Absolutism and the Euthyphro dilemma LO: I will know what is meant by absolutism I will attempt to resolve the Euthyphro dilemma Hmk: Come up with some evaluation points (Strengths and Weaknesses) for Absolutism

Starter: Hot Seating Stand up and say one thing that you have learned on the course so far. First person identifies (a scholar, key term etc,) and second person explains. If someone stutters, or says the wrong answer, then you are eliminated and must sit down.

Peer marking of homework Explain the view that Ethics are relative (25)

Enter C S Lewis C S Lewis on ‘the Law of Nature’ … ◦ We will read the following together. Try to pick out 3 points to write down …

‘I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very alike they are to each other and to our own … I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards to what people you ought to be unselfish to- whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked. But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining ‘it’s not fair’ before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties don’t matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong - in other words, if there is no Law of Nature - what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?’ C S Lewis

Key terms What is absolutism? ◦ ABSOLUTISM is a command that is true for all time, in all places and in all situations. ◦ DEONTOLOGICAL thinkers are concerned with acts, not ends. They consider that the moral act itself has moral value. E.g. Telling the truth is always right, even when it may cause pain or harm.

Are different roles in society different interpretations of the same? One issue raised by moral relativism is the question of whether differences in moral behaviour between one society and another are the result of different applications of the same moral rules, or whether the rules themselves are different. Do societies each create their own sets of moral rules, which have no firmer basis than custom? Or do societies each respond in different ways to rules and principles, which are fundamentally the same, and universal? It could be argued that there are absolute and universal rules, such as the duty to protect the weak, but that it is impossible to agree on how these rules should be put into practice and impossible to prove that one way of trying to express the principles is any better than another.

Key question If there is such a thing as absolute and universal rules, then where did it come from?

Euthyphro’s dilemma: In plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates says: ‘Consider this question: Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved.’ Plato, Euthyphro, 9A-10B In other words, Plato is asking ‘Is x good because God loves it or does God love x because x is good?’ Put another way, is murder wrong because God says murder is wrong, or is murder wrong because it’s wrong in itself, independent of God? Socrates presents us with two possible visions of the universe. In one there’s God, a set of immutable absolute moral rules and the human race. In this universe, God commands humans to follow the moral rules because they are absolutely true in themselves, separate from God. God agrees with them and wants humans to follow them. Now let us consider an alternative universe. In this second universe, there only exists God and the human race. God commands humans to do certain things and they are good things because God has commanded them.’ Can you indentify the issues here? Task: Rewrite the Euthyphro dilemma in your own words.

Two Issues with each side to the dilemma … ◦ Some say that if morals are separate from God, then this diminishes God, because God is deferring to a higher set of absolutes rules. ◦ Some say if morals are good because God commands them, they seem arbitrary and not good in themselves. This means that God could have commanded the opposite and it would have been good. E.g. “Murder one another.” Euthyphro’s dilemma:

Tell me three things... you have learnt today you have done well the group has done well you would like to find out more about you know now that you didn’t know an hour ago Remember your homework …