Ethics Review Via the Euthyphro

What does Euthyphro think? What position would this be? Suppose Socrates asks only because he thinks piety is whatever the individual believes it is. For Euthyphro, piety is whatever Euthyphro thinks it is.

Subjectivism Socrates was executed for impiety. He allegedly corrupted the youth by getting them to question the values of the state, among other things. Using Benedict’s terminology, this means the Athenians regarded Socrates as what? Benedict argued for this position by observing that notions of normality and abnormality vary amongst cultures. She claimed these notions point to a culture’s view of right and wrong.

Argument from Deviance/Abnormality 1. A culture’s view of normality shows what it values. 2. Different cultures see different behaviors as abnormal. 3. Because of 2, there is no universal conception of normal and abnormal. 4. Thus, there is no universal, culturally independent, value (or set of values). What are 1 through 3 called here? What is 4?

Arguments – A collection of evidence to support a conclusion Only premises can be true or false. Arguments can be valid or invalid, sound or unsound. What does this stuff mean? Premises – Evidence to support a conclusion. A Conclusion – What one seeks to establish In this argument 1 through 3 are premises. The conclusion is 4. There is no maximum limit to the number of premises an argument may have, though there is a minimum. There must be at least one premise and one conclusion..

James Rachels Validity is about structure. A deductively valid argument has a truth preserving structure. A deductively valid argument can have false premises. Validity is the low bar Benedict’s argument is invalid and unsound. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. It is invalid. The premise is false. Even if it were valid, it would be unsound.

There is less disagreement than it seems. Soundness is about structure and content Sound arguments must be both valid and have all true premises Soundness is the high bar for having a cogent argument. What is smaller than a culture? If Rachels is right to say this, the premise in the argument for Relativism is false.

Subjectivism – There are no truths in ethics; there are only individual opinions. <- What are the premises over there? What is the conclusion? If the conclusion must follow from the premises, the argument is what? If moral laws exist independent of sentient beings, they must have been pre-determined to exist. Pre- determination is incompatible with our understanding of the world. So, the moral laws were not destined to exist. Thus, moral laws do not exist independent of sentient beings.

Divine Command Theory If God commands it, then it is right. This is the subjective horn. Morality depends only on God’s opinion. “God is good” loses its significance. (Why?) If it is right, then God commands it. This is the objective horn. Morality no longer depends upon God. This seems to be a rejection of the Divine Command Theory

Natural Law Theory Distinct from Divine Command Theory. Laws are written into nature. God must change nature to change the laws; he cannot just issue new commands. Determining the proper function of things will tell us how to behave.

Problems 1. Laws describe how things behave. Moral laws are normative: they tell us how we should behave. 2. How can we derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’? The fact that the purpose of something is to X does not entail that we ought to use that thing only to X.