Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Ana the Ist]

"Two plus two doesn't actually make four or mean anything objectively, because numbers are just in our heads, and our heads have nothing to do with the realities they purport to describe."

It's just a bad argument; a weird form of extreme nominalism. You're conflating the fact that there are different theories about the ontological nature of numbers with the idea that pure nominalism with respect to numbers is a real position. It's not. Hardly anyone holds to such a thing.

It is part and parcel of a moral claim that something objective is being asserted. The reason people find your position so nonsensical is because you are telling everyone who makes moral claims that they are hopelessly confused, and that they are not doing what they think they are doing when they claim to be making a moral judgment. For example, when someone says that Ted Bundy is morally evil you would respond by saying there is nothing about Ted Bundy that is morally evil, because moral evil can't exist in persons or actions, and all these claims about moral evil are "only in our heads."

First off...let's start by clearing up the ambiguity of the language.

No "right" or "wrong"....too easily confused. Good for moral judgements that can be considered "positive" in some way. Bad for the "negative" ones.

All moral statements are conceived as an actor/observer relationship between 3 parties.

1st. The actor. This is the subject doing the act. It can be multiple people. It can be a group. It can be one. Whatever.

2nd. The acted upon (target). This is the person who has been acted upon by the actor. Seems pretty simple but it isn't. Not always obvious.

3rd. The group discussing the action, having saw it, read of it, or in any way conceived it. These are potentially detached moral judges or invested moral judges, it depends upon the social dynamic....particularly in-group vs out-group status. Moral judgements get made almost certainly to their degree of perceived social utility.

So what is morality? An expression of value of a particular action and it's resulting emotional reaction...to the degree of social utility to other parties.

 

[zippy2006]

No "right" or "wrong"....too easily confused. Good for moral judgements that can be considered "positive" in some way. Bad for the "negative" ones.

Okay. I assume that by 'positive' and 'negative' you mean something like approval and disapproval.

So what is morality? An expression of value of a particular action and it's resulting emotional reaction...to the degree of social utility to other parties.

Most of what you said is straightforward, but this needs a great deal of unpacking and explanation. Further, it would probably be better to define a moral judgment rather than morality. When the judge sees the agent act on the patient, they render a moral judgment. What is a moral judgment? You seem to think it is:

1. An assignment of value to the act, either "positive" or "negative,"
2. The emotional reaction that results from the act (?), and
3. "...to the degree of social utility to other parties" (?)​

 

[Yttrium]

I didn't answer the poll because I don't consider myself to be an atheist. But if I did, uh... I wouldn't be able to answer it because it doesn't make much sense. My conclusion is that Euthyphro was a dolt who came up with a dumb dilemma.

 

[Moral Orel]

But if I did, uh... I wouldn't be able to answer it because it doesn't make much sense.

Are morally good things better or worse than morally bad things?

 

[Yttrium]

Are morally good things better or worse than morally bad things?

They're usually better... but not always. Sometimes our moral choices can have bad consequences, while morally bad choices could have better consequences. Lacking omniscience, we can't come up with morals that will always have the best outcomes.

 

[Moral Orel]

They're usually better... but not always. Sometimes our moral choices can have bad consequences, while morally bad choices could have better consequences. Lacking omniscience, we can't come up with morals that will always have the best outcomes.

Is it better to do things that have a likely good outcome, or is it better to do things that have a likely bad outcome?

 

[Yttrium]

Is it better to do things that have a likely good outcome, or is it better to do things that have a likely bad outcome?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, we can't always know in advance what the full ramifications of our choices will be.

 

[Moral Orel]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, we can't always know in advance what the full ramifications of our choices will be.

Are you trying to say that no one has any idea what is moral or immoral because no one has any idea what the outcomes will be?

 

[Astrid]

They're usually better... but not always. Sometimes our moral choices can have bad consequences, while morally bad choices could have better consequences. Lacking omniscience, we can't come up with morals that will always have the best outcomes.

The extreme example- "I would not steal
a dime to save a baby's life" is an attempt
at impeccable moral righteousness, but-!

Then there's " Would you kill Hitler
before the war ?"
And then who knows what maybe far
worse happens.

 

[Astrid]

Are you trying to say that no one has any idea what is moral or immoral because no one has any idea what the outcomes will be?

That is asking if he is incredibly stupid.

 

[Moral Orel]

That is asking if he is incredibly stupid.

Sounds like you're saying the same thing he is here:

Then there's " Would you kill Hitler
before the war ?"
And then who knows what maybe far
worse happens.

So why shouldn't I randomly push women in front of speeding trains? Maybe it'll prevent WWIII. If some random stranger pushed Klara Hitler in front of a train when she was a child, it could have prevented WWII, so who's to say what's moral or immoral?

 

[Yttrium]

Are you trying to say that no one has any idea what is moral or immoral because no one has any idea what the outcomes will be?

Of course not. Morality can be influenced by desired outcomes, but it's not dependent on actual outcomes.

 

[Moral Orel]

Of course not. Morality can be influenced by desired outcomes, but it's not dependent on actual outcomes.

Okay, so if actual outcomes don't matter, then hindsight doesn't matter, and we're back to my question.

Is it better to do something with a likely good outcome or is it better to do something with a likely bad outcome?

 

[Yttrium]

Is it better to do something with a likely good outcome or is it better to do something with a likely bad outcome?

Good for whom? Different people can be affected by outcomes in different ways.

 

[Moral Orel]

Good for whom? Different people can be affected by outcomes in different ways.

How should I know? You brought up "outcomes".

Here's what you said about moral acts:

They're usually better... but not always. Sometimes our moral choices can have bad consequences, while morally bad choices could have better consequences. Lacking omniscience, we can't come up with morals that will always have the best outcomes.

So there are good and bad outcomes.

Morality can be influenced by desired outcomes

And what is moral is an act that is likely to produce good outcomes, and what is immoral is an act that is likely to produce bad outcomes. What am I missing?

 

[Astrid]

Sounds like you're saying the same thing he is here:



So why shouldn't I randomly push women in front of speeding trains? Maybe it'll prevent WWIII. If some random stranger pushed Klara Hitler in front of a train when she was a child, it could have prevented WWII, so who's to say what's moral or immoral?

" randomly push women" right.

If, maybe, you were less determined to be right you could
take a sec to recognize what someone else is saying?

Your response is 180 degrees off compass.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I didn't answer the poll because I don't consider myself to be an atheist. But if I did, uh... I wouldn't be able to answer it because it doesn't make much sense. My conclusion is that Euthyphro was a dolt who came up with a dumb dilemma.

You should read the original: Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia

 

[Ken-1122]

I didn't answer the poll because I don't consider myself to be an atheist. But if I did, uh... I wouldn't be able to answer it because it doesn't make much sense. My conclusion is that Euthyphro was a dolt who came up with a dumb dilemma.

Why do you consider it a dumb dilemma?

 

[Astrid]

You should read the original: Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia

Ah, I should have done that.
Now we see the doltistical element is actually
in the dilemmavas presented in the poll.

 

[Astrid]

Why do you consider it a dumb dilemma?

Did you resd the wiki link?