No description available.

No description available.

Selon la version courante du « dilemme d’Euthyphron », on considère que lorsque les théistes tentent de décrire la relation entre Dieu et la morale, ils doivent choisir entre volontarisme théologique et objectivisme robuste (le réalisme moral, en particulier). Selon la première option, les statuts moraux fondamentaux dépendent essentiellement des volontés contingentes, ou nécessaires, de Dieu. Selon la deuxième, Dieu agit en conformité avec un ordre moral objectif et nécessaire, en lui-même indépendant de sa volonté, comme il l’est de tout type de volonté ou de pro-attitude, au moins pour ce qui est des statuts moraux fondamentaux (et les propriétés morales sont conséquentielles aux propriétés non morales, sinon réductibles à elles). Ici nous argumentons en faveur de l’existence d’une troisième possibilité pour les théistes, refusant l’externalisme moral assumé par les deux premières options. Selon cette troisième option, on nie qu’objets, états de choses, actions ou personnes puissent posséder une valeur ou générer des obligations morales indépendamment de l’ensemble de nos pro-attitudes et des fins que nous sommes inclinés à poursuivre. Nous proposons, contre les objections réalistes en particulier, la défense d’une version universaliste (ou non relativiste) de cette position métaéthique, et tentons de montrer sa compatibilité avec le théisme classique : la théorie anti-objectiviste de la loi naturelle, selon laquelle les valeurs et les normes pertinentes pour nous dépendent de notre complexe motivationnel, en dépendant de nos inclinations universellement partagées et des fins (ou de la fin) en lesquelles (en laquelle) nous trouvons notre achèvement et notre bonheur. / According to the common version of the “Euthyphro dilemma”, it is generally considered that when theists try to describe the relation between God and morality, they must either opt for theological voluntarism or for hard objectivism (moral realism, in particular). According to the first option, fundamental moral statuses depend essentially on God’s contingent, or even necessary, will. According to the second, God acts in conformity to an objective (and necessary) moral order that is in itself independent of His will, as it is of any kind of pro-attitude, will or desire, at least for the most fundamental and prior moral statuses (and moral properties are consequential upon nonmoral ones, if not reducible to them). I argue here for the existence of a third possibility for theists, rejecting the metaethical externalism assumed by the first two options. According to this third option, it is not the case that objects, state of affairs, actions or persons can have value or generate obligations to us independently of all our pro-attitudes and of the ends we are inclined to pursue. I propose a defence, against realist objections in particular, of a universalist (or non relativist) version of that metaethical position and try to show its compatibility with classical theism : the anti-objectivist natural law theory, according to which values and norms relevant for us depend on our motivational set, depending on our – universally shared – natural inclinations or essential dispositions to love and pursue certain ends (or possibly one ultimate end) preferently to others, and to find our completion and happiness in them (in it).

This dissertation examines Socrates' method of examining interlocutors, referred to as the elenchus, in Plato's definitional dialogues. It contains three parts. The first part lays out various theories of the elenchus. The first chapter examines the seminal view of Richard Robinson. The second sketches the development and aftermath of Vlastos' constructivist view. The third focuses on Socrates' own testimony about the elenchus in the Apology. These pictures of the elenchus form a selection of views against which various definitional dialogues may be compared. The second part, containing six chapters, provides a detailed commentary on the Euthyphro. Various features of that dialogue suggest that neither the prominent forms of constructivism, nor their non-constructivist alternatives presented in the first part adequately capture Socrates' procedure. The third part, consisting of one chapter, presents my view of the Socratic elenchus, which I term “technical destructivism.” I argue that this view provides a straight-forward solution to a number of problems which the alternative treatments leave unsolved. It also helps to explain some otherwise puzzling features of Socrates' procedure in the shorter definitional dialogues, including his use of the technē analogy, and his appeal to the priority of definitional knowledge. / Philosophy / text

Due to the lack of comparative studies referring to so-called values among the Jewish and Christian faith, the following study examines various interpretations of the Decalogue in the Hebrew Bible. These expositions originate from the Roman Catholic, Jewish and Reformed Evangelical tradition. Since the Ten Commandments have been considered influential in several traditions, this study attempts to identify their authority, purpose and status based on the writings of three different theologians. The analysis does not take the whole tradition itself into account, but seeks to discover diverse perspectives, in order to promote a nuanced result. Hence, the results neither speak for the entire denomination nor its believers. Furthermore, the approach of the study is an analysis of ideas, a commonly used method regarding statements of all kind, principally political and religious commentaries. The method endeavors to describe in order to supply further information not explicitly mentioned by the material itself. Thus, the analysis proceeds from theoretical perspectives such as the Euthyphro dialogue, Biblical hermeneutics and covenant. The theologians agree that morality originates from God because of God’s will. Yet there is disagreement regarding its purpose among all three authors. The Roman Catholic and Jewish author emphasize the covenant as a reason to honor the Ten Commandments and have a liberal approach combined with a historical-critical perspective of the Bible, whereas the Reformed Evangelical author expresses a conservative view, equating the Bible with the actual word of God. The Decalogue enjoys a higher status among the Christian authors, although the Roman Catholic author values the Golden Rule significantly more. The issue regarding whether the Decalogue ought to be treated as being above every other law remains unclear based on the material, but is highly more focused than other commandments in the Hebrew Bible. Definitively the study identifies uniting differences from a wide range of beliefs in the theological area.