Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Yttrium]

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?

I disagree with your definition. You shouldn't equate morals with outcomes.

 

[Moral Orel]

I disagree with your definition. You shouldn't equate morals with outcomes.

It ain't my definition; it's the best I can suss out from what you've said thus far. And it doesn't equate morals with outcomes.

You've said it's better to do moral things when the outcome is better. You've said morals are influenced by desired outcomes. So it's good to do things that likely lead to good outcomes.

 

[Moral Orel]

" 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.

I know what you were saying, and I showed you it works in the opposite way.

You wanted to say that bad things might result from what we think is good.
I showed that good things might result from what we think is bad.

 

[Yttrium]

It ain't my definition; it's the best I can suss out from what you've said thus far. And it doesn't equate morals with outcomes.

You've said it's better to do moral things when the outcome is better. You've said morals are influenced by desired outcomes. So it's good to do things that likely lead to good outcomes.

No, I said they can be influenced by desired outcomes. They can also be influenced by other things instead. I specifically said that they're not dependent on desired outcomes.

 

[Astrid]

I know what you were saying, and I showed you it works in the opposite way.

You wanted to say that bad things might result from what we think is good.
I showed that good things might result from what we think is bad.

Nope. Guess i needed to play captain obvious.

People bring up kill hitler as a positive intervention.

Of course theres no freaking way to see the future.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, I said they can be influenced by desired outcomes. They can also be influenced by other things instead. I specifically said that they're not dependent on desired outcomes.

You specifically said that they're not dependent on "actual" outcomes.

I don't see what's so difficult about acknowledging that it's better to do things that most likely cause things to be better.

 

[Moral Orel]

Nope. Guess i needed to play captain obvious.

People bring up kill hitler as a positive intervention.

Of course theres no freaking way to see the future.

So in your analogy, we know WWII happened, but we're in the past before Hitler did any of it, and your point is that we can't know the future...

 

[Yttrium]

I don't see what's so difficult about acknowledging that it's better to do things that cause things to be better.

Better for whom? How can you be sure that things will get better for whoever? What do your morals say when it's better for one person but worse for another? There is no general universal "better" that applies in all situations.

 

[Strivax]

So, for the dilemma to work, one really needs an authority greater than oneself. eg, does the (political) party spread the truth because it is true, or is it true because the party spreads it? But my favourite formulation of the dilemma is: Does God will the good because it is good, or is the good good because God wills it? If the former, God owes His allegiance to a higher power than Him. If the latter, goodness is a matter of God's whim. Neither conclusion is comfortable for a believer.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Astrid]

So in your analogy, we know WWII happened, but we're in the past before Hitler did any of it, and your point is that we can't know the future...

Whatevs

 

[Strivax]

Better for whom? How can you be sure that things will get better for whoever? What do your morals say when it's better for one person but worse for another? There is no general universal "better" that applies in all situations.

Bentham and Mill (senior) held that all morality boils down to 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number'. That's fine, so long as one finds oneself in the majority. Whatever, my personal opinion is that morality is basically consequentialist, in that one wants morality to provide a route to the best of all possible outcomes. Whether one is a deontologist (duties and rules), a virtue ethicist (good character), a situation ethicist (situation and good will) or a utilitarian (optimum happiness), each would argue that their morality provides that route.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[zippy2006]

Whatever, my personal opinion is that morality is basically consequentialist, in that one wants morality to provide a route to the best of all possible outcomes.

This is what moral philosophers mean by consequentialism:

Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act). (SEP)
​

It is not about outcomes, but rather about future-oriented consequences of acts which can in some way be measured and summed. So for example, when a deontologist claims that some act must be done in light of a duty, he is contradicting consequentialism, for the duty is not a consequence or effect of the act in question. Consequentialists might try to justify duties on the basis of bad consequences which occur when duties are neglected, but this is a very different justification than the deontologist gives.

 

[Strivax]

I think you have described a naive form of hedonism (which is great I'm a hedonist)

Hmmm. I am undecided at this point in time whether hedonism is amoral or immoral. Certainly it seems to lack the due regard of others which is the whole unselfish point of morality. What do you think?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Strivax]

This is what moral philosophers mean by consequentialism:

Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act). (SEP)
​

​

Thanks for that clarification. I still think morality is about the achievement of the best of all possible outcomes, however.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Astrid]

​

Thanks for that clarification. I still think morality is about the achievement of the best of all possible outcomes, however.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Self indulgence is the root of all evil

 

[Strivax]

Self indulgence is the root of all evil

And there was I thinking the root of all evil was the love of money! But I do not think morality requires of us that we completely disregard our well being, only that we consider the well being of others to be of equal weight to our own.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Strivax]

...So for example, when a deontologist claims that some act must be done in light of a duty, he is contradicting consequentialism...

But presumably if you pressed him, your deontologist would eventually have to admit that fulfilled duties contribute to, and are justified by, a good outcome.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[zippy2006]

But presumably if you pressed him, your deontologist would eventually have to admit that fulfilled duties contribute to, and are justified by, a good outcome.

No. Justifying a duty on the basis of the duty itself or on the basis of the good consequences of honoring the duty are two different things. A deontologist like Immanuel Kant would hold that the duty must be honored regardless of any good or bad consequences that it will bring about. Deontological schools simply do not justify duties on the basis of good consequences.

 

[Astrid]

And there was I thinking the root of all evil was the love of money! But I do not think morality requires of us that we completely disregard our well being, only that we consider the well being of others to be of equal weight to our own.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Greed is a subset of self indulgence