Euthyphro Dilemma Easily Solved

[Clizby WampusCat]

Essentially, the main problem is in defining the term in a way that doesn't just fall into some invalid shallowness and malleability that is typical of mental concepts found in pop psychology.

Can you give an example? What are the specific problems?

There isn't a formula for 'figuring out' that any one situation or social problem is right or wrong. But in the case of slavery, it was fairly easy to come to an understand that owning and abusing another person is not only a cruel thing to do, but also one that doesn't lend itself to functional and healthy social lives among our fellow human beings.

So we agree that well being is the standard? I come to this conclusion based on well being as a standard.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can you give an example? What are the specific problems?

Some (but not all, obviously) of the initial conceptual problems are those discussed in the following journal article:

View of The challenge of defining wellbeing

So we agree that well being is the standard? I come to this conclusion based on well being as a standard.

Well, no. I didn't agree with you that well-being is "THE" standard. Well being is 'a' value that many people feel is a compelling notion, but on the whole, it is semantically way too loose and general and malleable. It's a wax nose to be shaped as one likes, so there would need to be an indeterminate number of additional qualifiers and descriptors to bring into any discussion on ethical systems and into our attempts to create a shared and exacting moral principle, such as a shared and substantive model of "Well-Being."

In other words, while some substantive definition of 'well-being' could be used as an international heuristic of sorts [a standard?], we can't just say "well-being" is the standard since it's not clear what it would necessarily need to be in order to make it into an utterly universalizable principle that can be understood and agreed upon around the world without expiration or derision.

As it stands now, as is seen in the article above, we can come up with some generalized notion of well-being, be we'll have to keep in mind that our definition, especially as might be defined by some special interest groups, can be created while also being disconnected from a bunch of other relevant social, psychological, biological and maybe spiritual aspects of Reality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can you give an example? What are the specific problems?

So we agree that well being is the standard? I come to this conclusion based on well being as a standard.

So, with the malleability of 'well-being' in mind, how do you think this affects the OP topic?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Some (but not all, obviously) of the initial conceptual problems are those discussed in the following journal article:

View of The challenge of defining wellbeing

Yet this article defines well being. Just because we don't have a 100% definition of what well being is we can use it to evaluate moral dilemmas. The use of well being is agreed upon by most people for most situations. Most people will agree that slavery, lying, stealing, cheating etc. do not promote the maximum well being of all people involved.

You still have not defined your standard or morality.

Well, no. I didn't agree with you that well-being is "THE" standard. Well being is 'a' value that many people feel is a compelling notion, but on the whole, it is semantically way too loose and general and malleable. It's a wax nose to be shaped as one likes, so there would need to be an indeterminate number of additional qualifiers and descriptors to bring into any discussion on ethical systems and into our attempts to create a shared and exacting moral principle, such as a shared and substantive model of "Well-Being."

In other words, while some substantive definition of 'well-being' could be used as an international heuristic of sorts [a standard?], we can't just say "well-being" is the standard since it's not clear what it would necessarily need to be in order to make it into an utterly universalizable principle that can be understood and agreed upon around the world without expiration or derision.

As it stands now, as is seen in the article above, we can come up with some generalized notion of well-being, be we'll have to keep in mind that our definition, especially as might be defined by some special interest groups, can be created while also being disconnected from a bunch of other relevant social, psychological, biological and maybe spiritual aspects of Reality.

It is not perfect but it is the best standard I have come across. What is your standard? You still have not defined it. We don't need an utterly universalized principle to use as our standard of morality.

What is your utterly universalizable principle that can be understood and agreed upon around the world without expiration or derision? And why is it better than well being?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

So, with the malleability of 'well-being' in mind, how do you think this affects the OP topic?

When someone can show that gods morality exists and is better than well being, then I will change my standard. The OP topic is irrelevant until this is shown.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yet this article defines well being.

And what is the definition that it gives? Do you agree with it?

Just because we don't have a 100% definition of what well being is we can use it to evaluate moral dilemmas.

For a study to be valid, you kind of do need to have your variables clearly defined without much wiggle room. What do you know about the act of scientific evaluation of a social concept?

The use of well being is agreed upon by most people for most situations.

Only within the range of what is admittedly "partial social congruity." What do you do with the relative aspects of this social concept? It's far from being a metaphysically grounded, fully universalizable notion.

And well-being is merely noted as a conceptual goal within some randomly chosen scheme of Ethics. It's not necessarily a satisfactory or even primary impetus for a definition of 'morality.' IF anything, it's a definition representing what positive psychologists are attempting to distill in order to show what they think human happiness might entail, but this attempt doesn't necessarily imply that there is some specific moral order that anyone has to acknowledge, whether that moral order be mine ... or yours.

Most people will agree that slavery, lying, stealing, cheating etc. do not promote the maximum well being of all people involved.

Sure. I don't think Christians would disagree with this.

You still have not defined your standard or morality.

And neither have you. Well-being is not a prescriptive notion, just a descriptive notion, a descriptive notion regarding human psychology and not human morality at that. Do you know the difference between an ethically "Prescriptive" moral notion versus a "Descriptive" moral notion?

It is not perfect but it is the best standard I have come across. What is your standard? You still have not defined it.

... I'm an Existentialist. Of course I haven't defined it ... But as a Christian, if I could denote some kind of definitive principle (which I can't in universal terms), then I'd probably give a definition that comports with following and obeying the commands of Jesus, as best as we each can understand them.

We don't need an utterly universalized principle to use as our standard of morality.

Really? Is this what the authors of the article said about their own understanding of what would make a substantive definition for "well-being"?

What is your utterly universalizable principle that can be understood and agreed upon around the world without expiration or derision? And why is it better than well being?

I don't have one, and I never said I did. But if pressed, I'd probably point to the exchange between Pilate and Jesus as a beginning point by which to grow in one's understanding of morality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When someone can show that gods morality exists and is better than well being, then I will change my standard. The OP topic is irrelevant until this is shown.

Ok. I'm not the one pressing you to change back to a Christian morality. Just keep in mind that well-being is a singular conceptual construct and in and of itself doesn't provide any clear implications for building a universal, non-relative ethical system of thought.

However, as I said previously several posts above, I do agree with you that the recognition of human 'well-being' can be a substantive idea among many that should play a part in human morality. I know it does for me.

 

[Larniavc]

If we are speaking in meta-ethical terms and not colloquially, then it makes no sense to ask what makes God good. He is the standard by which everything else is judged. He cannot be judged at all.

Same could be said for evil.

 

[Moral Orel]

Same could be said for evil.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Lol his God hate is pretty evident in the last few minutes too.

O clap your hands, all ye people; shout unto God with the voice of triumph.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

And what is the definition that it gives? Do you agree with it?

Here is their definition:

The balance point between an individual’s resource pool and the challenges faced.

You need to read the paper to know what this means.

I don't agree that it is useful for everyday moral decisions.

For a study to be valid, you kind of do need to have your variables clearly defined without much wiggle room. What do you know about the act of scientific evaluation of a social concept?

Only within the range of what is admittedly "partial social congruity." What do you do with the relative aspects of this social concept? It's far from being a metaphysically grounded, fully universalizable notion.

And well-being is merely noted as a conceptual goal within some randomly chosen scheme of Ethics. It's not necessarily a satisfactory or even primary impetus for a definition of 'morality.' IF anything, it's a definition representing what positive psychologists are attempting to distill in order to show what they think human happiness might entail, but this attempt doesn't necessarily imply that there is some specific moral order that anyone has to acknowledge, whether that moral order be mine ... or yours.

I never said we should have a study to determine what well being is. You brought that into the discussion.

... I'm an Existentialist. Of course I haven't defined it ... But as a Christian, if I could denote some kind of definitive principle (which I can't in universal terms), then I'd probably give a definition that comports with following and obeying the commands of Jesus, as best as we each can understand them.

Really? Is this what the authors of the article said about their own understanding of what would make a substantive definition for "well-being"?

I don't have one, and I never said I did. But if pressed, I'd probably point to the exchange between Pilate and Jesus as a beginning point by which to grow in one's understanding of morality.

You do have a moral standard. What do you base your moral decisions on?

Well being works for most people most of the time. People generally know what is being talked about when well being is the standard. I don't really care about a theoretical moral system. I am interested in a moral system that can be used everyday in real life. Well being fits the bill even if it is not 100% defined.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Ok. I'm not the one pressing you to change back to a Christian morality. Just keep in mind that well-being is a singular conceptual construct and in and of itself doesn't provide any clear implications for building a universal, non-relative ethical system of thought.

I agree. But it is the most useful goal we have in my opinion in the absence of a universal standard.

However, as I said previously several posts above, I do agree with you that the recognition of human 'well-being' can be a substantive idea among many that should play a part in human morality. I know it does for me.

I agree.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here is their definition:

The balance point between an individual’s resource pool and the challenges faced.

You need to read the paper to know what this means.

I don't agree that it is useful for everyday moral decisions.

Yes, you're right. We do need to read the paper in order to take the first steps in knowing and understanding what the author's of the paper have said. And we might find that we don't agree with what they've said along the way.

The problem is that an "everyday level" concept isn't the stuff, really, that directs world politics or vast ethical systems and their moral outworkings. So, if you're going to hinge your own opinion simply upon your own individual feeling about it, they you don't have a firm, scientific level of a more objective type of epistemological justification. You're just harboring your ideas upon what you think makes for a 'moral goal.' Even other skeptics can, and have, disagreed with your own individual viewpoint about what is most moral or as to what is the most justified Ethical framework, let alone conceptual goals that play a smaller part within those overall frameworks.

I never said we should have a study to determine what well being is. You brought that into the discussion.

And I'm trying to imply that it always helps your positon if you can buttress your own position with that of someone who if of a more academic stature than your own. Otherwise, it's just kind of you (or me) whisting in the epistemic wind. Or spitting in the wind ...

You do have a moral standard. What do you base your moral decisions on?

That will depend upon the moral issue involved. Not all of them are equal or as easily resolved as others, especially if either, or both, the Bible and the host of diverse Ethicists who live and have lived don't have a final word on some moral problem X that we may be attempting to address.

Well being works for most people most of the time. People generally know what is being talked about when well being is the standard. I don't really care about a theoretical moral system. I am interested in a moral system that can be used everyday in real life. Well being fits the bill even if it is not 100% defined.

Fine. A number of people may resort to some single term they call "well-being," but this isn't to say that they can the pontificate this term upon other people, particularly if their own idea about the term isn't really situated within a firmer Axiological web of understanding and justification. Well-being doesn't define itself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree. But it is the most useful goal we have in my opinion in the absence of a universal standard.

Goals have to be not only located, but also justified and well explained for them to be taken seriously.

Unfortunately, yours isn't.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Goals have to be not only located, but also justified and well explained for them to be taken seriously.

Unfortunately, yours isn't.

Then don't use it. It works for me and many others. Its not like we have no idea what it means.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Yes, you're right. We do need to read the paper in order to take the first steps in knowing and understanding what the author's of the paper have said. And we might find that we don't agree with what they've said along the way.

The problem is that an "everyday level" concept isn't the stuff, really, that directs world politics or vast ethical systems and their moral outworkings. So, if you're going to hinge your own opinion simply upon your own individual feeling about it, they you don't have a firm, scientific level of a more objective type of epistemological justification. You're just harboring your ideas upon what you think makes for a 'moral goal.' Even other skeptics can, and have, disagreed with your own individual viewpoint about what is most moral or as to what is the most justified Ethical framework, let alone conceptual goals that play a smaller part within those overall frameworks.

I am talking about everyday life for the average Clizby like myself. I guarantee any moral system I have someone will disagree with it. That is no reason to chuck a good working goal for morality.

And I'm trying to imply that it always helps your positon if you can buttress your own position with that of someone who if of a more academic stature than your own. Otherwise, it's just kind of you (or me) whisting in the epistemic wind. Or spitting in the wind ...

Really? That is your standard not mine. There are plenty of people of higher stature than me that use well being. Talk to them if you like.

That will depend upon the moral issue involved. Not all of them are equal or as easily resolved as others, especially if either, or both, the Bible and the host of diverse Ethicists who live and have lived don't have a final word on some moral problem X that we may be attempting to address.

I agree. Moral problems require a different level of thought based on what they are.

Fine. A number of people may resort to some single term they call "well-being," but this isn't to say that they can the pontificate this term upon other people, particularly if their own idea about the term isn't really situated within a firmer Axiological web of understanding and justification. Well-being doesn't define itself.

Nothing defines itself. We can describe the properties of well being and evaluate situations based on that. If you require a 100% defined morality then you will never have one.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then don't use it. It works for me and many others. Its not like we have no idea what it means.

So, now that we've established that you have a more or less solipsistic insistence on using 'well-being' as principle goal of morality, would you go on record and say that it idea along prescribes that we should all see the God of the Bible as immoral?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am talking about everyday life for the average Clizby like myself. I guarantee any moral system I have someone will disagree with it. That is no reason to chuck a good working goal for morality.

Really? That is your standard not mine. There are plenty of people of higher stature than me that use well being. Talk to them if you like.

I agree. Moral problems require a different level of thought based on what they are.

Nothing defines itself. We can describe the properties of well being and evaluate situations based on that. If you require a 100% defined morality then you will never have one.

Well, at least we Christians won't have to worry about you making an attempt to enforceyour view upon us since it has little prescriptive force as it thus far stands and in the simple way your designating its value.

Good to know.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

So, now that we've established that you have a more or less solipsistic insistence on using 'well-being' as principle goal of morality, would you go on record and say that it idea along prescribes that we should all see the God of the Bible as immoral?

I believe He is. I cannot answer for anyone else.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Well, at least we Christians won't have to worry about you making an attempt to enforceyour view upon us since it has little prescriptive force as it thus far stands and in the simple way your designating its value.

Good to know.

I have never advocated forcing my moral system on anyone else. Christians have done this throughout history. The most recent time was outlawing gay marriage in the US. It was secular morality that corrected the injustice.

Well being is not this empty shell you claim it to be. There are many people talking, writing and improving and having conversations about what it is and how to use it. Give me a better moral goal and I will change mine.