Consider the following injunction: 'Thou shalt not kill'. A civilised society is supposedly defined by this moral law. Even societies not much above the savage recognise the importance of this universal code for members of the tribe, although its restriction may not apply to those who don't belong. With all that said, Homo Sapiens have an inordinate capacity for violent action. It could be argued that our ability to practise violence on others has been an evolutionary boon and has contributed to our success as a species. Wot no Neanderthals? But what about the genes- they still survive!
A coherent society demands that its citizens go forth and kill others on occasion. Thus, the 'shall not kill' rule becomes void in times of war. A special class of countrymen, 'Warriors', are expected to take the life of, but not necessarily restricted to, the Warriors of the groups deemed 'The Enemy'. At its most fundamental, war is about killing.
Killing members of group B is a means utilised by group A to impose
its will on group B, and vice versa. We can attempt to civilise war through treaties, mutually agreed restrictions on violence between protagonists and political side steps. Still, ultimately, war is about killing- how can it be otherwise?
The above is my way of introducing the Euthyphro Dilemma. If humans (and by extension, nations) are morally dubious, how do we match up to our supposed deity? Surely, divine morality is sublime, perfect, and a model for us mere mortals to follow. The dilemma with the funny foreign Greek name comes from Plato's dialogue, where Socrates discusses divine morality with a fellow called Euthyphro. What follows is a question from the good Socrates. This question has engaged the best minds (what a bloody waste) over the millennia, and its resolution has proved stubbornly elusive for theists. The question: “Is something good because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is good?”. The question is easy to frame, like many profound questions. On first acquaintance, mayhap it is a simple conundrum; however, the implications are intricately bound and raise difficulties concerning morality and the ultimate nature of God. Let's dig a bit deeper.
The question presents a choice between two horns of a dilemma.
Thorny Horn Number 1.
Consider this: If something happens to be good because the gods deem it so, then all morality is due to the gods' decree. Thus, an act of kindness is not 'kind' because the concept of 'kindness' is good in itself, but good because of divine will. The problem arises because, if we accept this view, then morality becomes arbitrary. If god commands that human torture is good, then torture must be good. This, no doubt, will conflict with our internal notion of goodness, unless we are a homicidal maniac. But if we accept god's will as the source of all morality, we must accept this adjudication as good. If so, have we become homicidal maniacs or incredibly pious? If we follow gods edict, then the truth, 'god is good' becomes a tautology and is devoid of informational content. And what does this say about god's ultimate nature, and is this god worthy of serious consideration and worship?*
Horny Thorn Number 2.
It's time to address the second half of Socrates' question. If 'good' is apparent and independent of the divine, then objective morality is manifest and subject to reason and experience. Divine will has no influence on morality. All well and good, and as a consequence, we shall exalt! This view is in line with how we want morality to be. It gives meaning to objective morality and soothes our worried brow. We cannot rely on the deity to provide guidance in the realm of morals and ethics. But not so fast, Flaxen. The thinking theologian (an oxymoron surely) is confronted by a problem, especially if he/she accepts the precepts of Thomas Aquinas, as this solution restricts the Christian notion of god's omnipotence. If morality does not rely on god's power, then god is subject to limits, which limits Divine Sovereignty. This is a very uncomfortable conclusion for the Christian who ponders beyond simple liturgy and the preacher's insipid sermon on a wet Sunday morning.
Theologians, even the dumb ones, are never short on words and resolving contradictions, at least to their satisfaction; tis their life's work. One approach is to rely on Thomas Aquinas and his use/misuse of Aristotelian metaphysics. Accordingly, moral truths are integral to the natural order created by god. God's evident involvement can be revealed through reason (sic). Simply, we have a meld of god's authority with moral reality. Theology and reality are never a good mix, and even dense Thomist metaphysics are of little use.
Another route popular with theologians is to note that the nature of god is inherently good. Therefore, god does not randomly impose what is good. As god's character is perfect, it follows that what he commands expresses his immaculately good character. The dilemma is supposedly bypassed by placing morality within god's essence rather than his will. This approach will only appear convincing to the student well drenched in Aristotelian metaphysics; I'm not such a student. Bollocks in, bollocks out.
Most folk do not find theologians' attempts to avoid the moral dilemmas, as previously stated, particularly compelling. Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics are clearly acting behind the scenes to force and shore up reconciliation between god's perfectitude and the real world. The attempt appears archaic, and dare I say it, silly, as it is based on teachings superseded by modern philosophical systems. Folk, with a modern scientific/technological education, are at a loss to comprehend concepts such as 'essence', including myself. The arguments smack of sophistry and acadaemic cleverness for its own sake. Tis ultimately dependent on Thomist philosophy proposed 800 years ago. A philosophical system discarded by all except Catholic scholars.
To all my readers, this discussion on so-called 'Morals' seems to devolve/dissolve into the void of esoteric nonsense. This is, of course, my unlearned opinion, so take it as you will. A cadre of very clever acadaemics has devoted their careers to considering some of the finer points of what it means to be a moral person. As said in the introduction, I struggle with attempts to formalise a code of morals and ethics. As humans, we all have our own 'morality' based on our cultural milieu, guidance from our parents/elders/teachers and our intuition. Socrates' sharp question on morality's dichotomy is not a dilemma for the atheist. The dilemma is only for devotees of supernatural deities possessing superlative qualities.
Unrelatedly, my writing has been criticised for using unnecessary ellipsis. I am guilty as charged, me Lord...
* The answer is NO
No comments:
Post a Comment