Assignment First

新西兰论文查重:道德权利

Euthyphro的困境一般可以从苏格拉底和Euthyphro之间的讨论中得到理解。Euthyphro即将对他的父亲进行宣判,在此背景下,对男性虔诚本性的讨论被带入了语境。Euthyphro将起诉他的父亲。Euthyphro提出,他的行为有一个神圣的原因,他的家庭无法理解这种神圣的干预行动。在这里苏格拉底问他这个著名的问题”是神的虔诚的爱吗?因为它是虔诚的,还是因为它被众神所爱?”(1966年吉奇,p.70)。这就是Euthyphro的困境。重新措辞将有助于更好地理解Euthyphro困境。

新西兰论文查重:道德权利
这里的问题是,上帝是否命令一个特定的行动,因为它在道德上是正确的。反之,相反的观点是,一个行为在道德上是正确的,仅仅因为上帝的命令。前者假定上帝不是道德权利的起源,正如神诫理论预设的那样。后者假定道德权利只因为上帝而存在(上帝是起源点)。如果后者根据神的命令理论是正确的,那么像仇恨和毁灭这样的东西就会被认为是正确的,因为上帝已经命令了它。

新西兰论文查重:道德权利

The Euthyphro’s Dilemma can be understood in general from the discussion that takes place between Socrates and Euthyphro. Euthyphro is about to sentence his father and in this context, a discussion on the pious nature of men is brought into context. Euthyphro is going to prosecute his father. Euthyphro presents that there is a divine reason for his action and that his family is not able to understand this divine intervention in action. Here Socrates asks him this famous question “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” (Geach, 1966, p.70). This is the Euthyphro dilemma. A rephrasing will help to understand the Euthyphro dilemma better.

新西兰论文查重:道德权利
The question asked here is whether God commands a particular action because it is morally right. Alternatively, the opposite viewpoint would be that an action is morally right only because God has commanded it. The former assumes God as not the origination for moral rights as the divine commandment theory presupposes. The latter assumes that moral rights only exist because of God (God is the originating point). If the latter was true according to the divine command theory, then something like hate and destruction could be considered right just because God has commanded it.