Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Sabertooth]

To me its enough to say that morality is objectively a feature of human culture.

Human cultures vary. Morality that is so defined would be subjective and, ultimately, irrelevant.

It doesnt have to be some rules "out there" in the universe or in the mind of an eternal being.

My response kept with the OP's caveat of not considering God's influence.

 

[durangodawood]

Human cultures vary. Morality that is so defined would be subjective and, ultimately, irrelevant.

My response kept with the OP's caveat of not considering God's influence.

Things that vary cannot be objective?

I never knew that stability or universality was a requirement for objectivity.

 

[Sabertooth]

Things that vary cannot be objective?

Is "honor" killing murder or not?
Subjective/cultural morality says one thing.
Objective morality seems like it says another.

Which should prevail?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Human cultures vary. Morality that is so defined would be subjective and, ultimately, irrelevant.

Human cultures do vary and so do their moralities. Morality is then subjective, but how is it irrelevant?

 

[durangodawood]

Is "honor" killing murder or not?
Subjective/cultural morality says one thing.
Objective morality seems like it says another.

Which should prevail?

Moral codes are an objective feature of human culture.

As for the feelings of "right" or "wrong". Those occur in the human mind/heart.

If there's some other thing youre asking about, what is it?

 

[durangodawood]

Human cultures do vary and so do their moralities. Morality is then subjective, but how is it irrelevant?

Et tu?

"Vehicle speeds vary. Speed is then subjective". Thats how your reasoning sounds to me.

 

[Sabertooth]

...but how is it irrelevant?

Because such a morality would be dependent on the jurisdiction where one resides, and no one answer (arising from the internet) would satisfy the OP (which presumes an objective response).

 

[Sabertooth]

If there's some other thing youre asking about, what is it?

I was giving an example of an anomalous cultural standard for morality.

 

[durangodawood]

I was giving an example of an anomalous cultural standard for morality.

How are anomalous or cultural things not objective?

 

[Sabertooth]

How are anomalous or cultural things not objective?

Are you defending honor killing as a valid form of morality in the cultures where it occurs...?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Et tu?

"Vehicle speeds vary. Speed is then subjective". Thats how your reasoning sounds to me.

Vehicle speeds can be measured by an outside observer. (Of course for the driver, the passenger, and the passer-by the speed is somewhat subjective. If you want objectivity you need an instrument like a speedometer or radar gun.)

The claim I replied to was "Human cultures vary. Morality that is so defined would be subjective and, ultimately, irrelevant." (in reply to you actually this statement was). I was questioning the claim of irrelevancy primarily, but also questioning the existence of some sort of inter-cultural reference standard for measurement of morality.

 

[durangodawood]

Are you defending honor killing as a valid form of morality in the cultures where it occurs...?

You seem to propose we can designate things as subjective if they are "anomalous" or "cultural". To me that makes no sense.

Rareness or even uniqueness doesnt render a thing subjective. Nor does variability. You need to justify your "subjective" designation some other way. How will you do that?

 

[Sabertooth]

How will you do that?

Answers based on idiogenic morality cannot satisfy the OP.

 

[durangodawood]

....but also questioning the existence of some sort of inter-cultural reference standard for measurement of morality.

These exist. We have various pre-cultural values that are biologically baked-in. Lots of morality emerges from those values. We see certain moral trends that look very similar across cultures. There's some variability, but if those species level values get badly violated consistently, the culture collapses.

 

[durangodawood]

Answers based on idiogenic morality cannot satisfy the OP.

I had to look that up. And I agree. I dont think any cultures formulate morality without cause. But I dont see the relevance to the OP question.

To put it in OP paraphrase terms:
Some things which I prefer, I prefer them because my culture found cause to call those things moral, and conditioned me to feel they are right or wrong.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Because such a morality would be dependent on the jurisdiction where one resides, and no one answer (arising from the internet) would satisfy the OP (which presumes an objective response).

An objective morality certainly would permit one to take the first answer in the poll (and the second answer is effectively a declaration of personal morality triumphant obviating objective morality), but I don't think that an objective morality is needed to even answer with the first selection. Certainly the first item could be selected if that morality which causes you to prefer something is a local cultural moral norm. (For example, the honor killings mentioned above. Someone could like them because they are considered moral in their culture.)

 

[Sabertooth]

Someone could like them because they are considered moral in their culture.

Does their acceptance in a given culture justify them?

 

[durangodawood]

Does their acceptance in a given culture justify them?

The OP asked about "prefer", not "justify".

 

[Hans Blaster]

Does their acceptance in a given culture justify them?

I was speaking to the poll question and how it is answered. I find the answers in the poll incomplete and have not submitted to it. The only thing it seems saying is that no one supports morality from personal preference. (probably because they are unwilling to accept the personal preference of others as moral.)

 

[Tanj]

You're missing the point and you're way off the mark in what you think my conception of morality is.

Ironically the reverse is also true. The difference is I am not trying to shoe horn you into my world view. I think in terms of what increases happiness, both collectively and individually, and what causes pain, both collectively and individually. This tension is very often at least semi quantitative, not qualitative, it's not black and white. You can try to do a global word replacement substituting the qualitative terms morality and immorality but it doesn't make anything more clear, nor will the mapping be accurate.