Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Tanj]

Morality is if you choose to ignore your father or not.

The father that beat my mother on a regular basis?

Or shoot him or not.

...to prevent him from murdering said wife.

 

[Moral Orel]

You've narrowed down on and iterating over subsets of the same thing in the first half, and making really vague statements in the second. Rape and murder are forms of assault.

"You prefer people not have stuff they dislike happen to them."
What about an alcoholic forced into rehab?
Someone going to jail for a crime they committed?

What if "what makes me happy" is throwing rocks at old ladies?

I think you have described a naive form of hedonism (which is great I'm a hedonist), how do you resolve the tension between individual and collective good (which I think you are terming "moral").

You're missing the point and you're way off the mark in what you think my conception of morality is. Point is, the stuff people generally call moral, they also generally like. The stuff people generally call immoral, they also generally dislike. You say you're different, as though you wouldn't say a lot of the same things I just said. But to be honest, some stuff you've said makes it sound like you never gave it much thought.

I tip my hat to your attempt to pivot and put me on the defensive. But we were talking about whether or not there's an overlap in what you believe to be moral and your likes and dislikes. I gave you examples to work from to discuss your preferences and morals as you requested. If you want to discuss what morality is, I'll be glad to argue with you over it in one of the other threads already covering that topic.

 

[Astrid]

I must be dense, I see no dilemma.

 

[durangodawood]

"Some things which I prefer, I prefer them because those things are moral"

Yes. Surely I am conditioned by all the rewards society offers for moral behavior.

"All things which are moral, are moral because I prefer those things"

No. No one made me king of whats moral and what isnt. This is probably better for everybody.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A hypothetical system of objective morality.

OK, thanks.

You laid out natural law like it was a property the Universe needed. I don't see how the Universe could have moral laws. (It has what we might euphemistically call "physical laws", but nothing about the strong nuclear force (for example) implies anything about morality.

 

[Moral Orel]

"Some things which I prefer, I prefer them because those things are moral"

Yes. Surely I am conditioned by all the rewards society offers for moral behavior.

"All things which are moral, are moral because I prefer those things"

No. No one made me king of whats moral and what isnt. This is probably better for everybody.

Either you recognized what is moral, or you chose what is moral. In the first scenario all you've done is described how society affected your choice. So you're actually an option 2.

 

[Moral Orel]

I must be dense, I see no dilemma.

Do you mean that you think there's a third option? Or do you just mean that you see no problem with one or both of the options?

 

[Astrid]

Do you mean that you think there's a third option? Or do you just mean that you see no problem with one or both of the options?

No, i mean what i said. Thats not a dilemma.

 

[Astrid]

Either you recognized what is moral, or you chose what is moral. In the first scenario all you've done is described how society affected your choice. So you're actually an option 2.

For example. Who does not recognize, and then choose?

 

[durangodawood]

Either you recognized what is moral, or you chose what is moral. In the first scenario all you've done is described how society affected your choice. So you're actually an option 2.

"Some things which I prefer, I prefer them because those things are moral"

I prefer moral things because I'm conditioned to do that by culture and somewhat by biology.

Things arent made moral in the human world by my personal preferences. Thats backwards.

 

[Moral Orel]

"Some things which I prefer, I prefer them because those things are moral"

I prefer moral things because I'm conditioned to do that by culture and somewhat by biology.

Things arent made moral in the human world by my personal preferences. Thats backwards.

If you want to start with option one you have to start with "There are moral things". You are starting with "Society shaped me" and then the next step comes from you not the thing.

 

[Moral Orel]

For example. Who does not recognize, and then choose?

Imagine two scenarios.

I sit down at the dinner table and see steak. I recognize that steak is for dinner.

I sit down at the dinner table and there is nothing there. I ask the wife for steak, because I choose that steak be for dinner.

Either you recognize what is moral, or you choose what is moral.

 

[Larniavc]

Euthypro's Dilemma, now for ATHEISTS!
(agnostics too)

Just pick the poll answer that is true. Simple as that. Leave comments explaining your choice if you like.

This is not an apologetic topic. For the sake of this discussion, it will be assumed that God(s) do not exist and never have. Any discussion of how God would answer this poll will be considered off topic.

I don’t think either are true for me.

 

[durangodawood]

If you want to start with option one you have to start with "There are moral things". You are starting with "Society shaped me" and then the next step comes from you not the thing.

I acknowledge the existence of moral things in the first 4 words of my sentence:

"I prefer moral things because I'm conditioned to do that by culture and somewhat by biology."

If thats not enough, we could add a preamble sentence to my statement that says: "There are moral things". But it seems redundant to me.

 

[Astrid]

Imagine two scenarios.

I sit down at the dinner table and see steak. I recognize that steak is for dinner.

I sit down at the dinner table and there is nothing there. I ask the wife for steak, because I choose that steak be for dinner.

Either you recognize what is moral, or you choose what is moral.

Nope

 

[Astrid]

I acknowledge the existence of moral things in the first 4 words of my sentence:

"I prefer moral things because I'm conditioned to do that by culture and somewhat by biology."

If thats not enough, we could add a preamble sentence to my statement that says: "There are moral things". But it seems redundant to me.

The ish is too complex and subtle for easy formulas definitions
and sets of rules, much less " absolutes".

 

[Sabertooth]

I don't see how the Universe could have moral laws. (It has what we might euphemistically call "physical laws", but nothing about the strong nuclear force (for example) implies anything about morality.

Questioning the nature of morality (as in the OP) presumes the existence of objective morality.

 

[Astrid]

Questioning the nature of morality (as in the OP) presumes the existence of objective morality.

Zactly.

There is no " dilemma "

 

[durangodawood]

Questioning the nature of morality (as in the OP) presumes the existence of objective morality.

Depends what you mean by objective morality.

To me its enough to say that morality is objectively a feature of human culture.

It doesnt have to be some rules "out there" in the universe or in the mind of an eternal being.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Questioning the nature of morality (as in the OP) presumes the existence of objective morality.

Humans certainly have something we call "morality". Understanding the nature of the thing does not require it to be objective. (There is a 5 bazillion post thread about this.)