Atheism and nihilism

stevevw said:

Yeah, I was trying to think of an example that could reflect what I was saying but I sort of knew it was not a good one. Even the fact the sun is not warm but it is actually really hot didn't work. But I would refer you to the links I posted earlier to Kylie as they address the arbitrariness of the Euthyphro dilemma. If God is good, good by nature then he is not choosing any specific good over another as He is the good, and goodness radiates from Him to us.

Click to expand...

All that does is reorder the question slightly. Rather than asking "Is Yahweh in control of what is moral?", the question becomes "Is Yahweh in control of his own good nature?", and the horns of the dilemma remain the same.

For anyone reading along, this video explains it pretty well,

stevevw said:

So the argument to account for the Euthyphro dilemma is made by several ethicists

Click to expand...

I know. I remain unconvinced.

stevevw said:

I think it is safe to say that they know what they are talking about than you or I.

Click to expand...

Yes, experts do tend to know more than laypeople, such as you and I. My objection to this proposed way around the dilemma - pointing out that it all it does is reformulate the question posed by the dilemma - was first articulated, as far as I know, by philosopher Michael Martin, in response to Greg Bahnsen. It's probably much older than that, but that's who I first heard it from. Philosophers disagree with one another. That's kind of the nature of the beast.

stevevw said:

The problem is how do you ground good.

Click to expand...

An act is morally good if it increases wellbeing, reduces harm, or does both. And act is morally bad if it increases harm, reduces wellbeing, or does both. An act is amoral if it concerns neither. Wellbeing and harm are objectively quantifiable.

Again though, the standard is only half the equation. The other half is whether you actually value that standard, and that will always be subjective, and dependent on an "if" clause. That is true even if it is granted that Yahweh exists, has a certain moral code, and that you have a reliable means of gleaning what that code is.

You cannot get an ought from an is, without introducing an "if" clause.

stevevw said:

A pedophile would say abusing kids makes for a satisfying life.

Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. Pedophiles live with extreme shame, self-loathing, and misery. That's why a lot of them kill themselves.

Unless you are talking strictly about pure sociopaths, which are very rare. And if your criticism boils down to "your moral philosophy would not convince a sociopath", I have bad news for you - neither would yours.

It's a good thing for both of us that convincing sociopaths is not the job of a moral philosophy.

Moral Orel said:

So something is good because God is good? That's a non-sequitur.

Click to expand...

Not really.

2PhiloVoid said:

Not really.

Click to expand...

If you fill in some missing premises, then it might stop being a non-sequitur.

durangodawood said:

Some extreme outliers like the pedophile do not negate the typical fact. There's nothing arbitrary about typical facts of human living. The basis for them can be examined and explained. Also, the pedo introduces so much suffering into society that everyone's access to a satisfying life becomes somewhat threatened. This isn't arbitrary either.

Click to expand...

What effects happen to others regarding subjective morals is irrelevant. Subjective morality is about how the individual sees things. A pedophile is not going to worry about what effects he has on others. In fact, he believes that it is perfectly OK to have relations with a child and there are no problems. You can show him facts but he will disagree because the standard (human suffering etc) you are using to base the facts on is subjective as well.

Plus there are a lot of variations in views about what is satisfying for life that is not as extreme. Others will say that getting rich at the expense of others is satisfying. Or taking risks to get thrills which may put others in harm's way is satisfying, taking drugs is satisfying, committing adultery or having lots of relationships is satisfying, overeating is satisfying ect ect. There are as many variations on what people see as satisfying as there are people and all those people will see there is nothing wrong with what they do under subjectivity.

They will come up with reasons why it doesn't harm others and truly believe that. They will say that any explanation or claim that their actions bring suffering to others has no basis for determining what is morally right or wrong because that is just your opinion and they view things differently. Even if they know they are causing harm to others and you show them facts they can still say who said that human suffering and living a satisfying life is the measure for what is morally right and wrong.

The wise observe and record what behaviors advance or hinder satisfaction for the typical human. The Bible is an excellent example of this....and of how moral good has evolved to suit changing social circumstances.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree but the problem is under a subjective moral system there is no grounding for morality. Whatever you claim is the measure be it wellbeing, human suffering, what advances humans ect can be said to be just a subjective view IE who said that wellbeing, human suffering, human survival, or what advances humans is what equates to morality. I happen to disagree and think X, Y, or Z is the measure even if you show me facts.

Moral Orel said:

If you fill in some missing premises, then it might stop being a non-sequitur.

Click to expand...

I could, but I'd be doing so for the 37th time over the last several years here on C.F.

stevevw said:

A pedophile is not going to worry about what effects he has on others. In fact, he believes that it is perfectly OK to have relations with a child and there are no problems.

Click to expand...

Nope. As any professional therapist will tell you, pedophiles know perfectly well that what they do is very, very wrong. That’s why many of them kill themselves.

Pedophilia, adultery, abuse, etc...no one does these things because they think they’re fun and “perfectly ok”. That’s a very simplistic - and typically religious - way of looking at the nature of human behavior. The only exception would be a combination sociopath and sadist. They are extremely rare, and you can’t make a critique of anyone’s moral philosophy, predicated on their existence, that does not equally apply to you.

2PhiloVoid said:

I could, but I'd be doing so for the 37th time over the last several years here on C.F.

Click to expand...

Ok. Then the argument as stated remains a non-sequitur.

stevevw said:

No God does not choose a good moral and that makes it good or chooses to do a good because it is good. He is good. His nature is good. He is the logos of good and what Plato calls "the good". He doesn't choose anything because He is all good and good flows from Him. It is a well-known argument against the Euthyphro Dilemma made by several philosophers.

Responses to the Euthyphro Dilemma
https://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/#H3

Euthyphro non sequitur
Plato himself saw the solution to this objection: you split the horns of the dilemma by formulating a third alternative, namely, God is the Good. The Good is the moral nature of God himself. That is to say, God is necessarily holy, loving, kind, just, and so on, and these attributes of God comprise the Good. God’s moral character expresses itself towards us in the form of certain commandments, which become for us our moral duties. Hence God’s commandments are not arbitrary, but necessarily flow from his own nature.[56]

This understanding of the relationship between God and Goodness, which side-steps the Euthyphro dilemma, is called ‘essentialism’ (because it sees Goodness as part of God’s ontological essence).
Can Moral Objectivism Do Without God?

Click to expand...

Sounds like you are just redefining things so "good" and "God" mean the same thing.

Eight Foot Manchild said:

Nope. As any professional therapist will tell you, pedophiles know perfectly well that what they do is very, very wrong. That’s why many of them kill themselves.

Pedophilia, adultery, abuse, etc...no one does these things because they think they’re fun and “perfectly ok”.

Click to expand...

The fact they kill themselves is not necessarily because they think it is wrong morally. It may be they see themselves as deformed and cannot live with that. It may be like they feel guilt for a number of reasons besides morality. Plus there are theorists who claim that Pedophiles cannot help what they are and some believe what they do is natural. So even theorists disagree and the fact they make a case is enough to put that out there as an alternative view.

As mentioned there are a lot of in-between views that are not as obvious as typical pedophilia which people think are OK as well. Like relationships between older males and much younger females (including teens) which may be legal but still morally wrong in many people's eyes. Like in some religions where older males marry young teens. They obviously believe it is morally OK. So there exists a variety of views on this topic where people believe there is no moral wrong yet others do. Like the whole sexualization of young teens with fashion (catwalks) beauty contests and dressing them up and making the act as adults. Quite creepy if you ask me yet many think it ok.

But nevertheless, you are still missing the point. Even if it can be shown that it is wrong as far as human wellbeing or making for a satisfying/happy life who said that wellbeing and a satisfying/happy life is the measure for morality. What is the basis outside of human opinion that this is morally right or wrong?

The objection isn't that these things can be measured and shown to affect humans. It is a question of why we should make wellbeing, the survival of humans, or a happy/satisfying life as the grounding for morality. There is no reason for these independent of human opinion. I could say that survival means ensuring that I and my group survives over yours. or that we should kill all the weak and old if there is not enough to go around to ensure we survive and are happy and no one could say I was wrong because they would have no independent justification but rather would be just expressing their opinion over mine.

That’s a very simplistic - and typically religious - way of looking at the nature of human behavior.

Click to expand...

Not really as explained above there are many variations not as extreme that many think are still morally wrong yet are mainstream enough to be seen as OK by many. The fact is we can cite many examples where people do things which some say is morally wrong but at the same time is also an acceptable behavior in modern society. IE the fact that inappropriate content can be accessed by teens which cause problems in relationships and treat women like objects. This is known and accepted by the fact that no one does anything about it and knows its happening (sin of omission). This type of moral wrong happens in many other ways as well.

The only exception would be a combination sociopath and sadist. They are extremely rare, and you can’t make a critique of anyone’s moral philosophy, predicated on their existence, that does not equally apply to you.

Click to expand...

As stated sadism and sociopath are only extreme ends of similar behavior that are more mainstream and accepted by many in society. Some believe that men should be the dominant in a relationship and many women choose to be submissive and this makes them happy. That is their makeup. We know that people obviously disagree with this and others have more extreme views (militant feminists) who want to relegate men to nothing. This can be applied to many situations in society where there are varying views of what makes people happy from socializing to economic status.

In fact, most western nations believe that it is perfectly OK to feather your own nest with excesses before helping someone in need and there is nothing wrong with this (IE look after your own backyard first and those in need have no one else to blame but themselves. You are being unrealistic with the amount of variation in views about what is morally right or wrong when it comes to what makes for a happy and satisfying life.

Kylie said:

Sounds like you are just redefining things so "good" and "God" mean the same thing.

Click to expand...

No "good is God. It isn't separate from God. God isn't picking some abstract "good" and saying this is what good is. God is the "good" and has been always. No one else made Him good, He has just always been the "good". His nature is good. The problem is that people try to put a modernistic and human understanding of good onto God. Yet if we are to take God as described by the Christian God then He is as John mentions the Logos of good.

As Christians understand God, his innate nature is morality itself. Furthermore, God is eternal and did not create himself, so he could not have created morality. God appeals to his uncreated and eternal nature to find morality and then reveals it to the world. He cannot act in a way that opposes that morality, nor can it be created or changed.
Both horns of the Euthyphro dilemma are resolved by realizing God as a self-evident, metaphysically necessary being.
Why the Christian Apologetic to the Euthyphro Dilemma Falls Short. : DebateAChristian

stevevw said:

.....But nevertheless, you are still missing the point. Even if it can be shown that it is wrong as far as human wellbeing or making for a satisfying/happy life who said that wellbeing and a satisfying/happy life is the measure for morality. What is the basis outside of human opinion that this is morally right or wrong?...

Click to expand...

It can be observed that people are generally happier in a society without pedo predators running amok. So its not just random opinion.

One thing that confuses people in this argument is that human satisfaction is both felt subjectively AND observed objectively. Many people never get past the former in these discussions.

Moral Orel said:

Ok. Then the argument as stated remains a non-sequitur.

Click to expand...

For you, it does.

However, reality remains reality despite whatever labels we may like to slap onto our perceptions about it all.

stevevw said:

.....The objection isn't that these things can be measured and shown to affect humans. It is a question of why we should make wellbeing, the survival of humans, or a happy/satisfying life as the grounding for morality. There is no reason for these independent of human opinion. I could say that survival means ensuring that I and my group survives over yours. or that we should kill all the weak and old if there is not enough to go around to ensure we survive and are happy and no one could say I was wrong because they would have no independent justification but rather would be just expressing their opinion over mine....

Click to expand...

No its because we naturally value satisfaction. Its a natural "axiom" of being the kind of creatures we are, if you will. Maybe we evolved this way in a materialist setting. Or maybe God made us this way. Either way, most of the things we value at a fundamental level are in our nature, and not just a matter of opinion.

durangodawood said:

No its because we naturally value satisfaction. Its a natural "axiom" of being the kind of creatures we are, if you will. Maybe we evolved this way in a materialist setting. Or maybe God made us this way. Either way, most of the things we value at a fundamental level are in our nature, and not just a matter of opinion.

Click to expand...

Oh, you mean concepts like "fidelity" are part of our nature and not a matter of opinion?

stevevw said:

The fact they kill themselves is not necessarily because they think it is wrong morally. It may be they see themselves as deformed and cannot live with that.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Deformed in such a way that they feel compulsory urges to do harm.

Loot at that. We're right back at morality.

stevevw said:

It may be like they feel guilt for a number of reasons besides morality.

Click to expand...

Such as...

stevevw said:

Plus there are theorists who claim that Pedophiles cannot help what they are and some believe what they do is natural.

Click to expand...

So? That doesn't address how the pedophile feels about their own behavior. You said they feel it's "totally ok". You are wrong.

stevevw said:

As mentioned there are a lot of in-between views that are not as obvious as typical pedophilia which people think are OK as well. Like relationships between older males and much younger females (including teens) which may be legal but still morally wrong in many people's eyes. Like in some religions where older males marry young teens. They obviously believe it is morally OK. So there exists a variety of views on this topic where people believe there is no moral wrong yet others do. Like the whole sexualization of young teens with fashion (catwalks) beauty contests and dressing them up and making the act as adults. Quite creepy if you ask me yet many think it ok.
.........
Not really as explained above there are many variations not as extreme that many think are still morally wrong yet are mainstream enough to be seen as OK by many. The fact is we can cite many examples where people do things which some say is morally wrong but at the same time is also an acceptable behavior in modern society. IE the fact that inappropriate content can be accessed by teens which cause problems in relationships and treat women like objects. This is known and accepted by the fact that no one does anything about it and knows its happening (sin of omission). This type of moral wrong happens in many other ways as well. As stated sadism and sociopath are only extreme ends of similar behavior that are more mainstream and accepted by many in society. Some believe that men should be the dominant in a relationship and many women choose to be submissive and this makes them happy. That is their makeup. We know that people obviously disagree with this and others have more extreme views (militant feminists) who want to relegate men to nothing. This can be applied to many situations in society where there are varying views of what makes people happy from socializing to economic status.

Click to expand...

Yup. The moral standing of all of this comes down to an objective quantification of harm vs wellbeing. We don't have a perfect means of measuring that, but we do have some means.

To the point though, none of this behavior indicates that the people who engage in it necessarily do so because they think it's "totally ok". People suffer profound trauma, they compartmentalize, they rationalize, they selectively forget, etc...Psychology is much deeper than "people do bad stuff because they feel like it's ok".

stevevw said:

But nevertheless, you are still missing the point. Even if it can be shown that it is wrong as far as human wellbeing or making for a satisfying/happy life who said that wellbeing and a satisfying/happy life is the measure for morality. What is the basis outside of human opinion that this is morally right or wrong?

Click to expand...

No, I'm not missing the point at all. In fact, I've been the one pointing this out to you. An objective standard is only half of the equation. You also need value judgements, which are necessarily subjective. It's the is/ought gap.

You seem to think there is a way around the gap by invoking Yahweh. You are wrong. Even granting his existence, and that he has a certain moral code, and that you have a reliable means of gleaning what that code is, you can't name any "is" derived from that code and get an "ought" from it, without also including an "if" clause. Though you are welcome to try, and fail, if you want to, as a point of illustration.

2PhiloVoid said:

Oh, you mean concepts like "fidelity" are part of our nature and not a matter of opinion?

Click to expand...

I said its in our nature to desire a satisfying life. Thats whats not a matter of opinion.

Whether fidelity supports that can probably be observed. But its not easy to make deep connections between certain behaviors and long term outcomes for society and the individual. The people that make those connections, we call them "wise". The unwise may have a variety of opinions.

durangodawood said:

I said its in our nature to desire a satisfying life. Thats whats not a matter of opinion.

Whether fidelity supports that can probably be observed. But its not easy to make deep connections between certain behaviors and long term outcomes for society and the individual. The people that make those connections, we call them "wise". The unwise may have a variety of opinions.

Click to expand...

I'd say that the concept of "satisfaction" is so general, so diffuse in referential nuances as to almost be meaningless for its lack of precision in describing some universal among each and every human being.

2PhiloVoid said:

I'd say that the concept of "satisfaction" is so general, so diffuse as to almost not be meaningful for it's lack of precision to describe some universal among each and every human being.

Click to expand...

I disagree totally.
Its almost universal that people thrive with:
health
material security
friendship
a degree of autonomy (not being enslaved)
being useful
etc

Sure there are outliers. But society defines the good for the typical case. Satisfaction doesnt look identical for everyone. Morality doesnt tell you to be a plumber rather than an accountant. It says dont steal - because rampant theft degrades life for everyone.

durangodawood said:

I disagree totally.
Its almost universal that people thrive with:
health
material security
friendship
a degree of autonomy (not being enslaved)
being useful
etc

Sure there are outliers. But society defines the good for the typical case. Satisfaction doesnt look identical for everyone. Morality doesnt tell you to be a plumber rather than an accountant. It says dont steal - because rampant theft degrades life for everyone.

Click to expand...

But in the case of our evaluating the relationship between the Good and the Divine, why is it that we think that if we're going to invoke the biblical concept of God and not just any philosophical notion of god, we somehow get to also define the Good in that contextual case?

It blows my mind that people think they can. And they persist in doing so, but if Wittegenstein is right, I don't think that we get to judge God by .................................... "our" notions of the so-called Good.

The alternative to wisdom-based morality

2PhiloVoid said:

But in the case of God, why is it that we think that if we're going to invoke the biblical concept of God and not just any philosophical notion of god, we somehow get to also define the Good in that contextual case?

It blows my mind that people think they can. And they persist in doing so, but if Wittegenstein is right, I don't think that we get to judge God by .................................... "our" notions of the so-called Good.

Click to expand...

Not sure what youre asking in the first question. The Biblical God seems to me a transitional hybrid of a Hebrew tribal god and philosophical ideal God on display in the book of John.

I would add: the alternative to the wisdom-based morality that I'm defending is an arbitrary "because I said so" command-morality. Command morality may have been a useful formula for enshrining collected wisdom in a tribal society. But its the human project of collecting wisdom that underlies the command-morality God idea, I think.