The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
WINNER
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Euthyphro's dilemma is a false dilemma.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,463 times Debate No: 6404
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

TheSkeptic

Pro

I am contending that the famous Euthyphro's dilemma is in fact a false dilemma. The dilemma basically asks: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" [1]

Usually involved in debates with monotheistic gods, I will define "God" as it commonly is defined:
-Omnipotent
-Omniscient
-Omnipresent
-Omnibenevolence

*NOTE* - I am NOT debating about whether or not this God exists. Of course, if God didn't exist, then this dilemma wouldn't apply. However, in the context of this debate, let's suppose it does.

I argue that it doesn't matter if God commands what is moral, or whatever is moral is "arbitrary". Because God is omnibenevolent, then his moral commands are "good". I will leave it as this for now, and await my opponent's argument.

---References---
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
WINNER

Con

Quote of Opponent: I argue that it doesn't matter if God commands what is moral.......

Sources: http://www.infoplease.com...

First of all, America is ruled by the majority. This is a proven fact. Majority plays a pig part in decision making. It decides laws, the fate of one's life (capital punishment), even our future President. According to the first website stated above, the top religion in the world is Christianity with over 2.1 billion members, 33% of the world. That's a huge number. Those 2.1 billion people believe that God does command what is moral. Many of them follow the ten commandments, and outline of what is and what is not moral. This means that the MAJORITY feels God commands what is moral. Indeed, many would agree the opinions of the majority are often seen as the opinions of ALL. Now, if it did not matter if God commanded what is moral, there would be no sins, no churches, no Christians, not even this religion to begin with. The churches that you drive by almost everday is solid CONCRETE proof that God's commands of morality are in fact significant. Of the 2.1 billion christians, if at least the majority believes that God's judgements of morality are important than this first statement can be proven FALSE.

Quote of Opponent:..............whatever is moral is "arbitrary".

Sources- dictionary.reference.com

Definition of Arbitrary- up to ones judgement.

Whatever is moral is not arbitrary. We base things on example, teachings, pressure, society, etc. Thus our judgments of things are not up to ourselves. When you dress for school, you dress according to what you may think is cool, what you see other kids wearing, what you have seen on T.V. etc. This means our judgements are effected by others. This means that morality is based on other things such as God's judgements, what you have been taught, and what you have been brought up by. So morality is in no way arbitrary. You must first see a basic outline of what is generally concieved as moral and not moral. This basis can not be shown by yourself because you don't even know what morality is! This basis for your own judgement must be set by someone else. So then you make your judgements
off of them. So now your judgement is based on another person's actions, not your own. For example, when you judge if something is safe or not, your certainly not going to test it our yourself. Someone else will test it out. You will watch what happens and depending upon THEIR actions, you make your OWN ACTIONS AND DECISIONS ON WHAT TO DO.

Summary

Euthyphro's Dilemma is real. Everyday, someone ask's themselves," Is this right? Should I be doing this? Just because someone says one thing, should I go along with them?" Thus this is basically the same dilemma Euthyphro was experiencing. For example when you go cite sources for debate. Someone states Wikipedia and someone else states The Library of Congress. You would obviously believe the second one. But does this mean you should believe that source because it sounds official? Is it true because it is THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS?" Same principles of Euthyphro's Dilemma!

Good Start PRO:)
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, but I am quite befuddled by his response. Was it deliberate or a mistake o.O? Basically, my opponent centers his entire argument by dissecting one of my sentences, then attacking each of these two parts individually. I'll explain:

=====Counterarguments=====

1. Some argument about the amount of Christians

OF COURSE the majority of Christians believes God's judgments of morality are important. That is very essential to a religion, and I am in no way refuting that. My opponent seems to make a horrible straw man argument.

The second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma states that if what is moral is commanded by God, then that makes morality "arbitrary to God's whims". For example, God could've made rape, murder, and theft morally righteous acts. This is supposedly seen as a problem for theists. HOWEVER, I argue that if God, by virtue of the definitions I gave in Round 1, is omnibeneveloent, then whatever he decrees will be morally righteous since HE IS MORALLY PERFECT.

My opponent's argument ENTIRELY misses my argument, and this very debate topic. It's quite irrelevant to put it bluntly.

2. Argument pertaining to arbitrary

Once again, my opponent's argument is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Any simple knowledge of what Euthyphro's dilemma is show's that my opponent is way off-track.

I argued that while some would argue that if morality was arbitrary by God's whim, then this is a problem for theists. As I have previously stated, this is NOT a problem because if God is omnibenevolent (morally perfect), then it doesn't matter if morality is arbitrary.

=====Conclusion=====

I ask of my opponent: did you really read my opening argument or tried a very funny semantic argument? Or perhaps you just misinterpreted it?

Whatever the answer may be, one thing is clear. My opponent's argument are COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. He has yet to show why the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma (the one I'm targeting) is a true problem for theism.

You see, I've been debating on the side of atheism too much, and I thought I would try to argue on a theist's side. I was hoping this debate would reach into some yummy topics, like divine command theory. But if my opponent continues to make irrelevant arguments, then I have nothing to refute.
WINNER

Con

My arguements are not irrelevant. You stated this exactly: I argue that it doesn't matter if God commands what is moral, or whatever is moral is "arbitrary". Because God is omnibenevolent, then his moral commands are "good". I will leave it as this for now, and await my opponent's argument.

I argue those exact statements, because you said that's what you wanted to ARGUE. You stated it does not matter if God commands what is moral, I went AGAINST that. You stated that whatever is moral is arbitrary. I also went AGAINST that. After all, isn't this debate? Is that not what you wanted to ARGUE since you stated the words," I ARGUE?". This is common sense, please get some.

I stated the majority of Christians because my opponent made this statement: It does not matter if God commands what is moral. Well then, according to 2.1 MILLION PEOPLE, it does matter. This is a big enough number to substantially prove that IT DOES matter if God commands what is moral. Thus your first arguement is FALSE. Even if one person did believe his commands were significant, it would still be proven false. Your arguments are basically assumptions. Assumptions should be based on the MAJORITY VIEW AND STATISTICS and it is not. There is not a significant number to support your assumption.

HOPEFULLLY WHAT YOU WANT TO ARGUE

Quote of Opponent: HOWEVER, I argue that if God, by virtue of the definitions I gave in Round 1, is omnibeneveloent, then whatever he decrees will be morally righteous since HE IS MORALLY PERFECT.

How do we know God was omnibenevolent? Are you sure he was morally PERFECT? There can be no such thing. There is no PROVEN facts that he was in fact OMNIBENEVOLENT. This means that his judgements are left to question. Because he himself was not morally perfect, his judgements were consequently not perfect either. The dilemma then comes into play.

Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

This dilemma is very real. Let's analyze the first segment:

Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral?

How are we to know that God ALREADY knows what is moral or what is not moral? There's no proof showing that God can see these things, that God can guess or suggest such things. So we MUST ask our selves this same question.

The second segment:
or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

Just because one figure of power says one thing, does this mean that it is always right? NOT AT ALL. This is why we have DOUBT. Although one might seem superior in ways, it does not mean they always ARE. Just because God says so, it is? Just because SOMEONE ELSE says so it is? We must first find reason to believe that he his commandments of morality are in fact true and real. One might argue that well, if God is good, why do so many bad things happen? But lets not go there.

SUMMARY
I argue that God is not a completey omnibenevolent figure and there is NO PROOF TO PROVE SO. This means that the dilemma is in fact REAL. This means that what god commands can not be moraaly perfect either. Thus, this dilemma exists. Is he really morally perfect? Are his commands moral because he MIGHT be morally perfect? Until we can answer the first question, this dilemma will ALWAYS EXSIST.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Pro

My opponent may not think his arguments are irrelevant, but anyone with a clue of what Euthyphro's dilemma is about will know just how wrong he is. He takes a few phrases out of my arguments and "refutes" them out of context. I said that even if morality is arbitrary by God's commands, it doesn't matter IN CONTEXT OF THE EUTHYPHRO'S DILEMMA. The dilemma is presented as a problem for theists, that either morality doesn't need a god or that it is arbitrary and can be changed anytime by a God. I argue that even if morality is arbitrary to God's will, this ISN'T a problem for theists and thus NO DILEMMA. This is the essence of my argument and it hasn't even been TOUCHED upon by my opponent's argument.

"This is common sense, please get some."
--- > On the contrary…

I will now just go through his VERY irrelevant arguments:
=====Counterarguments=====

>>>Majority of Christians and what they believe in<<<
This argument is completely irrelevant. I stated it doesn't matter if morality is arbitrary by God's will IN THE CONTEXT of the dilemma. Of course the moral commandments by God are important to his followers, I have never argued this. Since my sole argument is still standing, I have no reason to say anything more on this matter.

>>>God's omnibenevolence<<<
In my opening argument of Round 1, I STATED THE DEFINITIONS OF GOD. I also further stated that this ISN'T a debate of whether or not God exists. Instead, it is a debate of: "If God has X definitions (ones that I have listed), then there is a dilemma in terms of morality". I, of course, argue against this (Euthyphro's dilemma).
Even if you had a problem with the definitions, then you should have CHALLGEND THEM IN ROUND 1. By not, you have conceded that all my definitions are in accord with you. Thus, in this debate God, IS omnibenevolent.

>>>The first Horn of Euthyphro's dilemma<<<
"How are we to know that God ALREADY knows what is moral or what is not moral?"
---- > Well if you read the definitions, then God is OMNISCIENCT. He knows EVERYTHING.

My opponent's "argument" concerning the first horn is completely irrelevant. The first horn of the dilemma was meant to show that if God commands what is moral BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY moral, then there is no need for God. Basically, it states God is a middleman. Apparently, my opponent has no clue about this.

>>>The second Horn of Euthyphro's dilemma<<<
"Just because one figure of power says one thing, does this mean that it is always right?"
---- > Well if GOD, an OMNIPOTENT AND OMNIBENEVOLENT BEING, makes something right, then I argue it IS right.
This is perhaps the only line you have that is on the right path. However, you fail to even develop it, and so I have nothing to refute.

"We must first find reason to believe that he his commandments of morality are in fact true and real."
---- > God can do anything, he can make anything real (for some, they say only in the boundaries of logic, but whatever let's not get into that).

=====Conclusion=====
"I argue that God is not a completey omnibenevolent figure and there is NO PROOF TO PROVE SO."
---- > As I have stated in the first Round, this is NOT a debate on God's existence or his properties. YOU have said nothing in your first Round, therefore you CONCEDE ALL DEFINTIIONS STATED. Not only are you irrelevant, you fail to even understand simple things like definitions and rules.

Voters, if I haven't demonstrated enough by now, my opponent's argument are complete red herrings. He has YET to touch upon my single argument, that the second horn of the dilemma is a false dilemma because God is omnibenevolent. Since my opponent has no real argument to present, I can't refute anything. Without further doubt, vote PRO if you have some sense in your body.
WINNER

Con

ON WITH THE GOOD STUFF.

"Well if you read the definitions, then God is OMNISCIENCT. He knows EVERYTHING."

Prove it. This is basically what's causing the problems. I would have challenged you the first time, but there was not enough room:)

"Apparently, my opponent has no clue about this."

I'm shocked. Apparently, debate.org is not the site for me. To needbang.com we go!

"Well if GOD, an OMNIPOTENT AND OMNIBENEVOLENT BEING, makes something right, then I argue it IS right."

That's ALOT OF CAPITAL LETTERS MISSY.

"YOU have said nothing in your first Round, therefore you CONCEDE ALL DEFINTIIONS STATED."

MORE capital letters?! REALLY? REALLY?

"Without further doubt, vote PRO if you have some sense in your body."

Oh I sure have something else for you in my BOD-AY.

thanks for reading. and vote for me if you want to. no pressure
PUNK....
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
Conduct: Pro. He actually argued the topic, and he didn't call the other punk, among other things.
S/G: Pro. Near the end, Con's grammar kinda fell out....
Arguments: Pro. Seeing as Con didn't argue the topic.... And Pro did a pretty good job of it...
Source: I didn't see the relevancy of Con's source, so I gave it to Pro. Normally, though, I prefer another source than Wikipedia. If I wanted to, I could have changed that site so it said an altogether different thing, and if I was debating I could have brought that up....
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
bah
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
TheSkepticWINNERTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job to both debaters. However, Con seemed to question beg, and throw up a lot of red herrings in this debate. Pro showed that God by definition is the greatest good; therefore, the burden of proof was on Con to show how this made morality "arbitrary" as he put it false. But, Con was not able to do so, leaving Pro for the win.
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
TheSkepticWINNERTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Chestertonian 8 years ago
Chestertonian
TheSkepticWINNERTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by dwest23 8 years ago
dwest23
TheSkepticWINNERTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
TheSkepticWINNERTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
TheSkepticWINNERTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70