How significant was Socrates?

[Charlemagne_II]

spock
**
Do you and I have some kind of enemy to our wisdom fighting for control of our volition? **

Yes. His name is Satan.

 

[inocente]

Yes, that is a concise definition, but is it clear enough to settle the matter? It is helpful, in that it defines wisdom as making a good judgement, rather than taking some good action. Hence, wisdom is what we think, instead of what we do.

However, it is unclear as to what makes one judgement good and another judgement bad. Consider the motion picture The Road. A worldwide disaster kills all of the vegetation on earth. In turn, the animals all die off. A boy and his father are on the road seeking food and shelter. They run into canibals who are seeking the same.

Now the boy and his father believe they are showing good judgment by treating strangers as those who are valued, cared for and protected. The canibals believe they are showing good judgement by treating strangers as those who are hunted, killed and eaten. Which group makes a judgement that is good depends, I suppose on the judgement as to what is good is a good one or not! But how can one make a judgement that is good if he is ignorant about what good really is?

Given the plot-line, no food other than dwindling supplies of canned goods or fresh but human meat, the question of what to do resolves to consequentialist v. categoricalist morality.

A consequentialist such as Jeremy Bentham would say that if it keeps most people alive then it is moral. A categoricalist such as Immanuel Kant would hold that it is never right to degrade another person.

In moral terms it’s the same as the 9/11 scenario of terrorists intent on flying a hijacked airliner into a crowded building. Consequentialists such as (I think) the American government would shoot down the airliner to save lives. Categoricalists such as the German government would not shoot down it (see here).

So in this instance what we judge to be wise is subjective, depending on our own morality. Your example poses the question – is wisdom, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder?

 

[spockrates]

spock
**
Do you and I have some kind of enemy to our wisdom fighting for control of our volition? **

Yes. His name is Satan.

I wonder why Satan would bother to assign on of his minions to mess with unimportant me. Seems more likely such demonic intrusion would occur when my actions interfere with some demonic plan in my community. To say every instance of a lack of love for God is a direct cause of some demon would imply an intimate and consistent involvement with such a fallen one. Some even say that the devil and demons are merely symbols of our real struggle with temptation from without.

That being said, I’d ask that you please consider Saint Paul’s words carefully in Romans 7. Is he not speaking not of a foe without, but of the foe within? Isn’t he saying he himself is his own worse enemy?

 

[spockrates]

Given the plot-line, no food other than dwindling supplies of canned goods or fresh but human meat, the question of what to do resolves to consequentialist v. categoricalist morality.

A consequentialist such as Jeremy Bentham would say that if it keeps most people alive then it is moral. A categoricalist such as Immanuel Kant would hold that it is never right to degrade another person.

In moral terms it’s the same as the 9/11 scenario of terrorists intent on flying a hijacked airliner into a crowded building. Consequentialists such as (I think) the American government would shoot down the airliner to save lives. Categoricalists such as the German government would not shoot down it (see here).

So in this instance what we judge to be wise is subjective, depending on our own morality. Your example poses the question – is wisdom, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder?

Wisdom is in the eye of the beholder. Moral truth is a matter of preference. Both the cannibal who eats and the scavenger who refuses to eat is morally right, for each is responsible for living according to what his own wisdom tells him is right and wrong.

Sounds like Socrates’ arch nemesis Protagoras. As a young man, Socrates locked horns with the accomplished and famous Sophist. Protagoras maintained that “Man is the measure of all things.” That is, each man decides for himself the truth about right and wrong. One might say he was the Father of Moral Relativism.

The encounter had a great impression on the young Socrates, for he continued to talk about it into his old age. Of Protagoras, he said:

Moreover, the best joke is, that he acknowledges the truth of the opinion of those who believe his own opinion to be false! For he admits that the opinions of all men are true.

(Theaetetus, 171)

I find this the apparent–though possibly not actual–weakness of Protagoras’ view, and the moral relativists who follow him. We might apply it in the case of our observation about wisdom:

The one who says wisdom is in the eye of the beholder acknowledges the truth of the opinion of those who believe his own opinion is unwise! For he admits that the opinions of all men about wisdom are true.

Should we accept this objection and discard the proposed idea that wisdom is a matter of preference, or should we try to defend the idea against Socrates’ poking fun and challenge?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spock

I wonder why Satan would bother to assign on of his minions to mess with unimportant me.

Because you are not unimportant. You are, unlike Satan, the apple of God’s eye.

Some even say that the devil and demons are merely symbols of our real struggle with temptation from without.

I don’t know who the “some” are you are referring to. Want to give a name? Does the CCC dismiss the devil as a mere symbol?

This from St. Peter:

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” 1 Peter 5:7-9

Does it seem to you that he takes lightly the existence of the devil?

 

[inocente]

http://freelancechristianitydotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/protagoras-quotes-211.png

Wisdom is in the eye of the beholder. Moral truth is a matter of preference. Both the cannibal who eats and the scavenger who refuses to eat is morally right, for each is responsible for living according to what his own wisdom tells him is right and wrong.

Sounds like Socrates’ arch nemesis Protagoras. As a young man, Socrates locked horns with the accomplished and famous Sophist. Protagoras maintained that “Man is the measure of all things.” That is, each man decides for himself the truth about right and wrong. One might say he was the Father of Moral Relativism.

The encounter had a great impression on the young Socrates, for he continued to talk about it into his old age. Of Protagoras, he said:

Moreover, the best joke is, that he acknowledges the truth of the opinion of those who believe his own opinion to be false! For he admits that the opinions of all men are true.

(Theaetetus, 171)

I find this the apparent–though possibly not actual–weakness of Protagoras’ view, and the moral relativists who follow him. We might apply it in the case of our observation about wisdom:

The one who says wisdom is in the eye of the beholder acknowledges the truth of the opinion of those who believe his own opinion is unwise! For he admits that the opinions of all men about wisdom are true.

Should we accept this objection and discard the proposed idea that wisdom is a matter of preference, or should we try to defend the idea against Socrates’ poking fun and challenge?

I admit to not getting the joke. It sounds most wise to admit that the opinions of all men are true, for the opinions are true for the men who hold them. To say the reverse, that only one’s own opinions are true, is to believe all others are inferior, which seems a little foolish.

My view is that few people have absolute morals. Consider some moral dilemmas:

A hijacked airliner containing 50 people is about to be crashed into a building containing 3,000. Is it right to shoot down the plane to save the many?

Now change the dilemma to cannibalism, but again 3,000 are saved by sacrificing 50. Is it right to eat the 50 to save the many?

Now go back to the hijacked plane scenario, but this time there is only one person on the plane, the terrorist himself, and 100,000 will be saved by shooting it down, and those 100,000 include your entire family, your President, the Pope and so on. Is it right to shoot down the plane to save the many?

Now that same scenario, but 90,000 must be sacrificed to save the many.

Finally, you are in the special forces and have uncovered a high-yield nuclear device which is just about to detonate, killing millions and possibly starting a full nuclear exchange with Russia killing billions and perhaps ending life on earth. You have the chance to stop the device exploding, but to do so you must sacrifice your own life alone. Is it right to kill yourself (and no one else) to save all life on Earth?

I think most if not all people find it difficult to stick to the absolutist stance of never acting or always acting. Though they are not necessarily relativists, they may be using a higher principle, such as : it is unwise to blindly follow any ideal, no matter how fond of it we might be.

It can be argued (perhaps, I’ve never tried it) that Christ teaches that higher principle in the parable of the Good Samaritan, since the Samaritan is motivated by emotion and pragmatism rather than ideals or dogma.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

I think most if not all people find it difficult to stick to the absolutist stance of never acting or always acting. Though they are not necessarily relativists, they may be using a higher principle, such as : it is unwise to blindly follow any ideal, no matter how fond of it we might be.

I know you don’t like philosophy. It shows here. This is a rotten philosophy. Would you not be unwise to blindly follow the words in blue?

**It can be argued (perhaps, I’ve never tried it) that Christ teaches that higher principle in the parable of the Good Samaritan, since the Samaritan is motivated by emotion and pragmatism rather than ideals or dogma. **

On the contrary, Jesus taught us the ideal as a dogma:

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

The Good Samaritan is following this absolute rule of charity.

 

[spockrates]

I admit to not getting the joke.

We can take a closer look at the reasons why Socrates finds Protagoras’ opinions about truth humorous, if you would like to do so.

It sounds most wise to admit that the opinions of all men are true, for the opinions are true for the men who hold them. To say the reverse, that only one’s own opinions are true, is to believe all others are inferior, which seems a little foolish.

Yes, foolish in the case of preferences. For example, it would be foolish for me to insist that is an absolute truth that brussell sprouts taste bad. Many might agree with me, but for those who don’t, it is true for them that brussell sprouts taste great. Yet, there are truths that have a truth about them that exists independent of opinion. The simple fact that 1+ 1 = 2 is such a truth. Even if no one believed it was true, it would still be true. The same might be true of Albert Einstein’s formula E = mc squared. For truths such as these, there are such things as right and wrong opinions about them. To believe that they are untrue is to be in error.

The question, then is whether general moral principles have a truth about them that exists outside the differing opinions people have about them. What is your opinion on this?

My view is that few people have absolute morals. Consider some moral dilemmas:

A hijacked airliner containing 50 people is about to be crashed into a building containing 3,000. Is it right to shoot down the plane to save the many?

Now change the dilemma to cannibalism, but again 3,000 are saved by sacrificing 50. Is it right to eat the 50 to save the many?

Now go back to the hijacked plane scenario, but this time there is only one person on the plane, the terrorist himself, and 100,000 will be saved by shooting it down, and those 100,000 include your entire family, your President, the Pope and so on. Is it right to shoot down the plane to save the many?

Now that same scenario, but 90,000 must be sacrificed to save the many.

Finally, you are in the special forces and have uncovered a high-yield nuclear device which is just about to detonate, killing millions and possibly starting a full nuclear exchange with Russia killing billions and perhaps ending life on earth. You have the chance to stop the device exploding, but to do so you must sacrifice your own life alone. Is it right to kill yourself (and no one else) to save all life on Earth?

Yes, there are gray areas when it comes to specific applications of general moral principles, but does this mean the principles are not based on objective truth that exists outside mere opinion and preference? Take the man who refuses to eat human flesh no matter what scenario one imagines to entice him to taste and see that survival is good. If it is objectively true that cannibalism is never morally right, then his decision is based on right opinion, rather than mere subjective preference.

I think most if not all people find it difficult to stick to the absolutist stance of never acting or always acting. Though they are not necessarily relativists, they may be using a higher principle, such as : it is unwise to blindly follow any ideal, no matter how fond of it we might be.

I agree that blindly following anything or anyone is unwise. One should know why he should follow before taking his first step.

It can be argued (perhaps, I’ve never tried it) that Christ teaches that higher principle in the parable of the Good Samaritan, since the Samaritan is motivated by emotion and pragmatism rather than ideals or dogma.

Please explain your meaning.

 

[spockrates]

Charlemagne:

Please consider that I’m not saying I don’t believe there are no unseen enemies without. I’m just thinking Saint Paul is speaking of another enemy, who is within. Isn’t this what he is trying to convey?

15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

(Romans 7)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spock

I’m just thinking Saint Paul is speaking of another enemy, who is within. Isn’t this what he is trying to convey?

Well yes. I don’t know how we know how to distinguish the enemy within from the enemy without. Concupiscence, I suppose, can be thought of as the enemy within. That seems to be what Paul is talking about.

 

[spockrates]

spock

I’m just thinking Saint Paul is speaking of another enemy, who is within. Isn’t this what he is trying to convey?

Well yes. I don’t know how we know how to distinguish the enemy within from the enemy without. Concupiscence, I suppose, can be thought of as the enemy within. That seems to be what Paul is talking about.

Yes, lust is one form of that within, which might desire that contrary to God’s desires for us. Perhaps the enemy within is that which desires that which God does not desire, and the enemy without is that which, somehow reminds us about these desires and tempts us to give in to them? Also, it might be that any desire contrary to love is a trait of this enemy within. As Saint Paul explains:

16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

(Galatians 5)

But let us consider lust, since you mentioned it. Add lust to Paul’s words from Romans 7, and we get this:

15 I do not understand [my lust]. For [the self-control] I want to [show] I do not, but [the lust] I hate I do. 16 And if * I do not want to, I agree that the [Biblical commands are] good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who [lusts] but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that [self-control] itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to [show self-control, which] is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not [practice the self-control] I want, but the [lust] I do not want—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I [lust] when I do not want to [lust], it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

Would you say, then that Paul is speaking of having wisdom to know what he should not do (for example, wisdom to know he should not lust) but not having the desire–or perhaps not the power–to do what he should do (for example, not having the desire or power to show self- control)?*

 

[Charlemagne_II]

This from the Catechism:

2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the "spirit."302 Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.

Concupiscence then seems to cover all sins, not just the sins of the flesh, through the sins of the flesh are among the most common and terrible.

 

[inocente]

inocente

I think most if not all people find it difficult to stick to the absolutist stance of never acting or always acting. Though they are not necessarily relativists, they may be using a higher principle, such as : it is unwise to blindly follow any ideal, no matter how fond of it we might be.

I know you don’t like philosophy. It shows here. This is a rotten philosophy. Would you not be unwise to blindly follow the words in blue?

I don’t dislike philosophy, I dislike what often passes for philosophy on the internet, where everything is black and white and there’s no attempt to understand arguments other than one’s own.

It can be argued (perhaps, I’ve never tried it) that Christ teaches that higher principle in the parable of the Good Samaritan, since the Samaritan is motivated by emotion and pragmatism rather than ideals or dogma.

On the contrary, Jesus taught us the ideal as a dogma:

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

The Good Samaritan is following this absolute rule of charity.

Jesus knew that his audience despised Samaritans. He chose to make the good guy a Samaritan to shock his audience, to teach that even the lowest can have mercy in their hearts, while the learned priest and Levite with their heads full of rules walked on by.

The parable teaches that the kingdom is the exact opposite of blindly following rules.

 

[inocente]

Yes, foolish in the case of preferences. For example, it would be foolish for me to insist that is an absolute truth that brussell sprouts taste bad. Many might agree with me, but for those who don’t, it is true for them that brussell sprouts taste great. Yet, there are truths that have a truth about them that exists independent of opinion. The simple fact that 1+ 1 = 2 is such a truth. Even if no one believed it was true, it would still be true. The same might be true of Albert Einstein’s formula E = mc squared. For truths such as these, there are such things as right and wrong opinions about them. To believe that they are untrue is to be in error.

The question, then is whether general moral principles have a truth about them that exists outside the differing opinions people have about them. What is your opinion on this?

1 + 1 = 2 is only true relative to certain axioms. In Boolean arithmetic 1 + 1 = 1. In morality, what is right also varies according to the chosen axioms, for instance consequentialist or catagoricalist.

E = mc squared makes a prediction which when tested is found to be more or less correct. Generally this doesn’t appear possible with morality. Most of us would say it is right to keep as many folk as possible alive and healthy. Most would also say it is right to never do harm. Where people disagree is what is right when those principles conflict.

*Yes, there are gray areas when it comes to specific applications of general moral principles, but does this mean the principles are not based on objective truth that exists outside mere opinion and preference? Take the man who refuses to eat human flesh no matter what scenario one imagines to entice him to taste and see that survival is good. If it is objectively true that cannibalism is never morally right, then his decision is based on right opinion, rather than mere subjective preference. *

Yes, but I see no way of determining whether he is correct.

We believe slavery is wrong, but it existed in one form or another in many societies. Were they evil or uneducated to keep slaves, or are we evil and uneducated not to keep slaves? Given that they are not here to argue, we won’t be contradicted when we say they were wrong. But that’s not a very firm basis for claiming we are objectively right.

It’s always possible to say our morality is the closest to some supposed objective truth, but every society throughout the ages made the same claim, and anyway our morality still keeps changing. And unlike the ancients, we now know there are billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, and so it is possible there are many other sentient species, each also with constantly changing morals.

Given all of this, a belief in objective morality seems naive. What is the case for the belief?

I agree that blindly following anything or anyone is unwise. One should know why he should follow before taking his first step.

inocente;11117772:

It can be argued (perhaps, I’ve never tried it) that Christ teaches that higher principle in the parable of the Good Samaritan, since the Samaritan is motivated by emotion and pragmatism rather than ideals or dogma.

Please explain your meaning.

It turns out that whoever wrote the Wikipedia article knows what I’m saying:

*Luke 10:30 - A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.

Wikipedia - In the time of Jesus, the road from Jerusalem to Jericho was notorious for its danger and difficulty, and was known as the “Way of Blood” because “of the blood which is often shed there by robbers”.

Luke 10:31-32 - A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.

Wikipedia - Since the Mishnah made an exception for neglected corpses, the priest and the Levite could have used the law to justify both touching a corpse and ignoring it. In any case, passing by on the other side avoided checking “whether he was dead or alive”. Indeed, “it weighed more with them that he might be dead and defiling to the touch of those whose business was with holy things than that he might be alive and in need of care.”

Luke 10:33 - But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.

Wikipedia - Samaritans were hated by Jesus’ target audience, the Jews, to such a degree that the Lawyer’s phrase “The one who had mercy on him” may indicate a reluctance to name the Samaritan. The Samaritans in turn hated the Jews. Tensions were particularly high in the early decades of the first century because Samaritans had desecrated the Jewish Temple at Passover with human bones.*

Jesus didn’t think much of those who follow the letter of the law blindly and forget its purpose. But He had a lot of time for those who may be ignorant but do the right thing anyway.

Put another way, rules are for games, and the kingdom isn’t a game.

 

[spockrates]

This from the Catechism:

2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the "spirit."302 Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.

Concupiscence then seems to cover all sins, not just the sins of the flesh, through the sins of the flesh are among the most common and terrible.

Yes, thanks for clarifying.



So then, are we now pretty sure Saint Paul is speaking of a struggle within everyone? We each have a concience and also God’s Wisdom–to the degree that we are blessed, willing and able to receive the precious gift. Yet we also have the enemy within, which Paul calls our sinful nature, and which we currently call Concupiscence. Wisdom reveals what is morally right and wrong; conupisence desires not the right but the wrong. Isn’t this what Paul is telling us?

7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

(Romans 7)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spock

** Wisdom reveals what is morally right and wrong; conupisence desires not the right but the wrong. Isn’t this what Paul is telling us?**

Rather than say it desires the wrong, perhaps we should say concupiscence inclines us to the wrong. To desire the wrong is sinful, as the catechism points out.

Think of it this way. You inherit a physical disease from your parents. You do not desire the effects of the disease, yet your body inclines you toward those effects.

We inherit original sin also, and that inclines us toward the effects of original sin, which is susceptibility to all kinds of sin. The only antidote, as Paul says, is the law, which brings death to the sin and life everlasting.

 

[spockrates]

spock

** Wisdom reveals what is morally right and wrong; conupisence desires not the right but the wrong. Isn’t this what Paul is telling us?**

Rather than say it desires the wrong, perhaps we should say concupiscence inclines us to the wrong. To desire the wrong is sinful, as the catechism points out.

Think of it this way. You inherit a physical disease from your parents. You do not desire the effects of the disease, yet your body inclines you toward those effects.

We inherit original sin also, and that inclines us toward the effects of original sin, which is susceptibility to all kinds of sin. The only antidote, as Paul says, is the law, which brings death to the sin and life everlasting.

Did you mean to say the law–or the collection of the moral precepts of the Bible–is the cause, rather than the cure?

For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

(Romans 7)

Isn’t Paul saying the opposite of what you wrote? I’m thinking you might have mistyped your response. But if not, I don’t mind comparing your notes with his to see who is right.

 

[spockrates]

1 + 1 = 2 is only true relative to certain axioms. In Boolean arithmetic 1 + 1 = 1. In morality, what is right also varies according to the chosen axioms, for instance consequentialist or catagoricalist.

E = mc squared makes a prediction which when tested is found to be more or less correct. Generally this doesn’t appear possible with morality. Most of us would say it is right to keep as many folk as possible alive and healthy. Most would also say it is right to never do harm. Where people disagree is what is right when those principles conflict.

It seems Socrates would agree with your premise:

SOCRATES: Come, then, and let us examine what we are saying. That thing or person which is dear to the gods is pious, and that thing or person which is hateful to the gods is impious, these two being the extreme opposites of one another. Was not that said?
EUTHYPHRO: It was.
SOCRATES: And well said?
EUTHYPHRO: Yes, Socrates, I thought so; it was certainly said.
SOCRATES: And further, Euthyphro, the gods were admitted to have enmities and hatreds and differences?
EUTHYPHRO: Yes, that was also said.
SOCRATES: And what sort of difference creates enmity and anger? Suppose for example that you and I, my good friend, differ about a number; do differences of this sort make us enemies and set us at variance with one another? Do we not go at once to arithmetic, and put an end to them by a sum?
EUTHYPHRO: True.
SOCRATES: Or suppose that we differ about magnitudes, do we not quickly end the differences by measuring?
EUTHYPHRO: Very true.
SOCRATES: And we end a controversy about heavy and light by resorting to a weighing machine?
EUTHYPHRO: To be sure.
SOCRATES: But what differences are there which cannot be thus decided, and which therefore make us angry and set us at enmity with one another? I dare say the answer does not occur to you at the moment, and therefore I will suggest that these enmities arise when the matters of difference are the just and unjust, good and evil, honourable and dishonourable. Are not these the points about which men differ, and about which when we are unable satisfactorily to decide our differences, you and I and all of us quarrel, when we do quarrel? (Compare Alcib.)
EUTHYPHRO: Yes, Socrates, the nature of the differences about which we quarrel is such as you describe.
SOCRATES: And the quarrels of the gods, noble Euthyphro, when they occur, are of a like nature?
EUTHYPHRO: Certainly they are.
SOCRATES: They have differences of opinion, as you say, about good and evil, just and unjust, honourable and dishonourable: there would have been no quarrels among them, if there had been no such differences—would there now?
EUTHYPHRO: You are quite right.
SOCRATES: Does not every man love that which he deems noble and just and good, and hate the opposite of them?
EUTHYPHRO: Very true.
SOCRATES: But, as you say, people regard the same things, some as just and others as unjust,—about these they dispute; and so there arise wars and fightings among them.
EUTHYPHRO: Very true.
SOCRATES: Then the same things are hated by the gods and loved by the gods, and are both hateful and dear to them?
EUTHYPHRO: True.
SOCRATES: And upon this view the same things, Euthyphro, will be pious and also impious?
EUTHYPHRO: So I should suppose.
SOCRATES: Then, my friend, I remark with surprise that you have not answered the question which I asked. For I certainly did not ask you to tell me what action is both pious and impious: but now it would seem that what is loved by the gods is also hated by them. And therefore, Euthyphro, in thus chastising your father you may very likely be doing what is agreeable to Zeus but disagreeable to Cronos or Uranus, and what is acceptable to Hephaestus but unacceptable to Here, and there may be other gods who have similar differences of opinion.

(Euthyphro)

As the ancient Greeks disputed about moral right and wrong, and the Greek gods fought about moral right and wrong, so too modern philosophers do not agree. What would be required for us all to agree would be some sort of way of accurately determining what is right and wrong in the way that an odometer accurately determines distance and a mathematical equation correctly calculates a result. Don’t you think?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spock
**
For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. **

We seem to be reading Paul differently. Paul is being ironic, isn’t he? The law brings death to sin if we obey the law. Before we knew the law, we could deny we sinned. In that sense sin lived in us and could not be killed. But with the commandment, and with obedience to the commandment, sin is dead.

Perhaps this is one of those passages that Peter complained of when he said some people read Paul’s letters which “contain some things that are hard to understand.” 2 Peter 3:16.

 

[spockrates]

spock
**
For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. **

We seem to be reading Paul differently. Paul is being ironic, isn’t he? The law brings death to sin if we obey the law. Before we knew the law, we could deny we sinned. In that sense sin lived in us and could not be killed. But with the commandment, and with obedience to the commandment, sin is dead.

Perhaps this is one of those passages that Peter complained of when he said some people read Paul’s letters which “contain some things that are hard to understand.” 2 Peter 3:16.

Perhaps. I suppose that remains to be seen, but I’m looking forward to my eyes being opened!



At the moment, I think you might be right that obedience (which we earlier defined as love) aborts sin. But I’m not sure Paul is not being sincerely serious when he says the moral commandments give birth to sin.

Maybe you and he are talking apples and oranges? It might help me if we consider the example he gives: He says he did not know coveting was wrong until he discovered the law said, “Do not covet.” After obtaining this knowledge, he was aware of covetousness within him.

Now I’m thinking he did covet before he was aware coveting was wrong. What do you think?