follow God's will simply because he will reward us for it. This does not commit the fallacy, and neither do other possible responses. The fallacy only pertains if someone says, "we should be moral because God wants us to", without providing further explanation. -- Catquas 04:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that you're wrong, but more importantly, your claim is "original research". The article states what is a common argument. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
There was a lot of discussion of this issue in Islamic philosophy/theology... AnonMoos 15:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of logical completeness I have added that the problem rest on the assumption that God both exists and is good. If you think either of these are not true, when the problem does not exist.
Someone removed this addition claiming that it was original research. I disagree. No one questions that the dilemma only exists if you assume that God exists and is good. A very minor piece of very basic logic is not original research which no-one seriously questions, is not original research. I am putting it back. -Sensemaker
First, no original resarch doesn't lead to everything being quotation, but it does mean that everything has to be cited (my objection, however, doesn't rest upon the original-research claim). Secondly, I suppose that there's room somewhere in the article (probably in the lead) for the comment that the dilemma holds only for the believer. Thirdly, you're still ignoring what is perhaps my main point: your version is simply false. The dilemma doesn't depend upon the belief that god is good. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 16:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite agree that being a dystheist is the same as choosing one end of the horn. However, if you are a dystheist, the euthyphro dilemma is not a dilemma, the choice is competely obvious from the definition of dystheism. You have already made your choice. There is only one choice that does not contradict previous choices I have made. Can I when call it a "dilemma"? If I have already stated that I do not eat any beans, can I call it a dilemma to whether I shall eat green beans?
Still let's compromise. We could say something like: "The entire dilemma rest on the assumption that God exists and is good. If you believe God does not exist (atheism) the dilemma does not exist at all. If you believe God is not necessarily good, you have already made your choice and you belong firmly to the first horn of the dilemma."
That the prisoner's dilemma applies to a prisoner is explicitly mentioned in the title and that moral dilemmas apply to people with moral is implicitly stated in the title "moral dilemma". If the title of the euthyphro dilemma likewise explicitly or implicitly stated that the problem that the problem is limited to theists i.e. it was called something like "theist's dilemma" I would consider the title sufficiently explanatory and no explicit "applies only to theists"-comment would be necessary. I am not familiar with Haldane's dilemma. I will look it up.
Furthermore: not mentioning the very valid possibility of God (few theists would deny that God not existing is a relevant possibility -albeit one they do not believe in) not existing would mean that the entire article is written from a theist point of view. Wouldn't that violate the NPOV? -Sensemaker
Now I have read about Haldane's dilemma. It will exist in a world there evolution does not occur, but will be limited to breeder's problem. Not even creationists deny that breeding works. A world there neither breeding nor evolution works is not an option anyone has seriously suggested. Thus it is not a valid option. Thus it need not be explicitily explained.
Furthermore, that the Haldane's dilemma is used as an argument against evolution is explicitly mentioned in the wikipedia article -thus logically implying that the dilemma wouldn't arise on a planet where evolution does not occur. -Sensemaker
-Sensemaker
No, sorry — this just doesn't wash; any dilemma is no dilemma for someone who's already made up her mind on one of the two horns. That just doesn't need saying. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 13:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course the dilemma can't depend upon the belief that god is good, given that one of its two horns makes meaningless the claim that god is good. And of course it's a dilemma for the dystheist, just not one that interests her because she's already chosen a position that is consonant with one of the two horns (I also refer to it is a dilemma, and I'm an atheist).-- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 13:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I have now edited the article so that it talks about this dilemma as a dilemma for theistic philosophers -thus indirectly stating that it does not apply to atheists. I can live with the article in its current form -though I would have preferred a more explicit mention- and I now offer that as a compromise. -Sensemaker
As your view was discussed and failed to achieve consensus, why do you insist on including it? -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 10:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
With all imaginable respect, I submit that Ezzi386's edits of 9 November are at best less than encyclopedic in style and at worst shallow and circular. He has deleted the point about the naturalistic fallacy and then goes on to commit that very fallacy. The paragraph that begins with the word "Alterability" is not even readable.
The treatment of the original dilemma (on piety) and its monotheistic application (on morality) should be divided more clearly. They are, of course, closely related, but the dialogue should be shown for its role in the emergence of monotheism altogether. Piety is, after all, something fundamentally different from "goodness", but since the latter concept emerges out of the former at precisely this point in history, it is difficult and vexing to keep them apart. All the more effort at clarity is needed. dab (𒁳) 12:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree that Plato indirectly had a huge effect on the way that early Christianity developed (and some effect on the Judaism of the time and a little before); I'd draw back from saying that that effect was on the development of monotheism (though "as-we-know-it" could cover a multitude of sins, as it were). I agree with your implication (it is your implication isn't it?) that Judaism was henotheistic rather than monotheistic, at least until the time of Jesus, and probably for some time afterwards. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 11:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That afterthought is fascinating; complete OR, of course, but really interesting OR. I'll have think about it.
This paragraph is hard to comprehend because of the use of the phrase "other horn" at different points:
This approach is considered by its opponents to be a rejection of the Divine Command Theory in favour of the other horn, depending on how the other horn is construed; in particular, it depends upon the notion that goodness is a property of God, and thus not under God's control. If the first horn is seen as bad because it takes God to be bound by morality, and thus in some sense irrelevant to the existence or discovery of it, then this response does not help. But if the other horn is seen as bad only because it requires an external limitation on God, then this response solves the problem and is not equivalent to the first horn.
Some of us are left wondering which is currently the "other horn" in the last sentence.
The explaination of the dilemma introduces the first horn of the dilemma as 'that which is moral is commanded by God because it is moral'. The second horn of the dilemma is 'that which is moral is moral because it is commanded by God, known as divine command theory'.
If you are familiar with the subject and understand this paragraph, please replace each instance of the phrase "other horn" with either "first horn" or "second horn" as appropriate in each case.
"Gnosticism and other dualistic schools similarly postulate that God is identical with goodness, which turns the dilemma into a tautology."
In Gnosticism The True God didn't have anything to do whit this material world, and so had nothing to do whit morals. In dualism Good and Bad belong together, one cannot excist whitout the other. What is considered good or bad is matter of opinion culture and religion. Not something that has anything to do whit even, well gods.
82.215.228.44 ( talk) 21:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
How does Gnosticism imply relativism? 68.192.134.169 ( talk) 17:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the following:
Firstly, I think we need a source for the section as a whole. Secondly, can we perhaps get some indication of why such a distinction cannot be maintained? I don't think this added anything to the article as it now stands. Thoughts? Gabrielthursday ( talk) 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Positing the non-existence of God would solve this dilemma in a flash... but I guess that would go against the tone of the article, which assumes existence throughout. 94.192.99.211 ( talk) 08:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Should have something on Islamic discussions of the subject... AnonMoos ( talk) 01:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
A while ago, an editor removed a link in the References section saying "A Christian Answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma" was not acceptably credentialed. More recently though, one of the world's leading Christian websites, creation.com, linked to this article from their Euthyphro Dilemma article, at: http://creation.com/what-is-good-answering-euthyphro-dilemma
The article itself is *archived* at one of the web's most popular theology forums, TheologyOnline.com. Also, it is ranked *6th* out of 96,000 by Google for "euthyphro dilemma". The article's popularity seems to arise because it does add significant content to the debate. Is there a chance for a reconsideration?
or perhaps:
Call-in talk show host, M-F 5pm E.T. at KGOV.com 800-8Enyart ( talk) 05:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the idea that morality can change throughout time the Anything Goes Argument itself or merely an example? If the latter, I think it should be removed, as it seems to imply that God is within time.
This article is tagged for copy editing. I am planning to copy-edit it in the next few days as part of this month's Guild of Copy Editors' copy editing drive.
I would also like to clean up the References. Right now, they are formatted in a multitude of ways, with lots of op. cit. references (some of which may be unclear, since some authors have multiple titles cited). I am planning to introduce shortened footnotes, probably using {{ sfn}}. Is there any reason why I should not do so? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 03:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
When talking about rejection of the dilemma, it should be very clearly espoused that these people are arguing for a "Trilemma" to reject the dilemma - and what this 3rd horn is. 182.255.99.214 ( talk) 11:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw at the bottom of the article that there was a reference to a Youtube video by 'Darkmatter2525' about the dilemma. Is that really important enough to be included in this article?
Randomresearcher42 ( talk) 03:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Euthyphro dilemma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)