Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Ana the Ist]

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?

You didn't describe anything. You simply placed dogs within a category. A false category....a falsifiable statement.

Did I make a falsifiable statement in the premise or conclusion?

Your P1 is irrelevant.

Nope.

The P1 I gave you is necessary for your argument to be valid.

Nope.

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.

Did i make a falsifiable statement?

Nope....you already admitted it was true.

A logical argument is valid based upon the truth value of the premises. Every premise I made is true.

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.

No it's just you further demonstrating that you don't know what you're asking or claiming.

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 literally offered you the opportunity to draw up any argument you like....and counter it with your own....or simply present your own argument in formal logic.

I also predicted that you wouldn't do this....

So far my prediction is coming true lol.

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.

Called it. Called it from a mile away.

You never had an argument.

You never intended to make one. I said so right here....

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.

See? Called it. You're entirely predictable.

 

[Moral Orel]

A logical argument is valid based upon the truth value of the premises. Every premise I made is true.

So you think that an argument is valid if all the premises are true? Really?

You never had an argument.

Argument from silence fallacy.

I'm refusing to let you change topics to distract from your failures. It does not logically follow that because I refuse to indulge you, I have no argument.

 

[Chriliman]

You didn't describe anything. You simply placed dogs within a category. A false category....a falsifiable statement.

Did I make a falsifiable statement in the premise or conclusion?



Nope.



Nope.



Did i make a falsifiable statement?

Nope....you already admitted it was true.

A logical argument is valid based upon the truth value of the premises. Every premise I made is true.



No it's just you further demonstrating that you don't know what you're asking or claiming.



I literally offered you the opportunity to draw up any argument you like....and counter it with your own....or simply present your own argument in formal logic.

I also predicted that you wouldn't do this....

So far my prediction is coming true lol.



Called it. Called it from a mile away.

You never had an argument.

You never intended to make one. I said so right here....




See? Called it. You're entirely predictable.

I had a similar discussion with Orel about valid and sound arguments in another thread where he helped me make a valid and sound argument for objective morality, though I’m not sure he agrees with or accepts the argument even though it adheres to all his criteria. Curious what you think of it if you’ve got the time.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So you think that an argument is valid if all the premises are true? Really?

Are you claiming to logically deduce preferences from morals, or not?

Argument from silence fallacy.

I'm refusing to let you change topics to distract from your failures. It does not logically follow that because I refuse to indulge you, I have no argument.

Oh wow....congratulations. This is the first time I've ever seen someone move their own goalposts so many times they forgot its their argument lol.

Go back and read....it's your argument ding dong, not mine.

You made a claim....I filled it, you moved the goalposts, and we've repeated this pattern over about 6 goalpost shifts.

We've gotten to the point where you're literally making up rules about using the same verb in the initial premise and conclusion (not a logical requirement) or only consider behavior in of itself (which doesn't mean anything to me or you)....

And while you continue to insist upon new, and entirely fabricated parameters, every time I fulfill your request....it's increasingly apparent that you don't have any clue what you're talking about.

I mean you apparently think this is my argument lol....it's your argument. At this point, I'm willing to let you write whatever statement you need to demonstrate whatever it is you think you can.

To continue on with this is pointless. You don't understand the difference between subjective and objective morality, or anything about formal or informal logic.

Make your argument or don't.

I just figured I'd give you the chance to prove what you claimed that you could....and clearly can't.

 

[Moral Orel]

A logical argument is valid based upon the truth value of the premises. Every premise I made is true.

Do you think an argument is valid if the premises are true? Don't dodge the question.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I had a similar discussion with Orel about valid and sound arguments in another thread where he helped me make a valid and sound argument for objective morality, though I’m not sure he agrees with or accepts the argument even though it adheres to all his criteria. Curious what you think of it if you’ve got the time.

I've got no reason to doubt you....

I can think of a couple of them myself. The problem is that all of those formal arguments are only logically consistent....not necessarily true.

They tend contain premises that look like this....

If blah blah blah is true

Then/and....

Blah blah blah is true and

If blah blah blah is true....

Then conclusion.

Now, maybe yours doesn't look like this...I can think of one that doesn't.

Does this sort of look like the logically valid and sound argument you constructed?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you think an argument is valid if the premises are true? Don't dodge the question.

It's a non-sequitur....a loaded question.

Are you asking me about logical validity or if it's actually true in reality, (apart from formalized logical arguments)?

 

[Moral Orel]

It's a non-sequitur....a loaded question.

No, it's not. If the premises are true, then the argument is valid. True or false.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, it's not. If the premises are true, then the argument is valid. True or false.

True in logical arguments is not the same as true in reality.

I'd like to know which of these things you mean by "true"?

Surely you're aware that you can write every statement, every premise, and every conclusion as "logically true" and be 100% wrong about reality?

That's actual amateur hour stuff. It's 1st year logic.

 

[Moral Orel]

True in logical arguments is not the same as true in reality.

No, it's not. If I say to you in casual conversation, "All dogs are cats" we both know that's false. If I put it in a formal logical argument:

P1 All dogs are cats.

It's still false. What does it even mean to "write it as logically true"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, it's not. If the premises are true, then the argument is valid. True or false.

Oh no....you didn't know that did you?

Did someone pull the wool over your eyes by claiming to have a logically valid and sound argument for a particular view of morality....and then telling you that makes it true in reality?

Was it zippy? It would explain why you allowed him to argue for you, and why you deferred to him regarding logic, and why he didn't take up my offer for a valid way out of the slave example...

Did he use logic to dupe you?

You sort of made an argument here...even if the formal structure isn't perfect....

On a serious note, I doubt we have much to discuss here. A long time ago you explained that in your view all choices are moral choices. In my own special way, I agree.

Let's say I grant that there are real moral facts.
And I grant that humans can know these facts.

If that's the case, then certainly something to the effect of "People ought to be happy" or somesuch is true. I think it would be special pleading to claim that rule only applies to other people and how they're affected by my choices.

My wife hates chocolate ice cream. So it would be wrong of me to make her eat chocolate ice cream because it would make her unhappy. (Again, assuming the things I've granted).

I hate Brussel sprouts. So it would be wrong of me to make myself eat Brussel sprouts because it would make me unhappy. Ceteris Paribus

I think it's silly when folk try to claim moral choices must involve two people. I mean, they can define it that way if that's what they prefer though, lol.

We could write it out as...

Premise- If moral facts truly exist.
Premise- If humans can detect or know these facts
Conclusion-blah blah blah conception of morality is true.

Did he throw some garbage like this at you...and it worked???

Apart from the conclusion (I can make a guess about it) we can say that as long as it follows the first two premises...it's a logically valid/true argument.

It doesn't have any relation to actual reality or actual morality though....

Do you understand that? Be honest, I'm not messing with you here...I can show why it doesn't actually relate to reality.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, it's not. If I say to you in casual conversation, "All dogs are cats" we both know that's false. If I put it in a formal logical argument:

P1 All dogs are cats.

It's still false. What does it even mean to "write it as logically true"?

When you write this it makes me think that you have no idea what I'm talking about....

Do you understand why any premise that looks like this....

If X about morality is true

Or...

If X regarding morality truly exists

Or when morality is X then....

I don't have to make statements that are obviously false like "dogs are cats"...you can make true premises out of the above statements....

But they won't have any relationship with reality.

Do you understand why??

 

[Moral Orel]

If the premises are true, then the argument is valid. True or false.

Oh no....you didn't know that did you?

Know what? What is "that"?

You're saying now that "If the premises are true, then the argument is valid" is true?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, it's not. If I say to you in casual conversation, "All dogs are cats" we both know that's false. If I put it in a formal logical argument:

P1 All dogs are cats.

According to you....this is a claim, not an argument. You've got another premise and conclusion to go.

It's still false. What does it even mean to "write it as logically true"?

Put in a valid logical argument....

The fact that you're even asking me about this....tells me everything I need to know.

So who did this to you? Who took advantage of the fact that you didn't know anything about logic?

Was it zippy?

 

[Moral Orel]

If the premises are true, then the argument is valid. True or false.

Oh no....you didn't know that did you?

Know what? What is "that"?

You're saying now that "If the premises are true, then the argument is valid" is true?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Know what? What is "that"?

You're saying now that "If the premises are true, then the argument is valid" is true?

What a difference a day makes huh? One day you're disparaging my understanding of logic....the next day....you're begging me for help understanding.

As I told you earlier...I'm not here to teach English or logic.

You're not going to explain your argument, are you? Not the argument that you forgot you were making in the last 5 pages....certainly not the causal relationship you've asserted in the survey.

I will tell you that as far as I know...no philosopher or sociologist or pure logician has ever used pure logic to demonstrate something factual about morality. Sure...you can create logically valid, even sound, arguments about morality (as far as I can tell, mine is both, once I include the "hidden premise" lol) but those arguments have to either be limited by belief/opinion or include vast assumptions about reality which are either left as unknown, unknowable, or unproven.

 

[Chriliman]

I've got no reason to doubt you....

I can think of a couple of them myself. The problem is that all of those formal arguments are only logically consistent....not necessarily true.

They tend contain premises that look like this....

If blah blah blah is true

Then/and....

Blah blah blah is true and

If blah blah blah is true....

Then conclusion.

Now, maybe yours doesn't look like this...I can think of one that doesn't.

Does this sort of look like the logically valid and sound argument you constructed?

So you think it’s impossible to form a logically sound argument for objective morality that’s true?

You eluded to a couple arguments you can think of that come close? Mind sharing?

 

[zippy2006]

So you think it’s impossible to form a logically sound argument for objective morality that’s true?

Arguments are good or bad, not true or false. Nowadays we tend to designate their goodness/badness in terms of validity/invalidity and soundness/unsoundness. An argument is valid when its conclusion follows from its premises; an argument is sound when it is valid and possesses true premises.

Since a sound argument always has a true conclusion, those who believe that morality is not objective must also hold that there are no sound arguments for an objective morality.

 

[Moral Orel]

As I told you earlier...I'm not here to teach English or logic.

Yeah, yeah, dodger.

 

[Chriliman]

Arguments are good or bad, not true or false. Nowadays we tend to designate their goodness/badness in terms of validity/invalidity and soundness/unsoundness. An argument is valid when its conclusion follows from its premises; an argument is sound when it is valid and possesses true premises.

Since a sound argument always has a true conclusion, those who believe that morality is not objective must also hold that there are no sound arguments for an objective morality.

Which means they must believe there’s a sound argument for non-objective morality, yet making sound arguments is objectively good behavior. Something doesn’t add up there.