Is this episode about philosophy because I say it is,
or do I say it is because it's about philosophy?
[electronic theme music]
[music fades to background]
This week we're going through another famous philosophical text and this week, it's
the Euthyphro by Plato.
Plato wrote a lot of his philosophy in the form of dialogues -- that is conversations between two people.
That makes them quite natural and easy to follow,
so if you were looking to take the next step in your philosophy adventure and read some original philosophy,
Plato would be a good place to start.
The dialogues often feature Plato's teacher, Socrates,
and they were written around about two and a half thousand years ago
making them the oldest fan fiction in the world.
The Euthyphro attempts to define what piety -- or justice before the gods -- is,
and it leads to a dilemma
for anyone who thinks that morality comes from God.
The action starts outside the court in Athens and in true Platonic style,
that is where we join the action.
[dream harp sound effect]
Socrates: Ah, if it isn't Euthyphro, the expert on religion!
Euthyphro: Good morning Socrates.
S: What are you doing outside the courts?
E: I'm here to charge someone with murder.
S: Whom are you charging?
E: My father. He's murdered one of my slaves, most unjustly.
S: My goodness. Aren't you worried that people will call you impious before the gods for turning against your own father?
E: Some already have, my friend,
but they do not know what true piety is,
[proudly] whereas I, an expert on religion, know what it means to be holy.
S: Is that so? Then could you define piety for me?
E: Certainly, Socrates.
Piety is what I'm doing right now: prosecuting the wicked, standing up for justice,
no matter who the defendant is.
S: Ah, but Euthyphro, that is an example of a pious act.
I asked you to define piety for me,
not to give examples.
E: Ah yes. Well, eh um --
E: Piety is what the gods love and impiety is what the gods hate.
S: Very well then. But, tell me, my friend: is something pious because the gods love it,
or do they love it because it is pious?
E: Uhhhhhh. . .
E: The second: they love certain things because they are pious.
S: Ah, but Euthyphro, if they love certain things because they are pious,
then they're loving of them is merely incidental.
You have not told me what the pious is in itself.
E: Yes, yes. Forgive me, Socrates.
What I meant to say was, the other one: the pious is made pious because the god love it.
S: [mock wonder] What a strange state of affairs!
Tell me, Euthyphro, is justice pious?
E: Yes, Socrates. Of course justice is pious.
That's why I'm prosecuting my father in the name of justice.
S: But if justice is pious because the gods love it,
then suppose that tomorrow, the gods change their mind and love injustice.
Injustice would then become a good thing.
Are you saying, my friend, that justice is so flimsy that it can be overturned by the mere whim of the gods?
E: No! Not at all. That would be horrible.
T-there must be more to justice than that!
S: I would agree. So then, my friend, since we are caught in this dilemma, we must start again:
[sarcastically] since you are such an expert on religion,
can you define for me what piety is?
E: [slowly] I -- would Socrates, but I've . . . gotta go. . .
I-I'll have to tell you about it another time.
[troll theme plays]
[dream harp sound effect]
The dialogue goes on in more detail and I've adapted it slightly,
but that's basically the gist of what's called the Euthyphro Dilemma:
If morality comes from God, like Ten Commandments style,
then, does God tell us to do what is good because it's good,
or is it good because God tells us to do it?
If God tells us to do it because it is good, then God can't change the laws of right and wrong,
which might count against omnipotence.
And if it's good because God tells you to do it, then God could tell you to burn someone's house down
and that would make it good.
Which is. . . kind of unbelievable.
So, there's the Euthyphro.
What do you guys think? How would you respond to the dilemma?
Is morality flexible enough to accommodate the deeply religious account of its source?
Let me know what you think in the comments.
You can also tell me whether you'd like the next episode to be about selfishness, or international oil economics.
This episode guest starred my very good friend, Mr. Sam Moor[?].
Thank you to you, Sam, from me and all the PhilosoFans.
[gunshot]
And the Oscar goes to. . .
Subscribe, tell your friends about PhilosophyTube, and leave a like if you enjoyed my bed sheet toga.
'[Money (That's What I Want)' by Barrett Strong in background]
Charity may begin at home, but philosophy begins in YouTube comments.
Let's see what you guys had to say about choosing a charity.
ThomasFisher12, Athavan Rajasingham, and Chris Hartman
all said that we should maybe give to charities that are more effective than others,
because some spend more than others on advertising and paying CEO's and so on.
That's a good way to narrow down a list of charities, but at some point,
you're going to reach a list of charities who are all equally effective and
then how will you choose between them?
Marsgreekgod also pointed out that it's very difficult to determine exactly how much "good" a charity does.
I imagine that problem is particularly prevalent if you're comparing two charities with very different aims,
like, say, Amnesty International vs. Dogs Trust.
Bill Niblock took me as saying that by not giving to one charity, you harm them.
I wasn't trying to imply that. I agree with you: it's not harming it's just not helping.
But not doing something still counts as making a choice.
You're allowing other people to suffer. I just wondered if people needed some kind of ethical back up for that.
Nerdynerdynerdnerd said that you cannot do anything immoral by giving to charity.
I don't really want to come down on either side of that, because I'm not really sure, but
what if giving to charity made somebody else dependent on hand-outs and unable to work for themselves?
That would be a bad consequence of you're giving to charity.
I'm not saying I definitely agree with that,
but I'm just saying that there are consequentialists who would disagree with you.
VMLM3: I'm not trying to rationalize anyone either way,
I'm just asking the questions.
That's all we've got time for this week. Thank you very much for watching and I'll see you in the next episode.
Byyyyeeee!
Music: Give me money (that's what I want) / Lots of money (that's what I want)
[music fades out] [end]