Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

Chriliman said:

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.

Click to expand...

I do agree that sound argument and truth-seeking are objectively good. That said, a skeptical approach would hold that there is no sound argument for or against objective morality; that it is unknowable, at least for humans.

zippy2006 said:

I do agree that sound argument and truth-seeking are objectively good. That said, a skeptical approach would hold that there is no sound argument for or against objective morality; that it is unknowable, at least for humans.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the unknowable position. To that I would say if you can know the true motive behind any action, you can determine the objective morality of that action with regard to objective circumstances. But determining true motive can be tricky, but not impossible as those who claim unknowability must think. Surely they realize they can at least know their own motives. I hope, at least.

Chriliman said:

Ah yes, the unknowable position. To that I would say if you can know the true motive behind any action, you can determine the objective morality of that action with regard to objective circumstances. But determining true motive can be tricky, but not impossible as those who claim unknowability must think. Surely they realize they can at least know their own motives. I hope, at least.

Click to expand...

Since you guys are looking at logic I will take it in that direction. Let's consider your claim that <moral skeptics "must think" that motives are unknowable>. You believe that such a claim follows from your conditional statement:

• KM: The true motive behind an action can be known
• DM: The objective morality of that action can be determined
• KM -> DM

It is true that the moral skeptic could deny KM in order to avoid DM, but is it true that they "must think" KM is impossible? Not necessarily. They might also deny your conditional itself by saying, "Even when KM is true, DM can still be false." For example, Orel would probably say that motives are not objectively moral or immoral, and are therefore incapable of grounding DM.

zippy2006 said:

Since you guys are looking at logic I will take it in that direction. Let's consider your claim that <moral skeptics "must think" that motives are unknowable>. You believe that such a claim follows from your conditional statement:

• KM: The true motive behind an action can be known
• DM: The objective morality of that action can be determined
• KM -> DM

It is true that the moral skeptic could deny KM in order to avoid DM, but is it true that they "must think" KM is impossible? Not necessarily. They might also deny your conditional itself by saying, "Even when KM is true, DM can still be false." For example, Orel would probably say that motives are not objectively moral or immoral, and are therefore incapable of grounding DM.

Click to expand...

He probably would say that, but then he’d have to believe that true motives can’t ever be determined, not even his own motives. Because as soon as you determine a true motive, you then have an objectively verifiable motive.

Chriliman said:

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

Click to expand...

I can't think of a method for even identifying a moral fact....let alone proving it fact.

Now I don't want to be accused of being irrational or anything. I give some consideration for the possibility that someone else can identify and prove moral facts....and I simply can't for some reason, like maybe I'm just too dumb.

That doesn't appear to be the case though...I can't recall any philosophers making a verifiable argument. I'm even talking about atheists who believe in objective morality.

Sam Harris is a good example. He's a secular humanist, professor, PhD, and he's written multiple books about morality. He's a smart guy. He believes in objective morality.

I've heard him argue for it. His argument ultimately rests on a particular logical fallacy...an argument from incredulity. He says it more or less like this....and I'm paraphrasing here...

"If you can't agree in a basic moral fact like It's wrong for a person to cause harm to another person, I just don't know what to tell you."

I'm sure he's aware this is a logical fallacy...yet he rests his view of morality on it.

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

Click to expand...

Ok...here's one. It's basically an argument for moral determinism that is disguised as arising from circumstances.

Premise-No one can control the circumstances they exist in.
Premise-Circumstances dictate what behavioral choices are possible.
Premise-If reasons for choices exist before behavior is enacted.
Conclusion-then morals are objectively created by the circumstances one exists in.

This is, of course, assuming that morals are directly related to behavior. It is a fair assumption, since moral judgements are made about behavior. It has a couple of flaws and it can be undermined rather quickly.

You probably noticed that people spend a lot of time arguing about objective/subjective morality. I think this is the wrong sort of question to ask. I don't think it reveals anything substantial about morality regardless of which option one believes in.

Consider this...if I were you to ask you about morality of honesty and lying....I'm fairly certain that like 99% of people you would reply something like this...

It's morally good to express yourself honestly.
It's morally bad to lie.

Right? Studies show that on average, people lie about 40% of the time on any given day. We lie for all sorts of reasons, and while we may certainly feel bad about some of them...we don't feel bad about all of them. In fact, we probably think it's both good and moral to lie sometimes. For example, consider the sort of everyday lie that people say...

Your coworker is walking in the opposite direction as you and when he gets near....he says something like "Hey, how's it going?" Or "How are you doing?"....

Again, like most people, regardless of how you are actually doing...you probably respond with something like "I'm good, how are you?"

We can explore the many different reasons why people might express such a lie...but for now, let's just say the reason is something like the fact that you don't think it's right to burden him with your problems if you are having a difficult time...or perhaps you believe on some level his question is a lie...he doesn't really want to know how you are doing, therefore it's wrong to answer honestly. It's a sort exchange of pleasantries.

The point here is that we lie. We all do it. We all know we do it. We all sometimes see it as morally good.

So why do we say honesty is good and lying is bad when speaking about it morally? We're literally lying about the way we see it...on a moral level/dimension. If you've given it significant thought...you know you're lying, you know that the person that you put the moral question on is lying. Yet despite this....you, me, and nearly everyone else continues to tell the same lie about morality.

Why? That's what I want you to consider. You probably think there's lots of reasons...like the obvious one where we understand that to lie effectively, we must be seen as honest, so to admit to being liars may make it harder to lie. Another reason may be that we don't want to be lied to about something important. We understand that the truth has more value. If you keep considering the reasons why we tell each other this lie...you can possibly notice that the vast majority of the reasons could be grouped into two categories. If you consider why these two things are so important to us, you will understand a lot about morality.

I don't want to just throw out the conclusions I've come to....I know you're a God believing person, and I think you would reject it outright. That's why I want you to consider the above question. Come up with reasons. See if you can find a general way you can describe them...by generalizing the reasons into two different basic reasons.

Let me know what you think.

zippy2006 said:

Since you guys are looking at logic I will take it in that direction. Let's consider your claim that <moral skeptics "must think" that motives are unknowable>. You believe that such a claim follows from your conditional statement:

• KM: The true motive behind an action can be known
• DM: The objective morality of that action can be determined
• KM -> DM

It is true that the moral skeptic could deny KM in order to avoid DM, but is it true that they "must think" KM is impossible? Not necessarily. They might also deny your conditional itself by saying, "Even when KM is true, DM can still be false." For example, Orel would probably say that motives are not objectively moral or immoral, and are therefore incapable of grounding DM.

Click to expand...

I like this line of thought...but I would drop the formal logic.

Does knowing the true motivation behind an action reveal anything at all about a moral judgment?

I would say no. I would say that moral judgement is made about behavior...but to say it guides behavior reduces behavior to only one consideration. I'm sure that at times...morality can play a role in motive. It can even play a large role in very rare circumstances. You might say that someone encountering those circumstances is having a moral crisis. They are rare though.

Ana the Ist said:

I like this line of thought...but I would drop the formal logic.

Does knowing the true motivation behind an action reveal anything at all about a moral judgment?

Click to expand...

You don't think knowing true motives behind actions can inform moral judgement at all?

Ana the Ist said:

I would say no. I would say that moral judgement is made about behavior...but to say it guides behavior reduces behavior to only one consideration.

Click to expand...

I disagree, I think our own judgments about our own motives and what we're about to do, does guide our behavior.

I think moral judgement is both about motive and action/behavior that stems from that motive.

Chriliman said:

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.

Click to expand...

How do you figure?

"There is no sound argument for X," is not the same thing as "There is a sound argument for the opposite of X."

So saying that there no sound argument for objective morality doesn't mean there must be a sound argument for subjective morality.

Chriliman said:

He probably would say that, but then he’d have to believe that true motives can’t ever be determined, not even his own motives. Because as soon as you determine a true motive, you then have an objectively verifiable motive.

Click to expand...

You may have an objectively verifiable motive, but that is still a step away from objective morality. Considered from a different angle, here is the argument you are proposing:


You are saying that the moral skeptic must reject (2). I am saying that he could alternatively reject (1). Because this is a valid argument the skeptic must reject at least one of the premises, but it doesn't necessarily need to be (2).

zippy2006 said:

You may have an objectively verifiable motive, but that is still a step away from objective morality. Considered from a different angle, here is the argument you are proposing:

1. KM -> DM
2. KM
3. Therefore, DM

{modus ponens}​

You are saying that the moral skeptic must reject (2). I am saying that he could alternatively reject (1). Because this is a valid argument the skeptic must reject at least one of the premises, but it doesn't necessarily need to be (2).

Click to expand...

I see your point and agree. But I question how determining a true motive for an action doesn’t equate to objective morality?

Kylie said:

How do you figure?

"There is no sound argument for X," is not the same thing as "There is a sound argument for the opposite of X."

So saying that there no sound argument for objective morality doesn't mean there must be a sound argument for subjective morality.

Click to expand...

Right, I agree, you’re just left in a position of not knowing.

Chriliman said:

Right, I agree, you’re just left in a position of not knowing.

Click to expand...

True. But I'd rather have an honest "I don't know" than clinging to an answer that can't be verified.

Kylie said:

True. But I'd rather have an honest "I don't know" than clinging to an answer that can't be verified.

Click to expand...

Can’t be verified? So it’s impossible to verify motives for actions/behaviors? Because determining the true motive for an action can help determine if the action was malicious or accidental or what have you.

If it is impossible then yes, we can’t know or verify, but I find that position a bit too pessimistic for me to hold.

Chriliman said:

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

Click to expand...

I mean… if they’re doing something they want they’re fulfilling a desire for themselves. It’s for them. Maybe we’re working with different definitions of altruism?

Moral Orel said:

Correctamundo!


Sorry, not correctamundo.

Let's imagine there's a fella named Bill, and he owns a children's hospital. One day he burns down that hospital for the insurance money. He plans to spend that money on general self-indulgence, including but not limited to, loose women, gambling, and illicit substances. We've just thoroughly described his motivation for his crime, but you still have to prove that there's something "wrong" or "bad" about it.

That he "shouldn't" be motivated by self-indulgence. That he "shouldn't" self-indulge. That he "shouldn't" partake in loose women, gambling, or illicit substances. What-have-you. You could describe every single molecule in the universe and every moment in time and still never be able to prove that things "should" have been another way. It's a whole 'nother proposition.

Click to expand...

Ive already determined I can’t possibly prove anything morally wrong to you, only you. To others, a guy who burns down a building with suffering children in it, causing untold amounts of harm to them, has clearly proven he has done something wrong. I’m not sure how you’ve become blind to that, but it’s definitely perplexing.

What is proof other than clearly showing what’s truly happened in reality in an understandable way? Can’t force people to accept it.

gaara4158 said:

I mean… if they’re doing something they want they’re fulfilling a desire for themselves. It’s for them. Maybe we’re working with different definitions of altruism?

Click to expand...

Its not just for them though, that’d be selfish.

gaara4158 said:

I mean… if they’re doing something they want they’re fulfilling a desire for themselves. It’s for them. Maybe we’re working with different definitions of altruism?

Click to expand...

Suppose someone gives one of their kidneys to a person who will die without it. Whether or not we want to say that they are "fulfilling a desire for themselves," it would be altogether strange to say that it is "for them." At most we would say that they acted (sacrificially) for someone else, and received a consoling affirmation that they did a good thing.

It is simply untrue to assert that the act was primarily done for themselves. You are essentially arguing for the position which says that all acts are equally selfish, and the arguments for such a claim break down quickly.

Moral Orel said:

We both hate a fella like that. The only difference between us is that you think it's a matter that logic and reason can determine and I don't.

Click to expand...

How can you hate someone for something they did without having a reason that you at least think is logical(may actually be logical)?

Moral Orel said:

Showing what happened is just presenting the thing to judge. You then, after presenting what happened, judge literally without reasoning about it. You have to believe that it is a fact that it is wrong, yet you have no reason to believe that it is a fact.

Click to expand...

The reason for judging that it was wrong is literally based on the fact that he intentionally burned down the building with kids in it. Are we just thinking about this in directly opposing ways or what? Maybe pure logic removes all sensibility of empathy. Are you a Vulcan? That's it, isn't it.