معضلة يوثفرو
| جزء من سلسلة عن |
| فلسفة الدين |
|---|
| دليل مقالات فلسفة الدين |
معضلة يوثفرو Euthyphro dilemma مبنية على حوار يوثفرو لأفلاطون، وفيه يسأل سقراط يوثفرو:
"هل التقي (τὸ ὅσιον) تـُحـِبـُّه الآلهة لأنه تقي، أم أنه تقي لأنه محبوب الآلهة؟"
Although it was originally applied to the ancient Greek pantheon, the dilemma has implications for modern monotheistic religions. Gottfried Leibniz asked whether the good and just "is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just".[1] Ever since Plato's original discussion, this question has presented a problem for some theists, though others have thought it a false dilemma, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today.
في الإلوهية الفلسفية
The dilemma can be modified to apply to philosophical theism, where it is still the object of theological and philosophical discussion, largely within the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic traditions. As German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibniz presented this version of the dilemma: "It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things."[2]
Many philosophers and theologians have addressed the Euthyphro dilemma since the time of Plato, though not always with reference to the Platonic dialogue. According to scholar Terence Irwin, the issue and its connection with Plato was revived by Ralph Cudworth and Samuel Clarke in the 17th and 18th centuries.[3] More recently, it has received a great deal of attention from contemporary philosophers working in metaethics and the philosophy of religion. Philosophers and theologians aiming to defend theism against the threat of the dilemma have developed a variety of responses.
الرب أمَرَ بها لأنها الصحيح
في الإلحاد الفلسفي
قرارات إلحادية
Atheism challenges the assumption of the dilemma that God exists (or in the original formulation, that the many gods in Greek religion existed). This eliminates the need to decide whether God is either non-omniscient or arbitrary, and also eliminates the possibility of God as the source of morality.
Secular humanism takes the positive stance that morality is not dependent on religion or theology, and that ethical rules should be developed based on reason, science, experience, debate, and democracy. Some secular humanists believe in ethical naturalism, that there are objective, discoverable laws of morality inherent to the human condition, of which humans may have imperfect knowledge. Others have adopted ethical subjectivism in the sense of meta-ethics – the idea that ethics are a social construct – but nonetheless by way of utilitarianism advocate imposing a set of universal ethics and laws that create the type of society in which they wish to live, where people are safe, prosperous, and happy. These competing resolutions represent different answers to a question similar to the original dilemma: "Is something inherently ethical or unethical, or is something ethical or unethical because a person or society says it is so?"
رفض الأخلاقيات العمومية
The other assumption of the dilemma is that there is a universal right and wrong, against which a god either creates or is defined by. Moral nihilism challenges that assumption by rejecting the concept of morality entirely. This conflicts with the teachings of most religions (and thus is usually accompanied by atheism) but is theoretically compatible with the notion of a powerful God or gods who have opinions about how people should behave.
In popular culture
In the song "No Church in the Wild" from the album Watch the Throne, rapper Jay Z references the dilemma with the line, "Is pious pious 'cause God loves pious? Socrates asked whose bias do y'all seek."[4]
In American legal thinking
Yale Law School Professor Myres S. McDougal, formerly a classicist, later a scholar of property law, posed the question, "Do we protect it because it's a property right, or is it a property right because we protect it?"[5] The dilemma has also been restated in legal terms by Geoffrey Hodgson, who asked: "Does a state make a law because it is a customary rule, or does law become a customary rule because it is approved by the state?"[6]
انظر أيضاً
- Appeal to authority
- Deontology
- Divine simplicity
- Ethical dilemma
- Ethics in the Bible
- معضلة أخلاقية
- الأخلاق في الكتاب المقدس
الهامش
- ^ G.W. Leibniz stated, in Reflections on the Common Concept of Justice (circa 1702): "It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and Goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things."
- ^ Leibniz 1702(?), p. 516.
- ^ Irwin 2006.
- ^ "Kanye West – No Church in the Wild Lyrics". Retrieved 5 November 2013.
- ^ See Richard H. Stern, Scope-of-Protection Problems With Patents and Copyrights on Methods of Doing Business Archived 2016-05-18 at the Wayback Machine, 10 قالب:Smcaps L.J. 105, 128 n.100 (1999).
- ^ Hodgson, Geoffrey M. (2015). "Much of the 'economics of property rights' devalues property and legal rights". Journal of Institutional Economics. 11 (4): 686. doi:10.1017/S1744137414000630. hdl:2299/18849. S2CID 154894480.
In Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro: 'Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?' ... This dilemma can be converted into matters of state and law: 'Does a state make a law because it is a customary rule, or does law become a customary rule because it is approved by the state?'
وصلات خارجية
| حياته |
|  | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| أعماله |
| ||||
| أمثولات واستعارات | |||||
| متعلقات | |||||
| العائلة |
| ||||