Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Strivax]

That there is a "best", far less an ultimate set
of values in no way logically follows.

I think it does. If you can rank ethical systems on a qualitative basis as some better than others, it surely follows that one of them is best of them all. Even if we disagree on what is best, that does not interfere with the logic of objectivity.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Astrid]

Agreed. But this only shows we have yet to achieve knowledge of the perfect morality of God. And even if we had, and knew we had, there remains the task of actually implementing it, which is a whole different can of worms, depending as it does on good character, spiritual stature and moral fibre.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Not agreed as i do notvrecognize the existence
of any god, nor of " perfection" as anything that
actually exists.
I wish Christianity did provide a better format for moral
behaviour.
Unfortunately, the sanctioning of atrocities is hardwired
into the Bible, as anyone who has read it has seen
for himself.
So I dont see any of this happenimg.

 

[Astrid]

I think it does. If you can rank ethical systems on a qualitative basis as some better than others, it surely follows that one of them is best of them all. Even if we disagree on what is best, that does not interfere with the logic of objectivity.

Best wishes, Strivax.

"If" is the word. What qualitative basis?
What numbers do you apply to measure quality?

And again, I expect Taliban quality and yours
may differ.

 

[Strivax]

I presume you are not a Taliban militant. If so, I expect that has something to do with your preference for a different moral code. You cannot measure quality by numbers (that is quantitative, not qualitative) only by appreciation, for which you need to be mentally adequate to make the appropriate judgement. None of this means all ethical systems are equal. For all I know, you may have a better grasp on morality than I do, and I need to improve, either in understanding, or in implementation. Your assistance, either way or both, would be appreciated, but so far, it seems to me, my logic remains intact.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Strivax]

I wish Christianity did provide a better format for moral
behaviour.
Unfortunately, the sanctioning of atrocities is hardwired
into the Bible, as anyone who has read it has seen
for himself.

That's why Jesus was sent, to correct the Jews of His time, and provide an example for us all to follow.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Astrid]

I presume you are not a Taliban militant. If so, I expect that has something to do with your preference for a different moral code. You cannot measure quality by numbers (that is quantitative, not qualitative) only by appreciation, for which you need to be mentally adequate to make the appropriate judgement. None of this means all ethical systems are equal. For all I know, you may have a better grasp on morality than I do, and I need to improve, either in understanding, or in implementation. Your assistance, either way or both, would be appreciated, but so far, it seems to me, my logic remains intact.


Best wishes, Strivax.

Well yes, i kinda said you cant put metrics to quality.
Darn difficult to even say what quality is.
I mention talibans as an example of how
ethics / morality are largely a matter of opinion.

The ideac of discreet sets of moral principles
that can be objectively ranked as to what is
" better" or has more " quality" leading toward
"best" isnt merely illogical, its absurd.
What objective standards are there for "quality" of values?
" Measure by appreciation" lacks standard units.
Or, ftm, any meaning I am aware of.

If you know, i can learn it. I extremely doubt you do know.

 

[Astrid]

That's why Jesus was sent, to correct the Jews of His time, and provide an example for us all to follow.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Jesus was sent by God to say that God
had been doing things wrong and not
to follow His examples of whats ok to,do?

 

[Strivax]

Jesus was sent by God to say that God
had been doing things wrong and not
to follow His examples of whats ok to,do?

No, Jesus was sent by God to say (among much else) that He was not just the warrior king of the primitive bronze age Jews, but the loving Father of all mankind.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Strivax]

Well yes, i kinda said you cant put metrics to quality.
Darn difficult to even say what quality is.
I mention talibans as an example of how
ethics / morality are largely a matter of opinion.

The ideac of discreet sets of moral principles
that can be objectively ranked as to what is
" better" or has more " quality" leading toward
"best" isnt merely illogical, its absurd.
What objective standards are there for "quality" of values?
" Measure by appreciation" lacks standard units.
Or, ftm, any meaning I am aware of.

If you know, i can learn it. I extremely doubt you do know.

I can't define quality, or what makes some object include more quality than others. But ask any violinist whether they would prefer a Stradivarius to any other fiddle. Or, why collectors might prefer an original Picasso to a copy. For example.

I am sure, if you put your mind to it, you will be able to come up with similar transcending examples of quality.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Astrid]

I can't define quality, or what makes some object include more quality than others. But ask any violinist whether they would prefer a Stradivarius to any other fiddle. Or, why collectors might prefer an original Picasso to a copy. For example. I am sure, if you put your mind to it, you will be able to come up with similar transcending examples of quality.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Of course.

Maybe too you can figure out how to rank
Bach v Beethoven or violin v piano.

Or whether dogs are better than cats.

I think it would ( probably) be wonderful if
such as by a loving god, we really could have
universal true morality. But.

 

[Astrid]

No, Jesus was sent by God to say (among much else) that He was not just the warrior king of the primitive bronze age Jews, but the loving Father of all mankind.

Best wishes, 2RM.

So perfect objective morality changed?

 

[Strivax]

So perfect objective morality changed?

No, just human approximations to it. But to go back now to my original intervention, do you think paedophilia is objectively wrong, or just a matter of sexual preference?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Astrid]

No, just human approximations to it. But to go back now to my original intervention, do you think paedophilia is objectively wrong, or just a matter of sexual preference?

Best wishes, Strivax.

Lets try this.
My experience in the hands of a sadistic rapist.
He so obviously enjoyed tormenting me.

Well

I guess I dont want to pursue that, but-

Just, it is very hard, imo impossible to think of
any GENERAL rule, one that is universally applicable.

Sure, specific cases. What that guy did was terrible.
" dont do that to her"

But how do you have a general rule that just saysays,
"dont rape", or "dont steal" and declare it a
mortal sin?

How would you write it?

 

[Strivax]

Uh huh. Generally speaking John Stuart Mill's harm principle works for me. He thought that everything should be permitted, so long as no harm is done to anyone. So in the case of paedophilia, the child is harmed, sometimes physically, but almost always emotionally and psychologically. So it makes sense to outlaw the practice.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Astrid]

Uh huh. Generally speaking John Stuart Mill's harm principle works for me. He thought that everything should be permitted, so long as no harm is done to anyone. So in the case of paedophilia, the child is harmed, sometimes physically, but almost always emotionally and psychologically. So it makes sense to outlaw the practice.

Best wishes, Strivax.

So like " earnestly try to minimize harm to others"

 

[Strivax]

So like " earnestly try to minimize harm to others"

Yes, if you want. So if the harm is objective, why should a moral code that prevents it, not be?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Astrid]

Yes, if you want. So if the harm is objective, why should a moral code that prevents it, not be?

Best wishes, Strivax.

What do you mean, " objective ".

 

[Strivax]

Uh huh. Subjective is whatever you and I might happen to think. Objective is what actually is, whatever anyone thinks. Generally, subjective judgements cannot be verified in any way, where as objective facts can be, by observation.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Astrid]

Uh huh. Subjective is whatever you and I might happen to think. Objective is what actually is, whatever anyone thinks. Generally, subjective judgements cannot be verified in any way, where as objective facts can be, by observation.

Best wishes, Strivax.

So like its objectively wrong to hit someone with a baseball bat

 

[Strivax]

Ha ha! Unless they have hit you with one first! Then one is in the realm of minimising harm, rather than preventing it outright.

But I am less concerned by the faults and failures of individuals, than the faults and failures of the powers that be; corporations and governments. They seem to me to be far more inclined to cause harm, and greater harm, than a thug with a baseball bat. If you doubt this, I would merely cite the invasion of the Ukraine.

But essentially yes, I would hold that that it is objectively wrong to wield baseball bats, or hand guns, or AK47 assault rifles, with the intention of causing harm. And if we all thought that way, we might live in a fairer, kinder, safer world. Until that time comes, we need to defend ourselves, and each other.

Best wishes, Strivax.