|Euthyphro: (goes back to Plato's homonymous dialogue) This is about the question whether something is good because it pleases the gods or whether it pleases the gods because it is good. See also projectivism, detectivism, attribution, properties, justification, circularity._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. |
Euthyphro: GeachVsSocrates: Questions of fact are not necessarily decidable - moral questions are not undecidable in principle. - Eutyhphron: GeachVs Socrates: E.g. decisions are as important as definition.
(1) What is pious is loved by the gods, because it is pious. - ((s) a = b because a - (what is __ is --)).
(2) What is beloved of God is loved by God, because it is loved by the gods. - ((s) b = b because b - (what is __is, __)).
(3) What is beloved of God is loved by the gods because it is beloved of God. (circular). - ((s) b = b because b'(what is __, is__)).
(4) What is pious is pious, because it is loved by the gods. - (s) a = a because b (or because b'!) - (what is __ is __)).
Euthyphro/Geach: Identity/Leibniz Principle: breaks in contexts which are not purely extensional - provides opaque (intense) contexts: e.g. I beat him because he was my father (because he hit me). - The truth value can differ, although it is the same man. - The falsity of the first sentence does not guarantee that another man is meant. - False: that pious acts and humans are not the same classes as those who are loved by God. - Wrong solution: Mill: God-loved/religious: same denotation/different connotation: This distinction cannot be attributed to Plato. - Plato: pious: is a form - God-loved: is not a form. - wrong solution: use: explanation: active/passive: e.g. a thing is carried because someone carries it (Geach: wrong) - someone carries a thing because it is carried (Geach: true). - This cannot be attributed to Plato.
Euthyphro/Geach: McTaggart: instead of "because" (causal but opaque) "in view of" (not causal). - Vs: missing causality does not rule out error. - I do not admire someone in terms of my own belief. - Not even gods. - Geach: the attitude is already the reason, but it does not provide the property._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
Logic Matters Oxford 1972