Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Chriliman]

Well... Stealing, murdering, raping... These are all acts; acts being the things we judge morally. An act is defined as "a thing done".

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. And I think I've recently come up with a good way to demonstrate it. If you haven't come across me using this in other discussions with other folks, all the better that we've both simultaneously come to the same conclusion. Here's the problem.

Any time we say, "N is A" where N is any noun, and A is any adjective, that sentence is states that A is a property of N. If A is not in fact a property or N, then that statement is false. That's just how grammar works.

But when we use certain terms for A, we accept that, "Oh, but you know that means I..." Let's try an example. What shall we use... Ah, I know, chocolate ice cream. If I tell you "Chocolate ice cream is good" then I have stated that "good" is a property of "chocolate ice cream", but like we agreed, it isn't a property of the thing. It's a statement about us. What I mean when I make that statement is "I enjoy chocolate ice cream".

So when I state "N is A" I'm really meaning "N verb N". In any other context we would say that it's nonsense to state that a thing has a property but mean that a thing does a thing.

So it seems clear that when I say "Chocolate ice cream is good" then when can safely determine that I am making a false statement. Only when I say what I mean can it be true ("I enjoy chocolate ice cream").

I think you make a good point and I’d like to add that it’s the combination of you and chocolate ice cream that makes goodness intrinsic to you and therefore objectively true that you think chocolate ice cream is good. So there we have truth and goodness in an objective sense, intrinsic to you, a person who exists in objective reality.

 

[zippy2006]

I’d like to add that it’s the combination of you and chocolate ice cream that makes goodness intrinsic to you...

I beg to differ. I don't think Orel would become good even if we fed him all the chocolate ice cream in the world. That whole "you are what you eat" thing is overrated.

 

[Astrid]

If time is the only thing that changed, then morality doesn't change. Morality doesn't change because time changed. Or morality is arbitrary and it does.

Saying, "At this time the circumstances are this and morality is one way, but at this other time the circumstances are totally different and morality is totally different" doesn't refute that.

When speaking colloquially, I say false things all the time, so yeah. I say "chocolate ice cream is good" in casual conversation too.

Just leave it atc"......say false things all the time"

 

[muichimotsu]

True, which why we can disregard their subjective perspectives on the objective basis that they’re ignorant or psychopathic.

Except that means we have to acknowledge that there are some facts that affect morality that are mind independent, like how suffering that is needless and inflicted by others is bad, especially if it's intentional

 

[Moral Orel]

I think you make a good point and I’d like to add that it’s the combination of you and chocolate ice cream that makes goodness intrinsic to you and therefore objectively true that you think chocolate ice cream is good. So there we have truth and goodness in an objective sense, intrinsic to you, a person who exists in objective reality.

That whole post was an explanation as to why "good" is a misnomer.

I do not "think" that chocolate ice cream is good, I enjoy chocolate ice cream.

 

[Moral Orel]

Just leave it atc"......say false things all the time"

Most folk don't like to admit it, but everyone does.

 

[Chriliman]

That whole post was an explanation as to why "good" is a misnomer.

I do not "think" that chocolate ice cream is good, I enjoy chocolate ice cream.

Ok, but isn’t your enjoyment of chocolate ice cream a good thing?

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok, but isn’t your enjoyment of chocolate ice cream a good thing?

To enjoy something is to have an experience you like. Is that experience "good"? No. I like that experience. Yes.

 

[Chriliman]

To enjoy something is to have an experience you like. Is that experience "good"? No. I like that experience. Yes.

Ok, guess it’s easier to remove words than have to deal with their meaning. If that’s how you want to say it then fine with me, I understand either way.

 

[Astrid]

To enjoy something is to have an experience you like. Is that experience "good"? No. I like that experience. Yes.

Its good. Really good. You have to be a woman to know how very
good it is.

 

[durangodawood]

....Most people would disagree with your claim that goodness is never an intrinsic quality.....

If goodness is an intrinsic property of anything, lets see it! But who can find "it" in the thing or in the action? Its a ghost chase.

By contrast when we understand goodness or badness as strictly our regard (or even a proposed divine being's regard) for a thing or act, it all makes sense. There's no ghost that eludes every angle of inspection. Instead, most of us find right away a feeling or a judgement in ourselves.

But I do think there's some sense in pretending that goodness is intrinsic. Some people, for whatever reason (mainly being young and unwise), fail to hold the sorts of regards we need people hold for a functioning society. So theres great social-control benefit to locating "good" and "bad" in the things and acts of the world.

The "most people" arent really philosophy minded and just go along with the social conditioning that works. Ask most people to search hard for so-called intrinsic goodness and watch as everything they point at refers to a judgement in their mind rather than a feature of the act in question.

 

[durangodawood]

.....Any time we say, "N is A" where N is any noun, and A is any adjective, that sentence is states that A is a property of N. If A is not in fact a property or N, then that statement is false. That's just how grammar works.....

I think I agree with the main thrust of you argument.

But I wouldnt say "murder is bad" is false because it really sounds like I mean I have a neutral or positive disposition toward murder. Thats how people would take it, for better or worse.

Also Im on the fence about whether assigning human judgements as properties of act is false, strictly speaking, of more properly called nonsense. To make the point in an extreme way tell me whether you think this statement is closer to false or to nonsense: "Murder is elephant".

 

[Chriliman]

If goodness is an intrinsic property of anything, lets see it! But who can find "it" in the thing or in the action? Its a ghost chase.

By contrast when we understand goodness or badness as strictly our regard for a thing or act, it all makes sense. There's no ghost that eludes every angle if inspection. Instead, most of us find right away a feeling or a judgement in ourselves.

But I do think there's some sense in pretending that goodness is intrinsic. Some people, for whatever reason (mainly being young and unwise), fail to hold the sorts of regards we need people hold for a functioning society. So there great social-control benefit to locating "good" and "bad" in the things and acts of the world.

The "most people" arent really philosophy minded and just go along with the social conditioning that works. Ask most people to search hard for so-called intrinsic goodness and watch as everything they point at refers to a judgement in their mind rather than a feature of the act in question.

Would you say goodness or enjoyment is intrinsic to people?

 

[durangodawood]

Would you say goodness or enjoyment is intrinsic to people?

For enjoyment, yes I do think theres something built into the human character generally that can and likes to experience joy. (Whether we were created or evolved this way).

Im not sure what you mean by goodness is intrinsic to people though. Strictly speaking I think good and bad are our judgements of an object and not features of the object itself. Does that address your question?

 

[Moral Orel]

I think I agree with the main thrust of you argument.

But I wouldnt say "murder is bad" is false because it really sounds like I mean I have a neutral or positive disposition toward murder. Thats how people would take it, for better or worse.

I try not to phrase it that way either. You're right that people are going to read into things. But from a strictly logical and rational standpoint, I have to admit, all statements of that sort cannot be true.

Also Im on the fence about whether assigning human judgements as properties of act is false, strictly speaking, of more properly called nonsense. To make the point in an extreme way tell me whether you think this statement is closer to false or to nonsense: "Murder is elephant".

You went with "noun is noun" but sticking to "noun is adjective" would be more apt. So "Murder is purple" we can say is false.

Your phrasing is nonsense. If we're going with "noun is noun" we have to add more words. "All murders are elephants" would be okay. Or if the "is" is important to you, "This murder is an elephant". Then they could be determined to be false. If we were trying to make a true statement, we wouldn't say "Stick is wood".

 

[Chriliman]

For enjoyment, yes I do think theres something built into the human character generally that can and likes to experience joy. (Whether we were created or evolved this way).

Im not sure what you mean by goodness is intrinsic to people though. Strictly speaking I think good and bad are our judgements of an object and not features of the object itself. Does that address your question?

So you think good and bad are intrinsic to our judgments? If so then yes that answers my question and is also why I think we can be objective regarding those intrinsic judgements that exist within people who exist in objective reality. It’s a strange way to speak, but important for clarity. What do you think?

 

[Moral Orel]

If goodness is an intrinsic property of anything, lets see it! But who can find "it" in the thing or in the action? Its a ghost chase.

By contrast when we understand goodness or badness as strictly our regard (or even a proposed divine being's regard) for a thing or act, it all makes sense. There's no ghost that eludes every angle of inspection. Instead, most of us find right away a feeling or a judgement in ourselves.

But I do think there's some sense in pretending that goodness is intrinsic. Some people, for whatever reason (mainly being young and unwise), fail to hold the sorts of regards we need people hold for a functioning society. So theres great social-control benefit to locating "good" and "bad" in the things and acts of the world.

The "most people" arent really philosophy minded and just go along with the social conditioning that works. Ask most people to search hard for so-called intrinsic goodness and watch as everything they point at refers to a judgement in their mind rather than a feature of the act in question.

Number (1) is for folks who believe in intrinsic goodness. The problem with preferences is in the choosing, not in who is doing the choosing.

Also, I never got to run this one by you. Did society condition you to believe things are moral, or did society condition you to prefer things, and that caused you to believe those things are moral? Think about how the conditioning process began.

 

[durangodawood]

I try not to phrase it that way either. You're right that people are going to read into things. But from a strictly logical and rational standpoint, I have to admit, all statements of that sort cannot be true.

You went with "noun is noun" but sticking to "noun is adjective" would be more apt. So "Murder is purple" we can say is false.

Your phrasing is nonsense. If we're going with "noun is noun" we have to add more words. "All murders are elephants" would be okay. Or if the "is" is important to you, "This murder is an elephant". Then they could be determined to be false. If we were trying to make a true statement, we wouldn't say "Stick is wood".

Yeah, youre right, my example was dumb. So lets take yours: "murder is purple". Seems to me to determine a claim true/false it has to be an intelligible statement. And I cannot figure out the intelligible positive or negative of that statement. If you said "Roys murder happened in a graveyard", well right or wrong, Ive got an intelligible claim to examine. So I think "murder is purple" is nonsense rather than false (or true).

 

[Moral Orel]

Yeah, youre right, my example was dumb. So lets take yours: "murder is purple". Seems to me to determine a claim true/false it has to be an intelligible statement. And I cannot figure out the intelligible positive or negative of that statement. If you said "Roys murder happened in a graveyard", well right or wrong, Ive got an intelligible claim to examine. So I think "murder is purple" is nonsense rather than false (or true).

But it is intelligible.

Does this thing have that property?
Can this thing have that sort of property? No.
Then this thing does not have that property.

Things can simply be so obviously false that they seem like nonsense. Heck, I'll still call it nonsense sometimes too. It might as well be. Mostly I'm just trying to get people to phrase things accurately, with much resistance.

 

[durangodawood]

But it is intelligible.

Does this thing have that property?
Can this thing have that sort of property? No.
Then this thing does not have that property.

Things can simply be so obviously false that they seem like nonsense. Heck, I'll still call it nonsense sometimes too. It might as well be. Mostly I'm just trying to get people to phrase things accurately, with much resistance.

Could be. Still thinking about this (and what the right test is for determining if murder is purple or not).

Either way, I do think its good to maintain the magic fiction that acts are intrinsically good or intrinsically bad in real life. We have strong a public order interest in this. But on the philosophy pages, anything goes.