{"id":5782,"date":"2017-02-13T05:44:30","date_gmt":"2017-02-13T05:44:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2017\/02\/13\/metaphysical-grounding-and-the-euthyphro-dilemma\/"},"modified":"2017-02-13T05:44:30","modified_gmt":"2017-02-13T05:44:30","slug":"metaphysical-grounding-and-the-euthyphro-dilemma","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2017\/02\/13\/metaphysical-grounding-and-the-euthyphro-dilemma\/","title":{"rendered":"Metaphysical Grounding and the Euthyphro Dilemma"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Socrates<\/a>The locus classicus<\/em> of the Euthyphro Dilemma (if you want to call it that) is Stephanus<\/em> 9-10 in the early Platonic dialog, Euthyphro<\/em>. This aporetic dialog is about the nature of piety, and Socrates, as usual, is in quest of a definition. Euthyphro proposes three definitions, with each of which Socrates has no trouble finding fault. According to the second, "piety is what all the gods love, and impiety is what all the gods hate." To this Socrates famously responds, "Do the gods love piety because it is pious, or is it pious because they love it?" In clearer terms, do the gods love pious acts because they are pious, or are pious acts pious because the gods love them?<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/span><\/div>\n
What interests me at the moment is the notion of metaphysical grounding which I want to defend against the Noble Ostrich and other anti-metaphysical types.  (For it is his failure to understand metaphysical grounding that accounts for the Ostrich's failure to understand my animadversions against ostrich nominalism as well as his failure to appreciate the force of my circularity objection to the thin theory of existence.)  In all fairness, though, we must be open to the possibility that there is nothing to understand or appreciate here.<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
In any case, I will not try to answer a question beyond my pay grade, namely:<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/span><\/div>\n
\n
Q. Does God command X because it is morally obligatory, or is X morally obligatory because God commands it?<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
My concern is with the preliminary question<\/em> whether (Q) is so much as intelligible<\/em>.  It is intelligible only if we can make sense of the 'because' in it.   Let' s start with something that we should all be able to agree on (if we assume the existence of God and the existence of objective moral obligations), namely:<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/span><\/div>\n
\n
1.  Necessarily, God commands X iff X is morally obligatory.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

(1) expresses a broadly logical equivalence and equivalence is symmetrical: if p is equivalent to q, then q is equivalent to p.  But metaphysical grounding  is asymmetrical: if M metaphysically grounds N, then it is not the case that N metaphysically  grounds M.  For example, if fact F is the truth-maker of sentence s, then it is not the case that s is the truth-maker of F.  Truth-making is a type of metaphysical grounding: it is not a causal relation and its is not a logical relation (where a logical relation is one that relates propositions, examples of logical relations being consistency, inconsistency, entailment, and logical independence.)<\/span><\/p>\n

(1) leaves wide open whether God is the source of the obligatoriness of moral obligations, or whether such obligations are obligatory independently of divine commands.  Thus the truth of (1) does not entail an answer to (Q).<\/span><\/p>\n

The 'because' in (Q) cannot be taken in a causal sense if causation is understood as a relation that connects physical or mental events, states, or changes with other physical or mental events, states, or changes.  Nor can the 'because' be taken in a logical sense.  Logical relations connect propositions, and a divine command is not a proposition.  Nor is the obligatoriness of the content of a command a proposition.<\/span><\/p>\n

So I say this:  if the content of a command is morally obligatory because God issued the command, then the issuing of the command is the metaphysical ground<\/em> of the the moral obligatoriness of the content of the command.  If, on the other hand, the content of the command is morally obligatory independently of the issuing of the divine command, then the moral obligatoriness of the command is the metaphysical ground of the correctness of the divine command.<\/span><\/p>\n

Either way, there is a relation of metaphysical grounding.<\/span><\/p>\n

My argument in summary:<\/span><\/p>\n

1. (Q) is an intelligible question.<\/span><\/p>\n

2. (Q) is not a question about a causal relation.<\/span><\/p>\n

3. (Q) is not a question about a logical relation.<\/span><\/p>\n

4. There is no other ordinary (nonmetaphysical) candidate relation such as a temporal relation or an epistemic relation for (Q) to be about.<\/span><\/p>\n

5. (Q) is an intelligible question if and only if 'because' in (Q) expresses metaphysical grounding.<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore<\/span><\/p>\n

6. 'Because' in (Q) expresses metaphysical grounding.<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore<\/span><\/p>\n

7. There is a relation of metaphysical grounding.<\/span><\/p>\n

OK, Noble Ostrich, which premise will you reject and why? <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The locus classicus of the Euthyphro Dilemma (if you want to call it that) is Stephanus 9-10 in the early Platonic dialog, Euthyphro. This aporetic dialog is about the nature of piety, and Socrates, as usual, is in quest of a definition. Euthyphro proposes three definitions, with each of which Socrates has no trouble finding … Continue reading “Metaphysical Grounding and the Euthyphro Dilemma”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[439,664,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5782","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-euthyphro-paradox","category-grounding","category-plato"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5782","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5782"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5782\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5782"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5782"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5782"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}