Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Ana the Ist]

I just checked and currently more than 20% of the posts in the thread are Ana's.

I tend to have that effect when I go unreported (justifiable or not).

Since his first post at #200, he has posted over 32% of the replies.

I'm as shocked as you are zippy....

Which of the two survey options do you think Orel is representing? I'd have sworn you thought it was #2...he claimed earlier it was #1....I don't think he's willing to commit to either at this point.

Which is funny...because I pointed out it's a false dichotomy like several other posters did. He's contradicted himself so many times I'd be surprised if you had any confidence that you know his position.

Welcome to the internet age, where there is nothing in the box but packing peanuts.

Sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers to offer their views except me they should save themselves the time, ask what I think, and adjust their opinions accordingly.

 

[Moral Orel]

You know what... nevermind. You think making an argument is just saying stuff and seeing how you feel about it, okay. Let's leave it at that.

 

[Chriliman]

The problem he's talking about is that folks we call good, do nice things and feel good about it. So we can't say that they did it and got nothing in return. That good feeling is something they get out of it.

I don’t see anywhere in the definition of altruism that one shouldn’t feel any certain way about being altruistic.

 

[Chriliman]

If rational arguments don't describe reality, then there are no true conclusions to any rational arguments.

Well said. The basis of objective truth/morality. Making rational arguments that accurately describe reality is good behavior.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don’t see anywhere in the definition of altruism that one shouldn’t feel any certain way about being altruistic.

Well, altruism is supposed to be "selfless". But that good feeling you get is your reward. If you get something, anything for you, then it isn't selfless.

 

[Chriliman]

Well, altruism is supposed to be "selfless". But that good feeling you get is your reward. If you get something, anything for you, then it isn't selfless.

I see your point, but I think it’s the initial act that’s selfless/altruistic without regard of any reward. IOW, you didn’t do it for the reward.

 

[Moral Orel]

I see your point, but I think it’s the initial act that’s selfless/altruistic without regard of any reward. IOW, you didn’t do it for the reward.

Is it possible for there to be no regard of a reward? I dunno... On some level, you always know that doing good stuff makes you feel good.

I don't think this even creates a problem for Christians though. If the Christian God is real, whatever your "conscience is", God made it, and He built in rewards for doing things that are good because He is just. Meh. What's wrong about that?

I mean other than the problem of God not existing...

 

[zippy2006]

Just because a reward is given does not mean that one must have acted for that reward. Most altruists would say that although they receive a reward, they would have acted in the same way even if there were no reward.

The deeper question is whether we can act without an intended, desired end. Such conversations will probably come down to defining what counts as a reward. The altruist would perhaps say that, "A good deed is its own reward."

 

[Moral Orel]

Just because a reward is given does not mean that one must have acted for that reward. Most altruists would say that although they receive a reward, they would have acted in the same way even if there were no reward.

Yeah, but they only say that because they get a good feeling from thinking that about themselves.

But seriously, that would be a difficult thing to know about yourself, wouldn't it? If you always get a good feeling from doing a good deed, how would you know that you'd keep doing good deeds if the good feelings stopped? I can't really fathom understanding how you would act if you were a totally different person.

Also, what did you think of my dabbling in Christian Apologetics there? Pretty good, huh?

 

[durangodawood]

Well, altruism is supposed to be "selfless". But that good feeling you get is your reward. If you get something, anything for you, then it isn't selfless.

Its the motive that defines altruism, not the various after effects.

 

[zippy2006]

But seriously, that would be a difficult thing to know about yourself, wouldn't it? If you always get a good feeling from doing a good deed, how would you know that you'd keep doing good deeds if the good feelings stopped? I can't really fathom understanding how you would act if you were a totally different person.

Here is a quote from Hadot I recently read. The chapter is on Socrates:

"An unexamined life is not livable for man." Here we find a kind of sketch--still confused and indistinct--of an idea which would be developed later, in the context of a wholly different problematic, by Kant: morality hinges on the purity of the intent which guides action. Such purity consists precisely in giving absolute value to the moral good, and totally renouncing one's individual interest.

Pierre Hadot, What is Ancient Philosophy?, 35-6​

Also, what did you think of my dabbling in Christian Apologetics there? Pretty good, huh?

Not too bad.

This concept that Kant accentuates is probably more comprehensible in its pedagogical form. Instructing children in morality usually entails giving them sensual rewards when they do good, such as candies. Aquinas explicitly appeals to a pedagogical function when explaining the temporal promises and threats of the Old Testament law (ST I-II.99.6).

I think most would admit that our motives for doing good should be refined as we mature (Matthew 6:1). The limit case involves people like Socrates or Jesus, who did the right thing even when they knew it would result in death, embracing a paradox (John 12:25).

In Kant's formulation it is not moral to act on the basis of a feeling. Presumably he would say that doing what is morally right often does bring with it a pleasurable feeling, but the one who acts only for the sake of that feeling is not acting morally.

With regard to altruism, everything depends on how we define it. Hadot is not speaking about altruism, but he is careful to use the term "individual interest."

 

[Ana the Ist]

I see your point, but I think it’s the initial act that’s selfless/altruistic without regard of any reward. IOW, you didn’t do it for the reward.

Those firemen running into a burning and collapsing tower on 9/11??

They did it for that oh so selfish "feel good feeling" that they must have felt as they did it....

And if you buy that there's a bridge I'd like to sell you...

 

[Ana the Ist]

You know what... nevermind.

How many threads have you been doing this in??? Seriously....how many??

You think making an argument is

Depends on the topic.

saying stuff and seeing how you feel about it, okay. Let's leave it at that.

I'll admit...when you kept fixating on the "formal logical argument" all I could think was....why? That won't prove/demonstrate anything. He's claiming that he can demonstrate something.

It never occurred to me that you didn't know what a formal logical argument describes.

 

[Moral Orel]

It never occurred to me that you didn't know what a formal logical argument describes.

I think your aspersions on being logical would ring less hollow if you hadn't already failed a few attempts at writing a formal argument, and then failed to make them valid, and then failed to understand why it wasn't valid. But now, after all your failures, you just sound like a kid who flunked math and dropped out of high school saying, "Pfft! Math is stupid anyways, it's not like anyone even uses Algebra!".

I called it right at the beginning of our discussion. Amateur hour. It's simply above your level of comprehension, and that's okay. Accept your limitations.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think your aspersions on being logical would ring less hollow if you hadn't already failed a few attempts at writing a formal argument,

Again, I never needed one. I never claimed to be able to prove a moral judgment is true.

My only claim was that your assertion in the survey and subsequent posts is false.

and then failed to make them valid, and then failed to understand why it wasn't valid. But now, after all your failures, you just sound like a kid who flunked math and dropped out of high school saying, "Pfft! Math is stupid anyways, it's not like anyone even uses Algebra!".

I called it right at the beginning of our discussion. Amateur hour. It's simply above your level of comprehension, and that's okay. Accept your limitations.

Ad hominems.

Let's take a look at the survey...

1. I prefer things because they are moral.
2. Things are moral because I prefer them.

In both we can substitute "behavior" for "things" because we make moral judgements about behavior. Option 1 is true if moral judgment of a behavior causes preference for that behavior. Option 2 is true if preference for a behavior causes moral judgment for that behavior.

Showing #1 false doesn't mean #2 is true...nor does showing #2 false mean #1 is true.

At no point do you express any of this in formal logical argumentation...you don't need too. It's two premises and an inferred conclusion that there exists a causal relationship between preferences and morals.

The obvious counter argument is that if a preference for a behavior doesn't match the moral judgment of a behavior....your argument is false.

I stated this argument as simply as possible....and you immediately said that my argument simply couldn't be true.

The garbage example alone satisfies my counter argument.

You abandoned your position long before I gave that example though. You're now claiming that you can imagine a preference causing a moral judgment....lol.

Everything else has been you flailing away trying to avoid admitting your survey is wrong. You need a third option.

 

[Moral Orel]

Again, I never needed one.

But you tried anyways.

I never claimed to be able to prove a moral judgment is true.

You thought your arguments were valid. You think a claim is an argument.

Deflecting that you don't need a valid argument because I pointed out that you tried, failed, and didn't understand why is sad.

At no point do you express any of this in formal logical argumentation...you don't need too. It's two premises and an inferred conclusion that there exists a causal relationship between preferences and morals.

I don't detail my argument, no. I tried to give you a demonstration, but you would have to be capable of forming a valid argument to get the point of it all.

The premise for the dilemma itself is that if you think it is moral, then you prefer it. M -> P That is true for both options. You dispute this claim, and you are wrong.

If you say "X is good" or "I do value X" or "I do want X" or "I do desire X" then a preference for X over ~X can be deduced.
X is good ~X is ~good
I do value X I do not value ~X
I do want X I do not want ~X
I do desire X I do not desire ~X

M -> P stands.

The obvious counter argument is that if a preference for a behavior doesn't match the moral judgment of a behavior....your argument is false.

I stated this argument as simply as possible....and you immediately said that my argument simply couldn't be true.

The garbage example alone satisfies my counter argument.

The garbage example does not.

You say "X is good".
I deduce that you prefer X over ~X.

I do not imagine any preferences that you might have which are your reasons for concluding "X is good", I don't need to. You state a preference by stating that a thing is good. It is inherent in the word "good".

So you say "Taking out the trash is good".
I deduce that you prefer the trash be taken out over the trash not be taken out.

I do not need to imagine that you hate smelly garbage.
I do not need to imagine that you like seeing garbage being moved about.
Those aren't the preferences I deduced. This is where you imagined that I imagined something.

You say, "But if the trash is being taken out, and I am the one doing it, then I don't prefer that".
Fine, but that has no bearing on your preference for the act itself.
This says that you prefer ~X over (X and Y) Y = "I am the one doing it".
It is a different and irrelevant preference.
You prefer X over ~X, and you prefer ~X over (X and Y) These can both be true, so you have refuted nothing. (X and Y) is a wholly separate proposition from X.

As Zippy told you, if you want to show that you think X is good, but you have no preference for X, then you must not care if X occurs at all ever or you must prefer that X does not occur.

None of what I have said here is an argument for which poll choice is accurate. All of this only concerns M -> P

You abandoned your position long before I gave that example though. You're now claiming that you can imagine a preference causing a moral judgment

I continue to maintain my position that (2) is accurate as I have throughout this thread. I made no such claim. You imagined that I did.

Everything else has been you flailing away trying to avoid admitting your survey is wrong. You need a third option.

What is that third option?

 

[Ana the Ist]

But you tried anyways.

You thought your arguments were valid. You think a claim is an argument.

For some reason you wanted me to make a claim that had nothing to do with my argument.

Deflecting that you don't need a valid argument because I pointed out that you tried, failed, and didn't understand why is sad.

I tried...succeeded...then you switched the request 3 times.

Even when I gave you a statement in formal logical argumentation you had to concede the word good held multiple meanings.

Then you asked me to start excluding meanings and stick with one of your choice.

I don't detail my argument, no. I tried to give you a demonstration, but you would have to be capable of forming a valid argument to get the point of it all.

Demonstration of what?

If I write a formal argument excluding all reasons for a moral judgment except "preferences"....you'll do what exactly with that?

The premise for the dilemma itself is that if you think it is moral, then you prefer it.

Ergo I shouldn't have any moral judgement of a behavior that conflicts with my preference for the behavior.

And we're back to the garbage example.

If you say "X is good" or "I do value X" or "I do want X" or "I do desire X" then a preference for X over ~X can be deduced.

"X is good" isn't the same as "X is morally good."

There's multiple meanings for "good".

The garbage example does not.

Yet you can't say why.

You say "X is good".
I deduce that you prefer X over ~X.

Again....multiple meanings for "good".

I do not imagine any preferences that you might have which are your reasons for concluding "X is good", I don't need to. You state a preference by stating that a thing is good. It is inherent in the word "good".

A moral judgment isn't a statement of preference.

You aren't deducing anything lol you're just ignoring the fact that moral statements can be based on things other than preferences.

So you say "Taking out the trash is good".
I deduce that you prefer the trash be taken out over the trash not be taken out.

Or I don't.

I do not need to imagine that you hate smelly garbage.
I do not need to imagine that you like seeing garbage being moved about.
Those aren't the preferences I deduced. This is where you imagined that I imagined something.

Maybe I prefer to impress my guest with clean home....maybe prefer to end the cockroach infestation....who knows?

When your imagination is the limit...you can't know what is true and what isn't.

Did you really think this is how logical deduction works?

You see the problem now....right?

The preferences I imagine are just as "valid' as the ones you imagined. We aren't deducing anything. You're just imagining causes and describing them as preferences.

You say, "But if the trash is being taken out, and I am the one doing it, then I don't prefer that".

Well we are talking about my preferences....aren't we?

Do I prefer to take out the trash or not?

Fine, but that has no bearing on your preference for the act itself.

As I've already said half a dozen times...

I'm not a moral objectivist. I can't make a statement about the behavior that applies to everyone under every possible circumstance.

I can make it about myself. If you give me a certain amount of information....I might be able to make it about someone else.

It is a different and irrelevant preference.

How can you prefer a behavior in of itself?

What in the world would you prefer it to?

Why would you have a preference at all if you aren't involved?

As Zippy told you, if you want to show that you think X is good, but you have no preference for X, then you must not care if X occurs at all ever or you must prefer that X does not occur.

As I told Zippy and you....I'm not an objectivist.

None of what I have said here is an argument for which poll choice is accurate. All of this only concerns M -> P

I continue to maintain my position that (2) is accurate as I have throughout this thread. I made no such claim. You imagined that I did.

What is that third option?

Both are false...You've pretty adequately demonstrated that the preference doesn't exist apart from me.

 

[Moral Orel]

I tried...succeeded

Awww, little buddy, I know you think that. But those of us who know what we're doing know you didn't.

Then you asked me to start excluding meanings and stick with one of your choice.

I did steer you back to the topic of morality. That is the subject of the thread and the sub forum you're in. Do you know where you are?


You screwed up your quote tags again.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yet you can't say why.

Except I did exactly that and you snipped it out.
You prefer X over ~X, and you prefer ~X over (X and Y).

Or I don't.

You do. Good is better than bad. However you're using "good" that is always true. You are arguing that sometimes bad is better than good; that it's all random; that there's no relation between "bad" and "good". That's ridiculous. Your position is ridiculous.

Maybe I prefer to impress my guest with clean home....maybe prefer to end the cockroach infestation....who knows?

When your imagination is the limit...you can't know what is true and what isn't.

Did you really think this is how logical deduction works?

You see the problem now....right?

The preferences I imagine are just as "valid' as the ones you imagined. We aren't deducing anything. You're just imagining causes and describing them as preferences.

I didn't say anything about what the cause for what your preference is. Learn to read.

"None of what I have said here is an argument for which poll choice is accurate. All of this only concerns M -> P"​

As I told Zippy and you....I'm not an objectivist.

As I've already said half a dozen times...

I'm not a moral objectivist. I can't make a statement about the behavior that applies to everyone under every possible circumstance.

You don't know the difference between "objective" and "absolute".

1. How can you prefer a behavior in of itself?

2. What in the world would you prefer it to?

3. Why would you have a preference at all if you aren't involved?

1. The same way you judge a behavior in and of itself.
2. You prefer its occurrence to its non-occurrence.
3. You can prefer other people do things too.

Both are false...

Sure, sure, because maybe "bad" is better than "good", uh huh.

What's the third option? (One dodge so far)

 

[Ana the Ist]

Awww, little buddy, I know you think that. But those of us who know what we're doing know you didn't.

Awww...want me to start pulling quotes?

I did steer you back to the topic of morality. That is the subject of the thread and the sub forum you're in.

Oh good...we agreed that I fulfilled the request....you just wanted good in a different context.

Did you think someone can't base morality on utility?