Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Ana the Ist]

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

Which doesn't mean anything as a moral judgment.

How can I prefer X over ~X?

Name one moral behavior you prefer in of itself?

You do.

I don't.

Good is better than bad.

Different meaning of "good".

However you're using "good" that is always true.

No....I'm not. I'm describing a behavior that I can perform.

You are arguing that sometimes bad is better than good;

No...pay attention.

I'm arguing that it's moral of me to do something I hate....something I don't prefer.

it's all random; that there's no relation between "bad" and "good".

No relationship between preferences and morals....not really.

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

Yeah....you did.

Do you want me to quote you regarding a tolerance for trash?

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

You said you lean towards #2.

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

I'm just using the common parlance of this forum. I asked if you wanted me to get more specific earlier. You declined.

1. The same way you judge a behavior in and of itself.

I don't...and I doubt you do either.

2. You prefer its occurrence to its non-occurrence.

Why? Why would I prefer any behavior in of itself? If I remove it entirely from any sort of circumstances...I can't even make a moral judgment about it.

3. You can prefer other people do things too.

It's not "in of itself" at that point.

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

See my previous post.

 

[Moral Orel]

Awww...want me to start pulling quotes?

lol Yes, please! Put your invalid arguments that you think are valid back on display! I would love that!

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

Sure. And that which brings about ends you seek is better than that which doesn't.

 

[gaara4158]

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

I struggle to come up with a motive that doesn’t somehow serve the interest of the altruist, though. Even if they’re not the direct recipient of the good they’re doing, they’re doing it because they wanted that good thing to happen, right?

 

[Ana the Ist]

lol Yes, please! Put your invalid arguments that you think are valid back on display! I would love that!

Post #491 I think....

Sure. And that which brings about ends you seek is better than that which doesn't.

Sure...and all your preferences can be described as means to ends. Again, imagination is fun but it doesn't actually describe reality.

 

[Moral Orel]

Post #491 I think....

What about your invalid argument would you like to discuss?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What about your invalid argument would you like to discuss?

Lol the part that makes it invalid...

Keep in mind I'm not claiming knowledge, I'm claiming belief...

And I deliberately left out a premise....since you claimed that there's almost always a hidden premise lol.

If you manage to do that....be sure to include how this helps you out in any way, because I'm seeing it. Apparently, we're done with this "Moral behavior in of itself" nonsense.

 

[Moral Orel]

Lol the part that makes it invalid...

I already explained that. Why do I have to do it again? You don't understand my explanation, because you don't understand how to make a valid argument.

Keep in mind I'm not claiming knowledge, I'm claiming belief...

I don't know what distinction you're trying to draw. Like you want to make it inductive or abductive instead of deductive? You can change things to say "is most likely" instead of "is", that won't make a difference.

And I deliberately left out a premise

You're admitting it's missing a premise and claiming that it's valid. Okaaaayyy....

If you manage to do that....be sure to include how this helps you out in any way, because I'm seeing it. Apparently, we're done with this "Moral behavior in of itself"

Well, ya... I mean there ain't much point in arguing with illogical folk, right?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I already explained that. Why do I have to do it again? You don't understand my explanation, because you don't understand how to make a valid argument.

You said something about matching verbs....which isn't necessary at all.

I don't know what distinction you're trying to draw. Like you want to make it inductive or abductive instead of deductive? You can change things to say "is most likely" instead of "is", that won't make a difference.

I'm pointing out that the premises aren't truth claims.

You're admitting it's missing a premise and claiming that it's valid. Okaaaayyy....

Do you want me to quote you regarding the "hidden premises"?

If you believe they are there, it's better I include/hide them then let you imagine them.

Well, ya... I mean there ain't much point in arguing with illogical folk, right?

I still have no idea why you brought this up...

You clearly want me to make an argument that has nothing to do with my position.

You clearly want it in formal logic despite not writing any formal logic argument of your own.

Again...why don't you write out whatever argument you want me to take, then explain why it's wrong....

At least it will feel like a win.

 

[Moral Orel]

You said something about matching verbs....which isn't necessary at all.

It is. I know you don't understand that.

I'm pointing out that the premises aren't truth claims.

Huh? Really? We gotta look at it again:

Premise 1-I believe performing ones job well can be described morally good.
Premise 2-I believe things exist which are too small to see with the naked eye.
Premise 3-I believe microscopes allow very small things to be seen.

You don't know what your own beliefs are?

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is. I know you don't understand that.

There's no requirement in formal logic that the main premise share the same verb as the conclusion.

Huh? Really? We gotta look at it again:

Go ahead.

Premise 1-I believe performing ones job well can be described morally good.
Premise 2-I believe things exist which are too small to see with the naked eye.
Premise 3-I believe microscopes allow very small things to be seen.

You don't know what your own beliefs are?

None of those statements can be proven true.

 

[Moral Orel]

There's no requirement in formal logic that the main premise share the same verb as the conclusion.

sigh... You have to relate your premises to your conclusion to form a valid argument. Describing a thing is not related to what a thing is. "Describe" and "is" are not related.

None of those statements can be proven true.

So you don't know that you believe things exist which are too small to see with the naked eye. You don't know what your own beliefs are. Ridiculous.

 

[Ana the Ist]

sigh... You have to relate your premises to your conclusion to form a valid argument. Describing a thing is not related to what a thing is. "Describe" and "is" are not related.

One is a claim a moral judgment can be made.

The other is the moral judgment being made.

So you don't know that you believe things exist which are too small to see with the naked eye. You don't know what your own beliefs are. Ridiculous.

I wouldn't be able to prove any of these beliefs even to a relative degree.

I know what my beliefs are....that's not the point.

 

[Moral Orel]

One is a claim a moral judgment can be made.

The other is the moral judgment being made.

One is a claim that you believe a moral judgement can be made.
The other is a claim that you believe it is good.

You can describe anything anyway you please. It isn't related to "good" in your conclusion because it would still be true even if you changed it to "bad". It is so trivially true it is irrelevant. Like this argument:

P1 Dogs can be described as amphibians
P2 Every dog is a mammal
P3 Spot is a dog
C Spot is a mammal

P1 is true, and so is C even though "Some dogs are amphibians" is false. If P1 was false, then C would still be true. It's a wholly irrelevant premise that the conclusion does not follow from.

that's not the point.

The point is that just because you believe in some list of things, it does not logically follow that you hold some other belief, so your argument full of "I believe" statements is invalid. Cognitive dissonance is a real thing, and folks who are illogical are often prey to it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

One is a claim that you believe a moral judgement can be made.

Right.

The other is a claim that you believe it is good.

Wrong...that's the only moral judgement you're considering....remember?

X is good.

Also, you gotta put in the hidden premise. I don't want you trying to claim it later.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Cognitive dissonance is a real thing, and folks who are illogical are often prey to it.

You've done a fine job demonstrating this...no need to remind anyone.

It's not like you put your position in formal logic. Nor did you ask the multiple other posters to do the same.

You aren't even asking me to do it. I'm not arguing for a moral position.

 

[Ana the Ist]

One is a claim that you believe a moral judgement can be made.
The other is a claim that you believe it is good.

Right.

You can describe anything anyway you please.

Thank goodness.

It isn't related to "good" in your conclusion because it would still be true even if you changed it to "bad".

Uhhhh....I can't change it bad.

You asked for a formal logical argument where "X is good".

P1 is true,

It isn't true though. You can mistakenly describe dogs as amphibians...but amphibians and dogs have meanings as words.

If P1 was false, then C would still be true. It's a wholly irrelevant premise that the conclusion does not follow from.

In your example maybe....but it's not obvious that you can describe any behavior according to morality.

Hence P1 in my example.

If you are completely lost driving in the dark and come to a T shaped intersection...can I describe your choices in a moral manner? Sure. Would it make even a little bit of sense to do si? No....not even a little. It exists without any direct effect on others and no obvious effect on us. To say the left turn is the morally good choice is absurd.

Now, if you want to add the word "valid" in front of "moral judgement" in P1 if it really bothers you.

Now what exactly did you intend on demonstrating here?

Cognitive dissonance is a real thing, and folks who are illogical are often prey to it.

Yeah you showed that with your slave prefers slavery argument and what I can only assume is the following argument where the slave sees slavery as moral.

You haven even made a formal logical argument for your position....not to mention you don't understand a valid one from invalid one.

As if it couldn't get worse...you think you can deduce preferences, then just inject them into another person's argument.

Regardless, you can take the above formal argument, reword it, reconstruct it, and rewrite it any way you want. I'm tired of waiting for you to prove whatever it is you want to prove. Let's see it already....quit stalling.

 

[Chriliman]

I struggle to come up with a motive that doesn’t somehow serve the interest of the altruist, though. Even if they’re not the direct recipient of the good they’re doing, they’re doing it because they wanted that good thing to happen, right?

Right, but like I said earlier; nowhere in the definition of altruism does it say the altruist can’t want what they’re doing.

 

[Moral Orel]

Oh man, @Ana the Ist You're losing it.

Orel: The other is a claim that you believe it is good.
Ana: Wrong...
(later and to the same quote)
Ana: Right.
Orel:

I could use the quote feature, but I've noticed that when I quote you, you don't read your own quote to see what I'm responding to. So I cut & pasted (no paraphrasing here) just so it would be clear. You're off your rocker, bro. But that's what happens when people embrace being illogical I guess. And right after I brought up "cognitive dissonance", ba-zing!

It isn't true though. You can mistakenly describe dogs as amphibians...but amphibians and dogs have meanings as words.

It is true though. Watch:
Dogs are amphibians. There, I just described dogs as amphibians, so you can describe dogs as amphibians.
Neither of our premises qualify "describe" with the word "accurate" so they are both trivially true.

In your example maybe....but it's not obvious that you can describe any behavior according to morality.

Again, sure you can.
Walking is morally bad. There, I just described "walking" according to morality.
Your premise is trivially true and irrelevant. Your further premises don't "satisfy" your original premise, because it's already true no matter what you're describing and how you describe it.

not to mention you don't understand a valid one from invalid one.

This is why we aren't progressing to the rest of my argument because you haven't realized you're incorrect. You never will, I suspect, so the argument won't progress. Why would it if you don't understand the basics?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh man, @Ana the Ist You're losing it.

Nah.

Orel: The other is a claim that you believe it is good.
Ana: Wrong...

This is me reminding you that it's a hypothetical. It doesn't matter what I actually think. You requested a moral argument where X is good.

I don't get to choose between good and bad, I can only describe it as good.

So yes, in the argument I describe it as good, that's by your choice though....not mine.
(later and to the same quote)
Ana: Right.
Orel:

It is true though. Watch:
Dogs are amphibians. There, I just described dogs as amphibians, so you can describe dogs as amphibians.

Lol no...that's a categorical claim of fact. It's false.

You can describe dogs....or you can describe amphibians.....but you can't describe dogs as amphibians without describing a creature that doesn't exist.

Moral judgments are descriptive....not categorical.

Again, sure you can.
Walking is morally bad. There, I just described "walking" according to morality.
Your premise is trivially true and irrelevant.

There we go...is that the first time you expressed a strictly moral value? Aka morally good or morally bad?

If I go back through each page....I bet this is the first time, isn't it? You're position requires ambiguity. That's how you keep conflating preferences and morals.

Regardless....do you think that sentence makes sense to anyone? Does anyone understand what you mean when you say walking is morally bad?

i doubt it. If you simply wrote "walking is bad"....no one here would think you were taking a moral stance on walking. Why do you think that is?

Your further premises don't "satisfy" your original premise, because it's already true no matter what you're describing and how you describe it.

Well you insisted upon multiple premises. I told you they weren't necessary.

This is why we aren't progressing to the rest of my argument because you haven't realized you're incorrect. You never will, I suspect, so the argument won't progress. Why would it if you don't understand the basics?

I've offered you carte blanche to make your argument. Be my guest. Reword my argument anyway you please.

You aren't going to....for the same reason you kept moving the goalposts.

You're hoping to avoid your argument at all costs.

 

[Moral Orel]

Lol no...that's a categorical claim of fact. It's false.

Yes, that statement is false, but I still made it. I still described dogs as amphibians because I can. Do you know what "can" means?

Your P1 is irrelevant. The P1 I gave you is necessary for your argument to be valid. I'm not going to keep explaining it to you when it's clearly gone over your head. But I will let you keep making erroneous claims to validity. By all means, keep making a fool of yourself.

Well you insisted upon multiple premises. I told you they weren't necessary.

They are necessary to make a valid argument. You don't get that because you have no idea what you're doing. Telling you that you need more premises was me telling you why your argument is invalid.

This is why I said you're not on our level. You're arguing about things you do not understand. Every post from you continues to demonstrate that, but you don't know enough to realize it. That or you have realized it, and you think you can debate your way out of admitting it.

I've offered you carte blanche to make your argument. Be my guest. Reword my argument anyway you please.

You aren't going to....for the same reason you kept moving the goalposts.

You're hoping to avoid your argument at all costs.

If you acknowledge that you don't know how to do logic and when it comes to being logical you don't have a clue what you're talking about, then I'll show you the whole point in all of this. But after you've failed so miserably thus far, I won't listen to you spout a bunch of new nonsense on how logic works.