Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Moral Orel]

How in the world do you make that jump?

To be fair, I think he just forgot an "if":

"and if knowing the motive is sufficient for objective morality"​

I don't think he was really making the jump that his statement, phrased as it was, is true.

The only objective fact here is that the perpetrator has some reason which they consider sufficient justification for committing the action.

If a man beats his wife because she overcooked his toast, then there is a motive for the beating, but that doesn't mean that it's objectively moral to beat someone for overcooking your toast.

Exactly. I agree that knowledge of the motive is irrelevant.

 

[zippy2006]

How in the world do you make that jump?

The fact that a person does something for a reason which they consider valid does not mean that there is objective morality.



The only objective fact here is that the perpetrator has some reason which they consider sufficient justification for committing the action.

If a man beats his wife because she overcooked his toast, then there is a motive for the beating, but that doesn't mean that it's objectively moral to beat someone for overcooking your toast.

Wow, just ...wow.

 

[zippy2006]

To be fair, I think he just forgot an "if":

"and if knowing the motive is sufficient for objective morality"​

Colloquially and logically, the way I stated it is correct and usual. For example:

"If I am going the speed limit, and I accelerate, then I will be speeding."
​

The form is: ((X ^ Y ) -> Z)
It would be altogether strange to read it this way: ((X -> Z) ^ Y)
...for the statement obviously does not mean, "If I am going the speed limit, then I will be speeding. Also, I accelerate."

Regarding what I said earlier:

"If the perpetrator knows their own motive, and knowing the motive is sufficient for objective morality, then objective morality exists."
​

...the statement obviously does not mean, "If the perpetrator knows their own motive, then objective morality exists. Also, knowing the motive is sufficient for objective morality." The only reason Kylie failed to understand the meaning of that statement is because she tried very, very hard to misunderstand it. Note, too, that her interpretation was none of the above. She did not even manage the logically mistaken form.

Some people might add a second 'if' as you did, but I myself would want to avoid it since the logical meaning has only one 'if', and its antecedent is a conjunction.

Exactly. I agree that knowledge of the motive is irrelevant.

Kylie was there wielding the strawman which says that if a motive is known, then the act is morally good. Her recent approach has been desperate to show that motives cannot be known, despite the fact that she admits that they are known by the perpetrator. She doesn't seem to understand the point made in #603 at all.

 

[Kylie]

To be fair, I think he just forgot an "if":

"and if knowing the motive is sufficient for objective morality"​

I don't think he was really making the jump that his statement, phrased as it was, is true.

Okay, I'll grant that. In that case, what Zippy said becomes:

"If the perpetrator knows their own motive, and if knowing the motive is sufficient for objective morality, then objective morality exists."

The problem is, however, that the highlighted part assumes that there is an objective morality in order to show that there is an objective morality. It becomes circular logic, and thus fallacious.

 

[Kylie]

Wow, just ...wow.

When I said "objective morality" I was not using it in the sense that the person objectively has some moral views. I was using it in the sense that there is some view of morality that is objectively correct regardless of different people's opinions.

 

[Kylie]

Colloquially and logically, the way I stated it is correct and usual. For example:

"If I am going the speed limit, and I accelerate, then I will be speeding."
​

The form is: ((X ^ Y ) -> Z)
It would be altogether strange to read it this way: ((X -> Z) ^ Y)
...for the statement obviously does not mean, "If I am going the speed limit, then I will be speeding. Also, I accelerate."

Regarding what I said earlier:

"If the perpetrator knows their own motive, and knowing the motive is sufficient for objective morality, then objective morality exists."
​

...the statement obviously does not mean, "If the perpetrator knows their own motive, then objective morality exists. Also, knowing the motive is sufficient for objective morality." The only reason Kylie failed to understand the meaning of that statement is because she tried very, very hard to misunderstand it. Note, too, that her interpretation was none of the above. She did not even manage the logically mistaken form.

Some people might add a second 'if' as you did, but I myself would want to avoid it since the logical meaning has only one 'if', and its antecedent is a conjunction.

No need to be insulting.

I read what you said as:

If knowing the motive is sufficient to show that morality is objective, then a perpetrator knowing their own motive shows that objective morality exists.

I was disagreeing with the first part of that.

Your dismissive attitude that it "obviously does not mean"... is not required. It's not obvious. I could just as easily say, "If I get into my car (and getting into a car is sufficient to show that I have access to a car), then my car exists."

Kylie was there wielding the strawman which says that if a motive is known, then the act is morally good.

Where did I say that any act that has a known motive (or any motive at all) must be morally good?

Her recent approach has been desperate to show that motives cannot be known, despite the fact that she admits that they are known by the perpetrator. She doesn't seem to understand the point made in #603 at all.

My position is that motive can't be demonstrated. No one can ever be certain of the motivations of another person.

 

[gaara4158]

Okay, that is helpful. We do seem to have different definitions of "altruism."

It seems to me that your definition must be somewhat odd, though. I don't think anyone who actually believes in selflessness would define it in such a strict way, so that even the (self-affirming) belief that one performed a correct action precludes it from being selfless.

I don’t think it’s too uncommon a definition, odd as it may be. There’s a whole Friends episode that (briefly and lightly) displays the paradox.

 

[Chriliman]

I think you're mixing up "logical" and "true" which are definitely related, but they aren't the same thing. It is true that I don't enjoy experiencing brussel sprouts, and that causes me to hate them. But I didn't choose to hate them based on rational deliberation. So yeah, it is true that I don't enjoy knowing about folk that burn down buildings, and that causes me to hate them.

Just a more descriptive claim. Try filling in this blank:

Burning down a children's hospital and causing extreme suffering for personal gratification is objectively immoral because ______________

This has nothing to do with sound senses or empathy. We both have the same emotions in response to it. This has to do with sound reasoning. What do your personal feelings inform us about the rest of the world? Nothing.

So let's say that fella that burnt down the children's hospital gets caught and thrown in prison. He hates the police that arrested him and the judge that sentenced him; he hates the witnesses that testified against him; he hates being testified against, he hates being arrested, and he hates being sentenced. Therefore it was wrong to do these things against him? No, of course not. Your personal emotional reaction to something is irrelevant to whether that thing is "right" or "wrong".

I still think if we have access to true motive and the effects of acting out the motive, we can determine objective morality of said action, assuming we have sound sensibilities, which involves the ability to acknowledge the obvious, like how it’s wrong to burn down occupied children's hospitals. Sorry, but I’m beginning to question your sensibilities on this. I mean, based on what you’ve said before, doing that isn’t even “wrong”.

If we take your view that it’s not even “wrong”, then how do we explain the strong desire that we with sound senses have to never see that happen? How should we categorize that action if saying it’s “wrong” is off the table?

 

[Chriliman]

It can very well be impossible for anyone to know other than the person who did it.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a true motive that explains the objective effects of acting the motive out. That’s the whole point.

 

[Kylie]

Sure, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a true motive that explains the objective effects of acting the motive out. That’s the whole point.

But how could we tell?

Even the person who did it may not fully understand their motive.

 

[Moral Orel]

I still think if we have access to true motive and the effects of acting out the motive, we can determine objective morality of said action, assuming we have sound sensibilities, which involves the ability to acknowledge the obvious, like how it’s wrong to burn down occupied children's hospitals. Sorry, but I’m beginning to question your sensibilities on this. I mean, based on what you’ve said before, doing that isn’t even “wrong”.

You guys always focus on the "it's not wrong" aspect. You know it isn't "right" either, right?

You keep saying that it's obvious, but what you're telling me is that you hold a belief for absolutely no reason. You simply think of some act, and just magically know that it is either "right" or "wrong". That seems like the more bizarre position to me.

If we take your view that it’s not even “wrong”, then how do we explain the strong desire that we with sound senses have to never see that happen?

The same way I have a strong desire to keep brussel sprouts out of my mouth.

How do you know you have a sound moral sensibility?

How should we categorize that action if saying it’s “wrong” is off the table?

It's in my personal category of "I hate this". What else do we need?

 

[Moral Orel]

The problem is, however, that the highlighted part assumes that there is an objective morality in order to show that there is an objective morality. It becomes circular logic, and thus fallacious.

I think his point was that unknown motives don't prove morality is not objective because motives are not unknown to everyone. He wasn't attempting to prove objective morality entirely; he was simply shooting down one objection.

 

[Kylie]

I think his point was that unknown motives don't prove morality is not objective because motives are not unknown to everyone. He wasn't attempting to prove objective morality entirely; he was simply shooting down one objection.

I think it's also a bit vague as to what is meant by "objective morality."

I would agree that it demonstrates that it's objectively true that someone has a moral viewpoint.

But that isn't the same thing as saying that the viewpoint itself is objectively correct.

 

[Chriliman]

You guys always focus on the "it's not wrong" aspect. You know it isn't "right" either, right?

You keep saying that it's obvious, but what you're telling me is that you hold a belief for absolutely no reason. You simply think of some act, and just magically know that it is either "right" or "wrong". That seems like the more bizarre position to me.

The same way I have a strong desire to keep brussel sprouts out of my mouth.

How do you know you have a sound moral sensibility?

It's in my personal category of "I hate this". What else do we need?

Ok, so in my view, if I want to help you and you say you hate something, like really hate it, then it would be objectively wrong of me to subject you to it BECAUSE of the fact that you hate it. I would try to find a better way to help you that doesn’t involve subjecting you to something you hate.

I don’t see what’s illogical about that.

 

[Chriliman]

But how could we tell?

Even the person who did it may not fully understand their motive.

As long as you don’t think it’s always impossible to tell, then you might agree with me, at least to some degree.

But if you think it’s always impossible to determine motive then I simply disagree.

 

[zippy2006]

I read what you said as:

If knowing the motive is sufficient to show that morality is objective, then a perpetrator knowing their own motive shows that objective morality exists.

I was disagreeing with the first part of that.

If that's what you thought, then what were you doing in <this post> -- you know, the one I was actually responding to??

"It can very well be impossible for anyone to know other than the person who did it," therefore...? Therefore what?

What I was saying in my response was, "Therefore, nothing!" You were pursuing a dead end with an invalid argument.

 

[zippy2006]

I don’t think it’s too uncommon a definition, odd as it may be. There’s a whole Friends episode that (briefly and lightly) displays the paradox.

Yeah... Friends episodes don't count as arguments, especially when you are proposing Phoebe as a standard of rationality.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok, so in my view, if I want to help you and you say you hate something, like really hate it, then it would be objectively wrong of me to subject you to it BECAUSE of the fact that you hate it.

Why is it wrong to subject people to things they hate?

 

[Kylie]

As long as you don’t think it’s always impossible to tell, then you might agree with me, at least to some degree.

But if you think it’s always impossible to determine motive then I simply disagree.

I think it's always impossible to tell 100% for sure. After all, I might ask my husband why he made a sandwich and he could tell me that he was hungry. But there's always the chance that he was lying and just made it because he was bored. And even for my own motives, there's always the chance that there is some unconscious bias influencing me, even if I think I know what my real motivation is.

So I agree that we can get up to very high certainties, but we can never be sure that it's at 100%.

 

[Kylie]

Ok, so in my view, if I want to help you and you say you hate something, like really hate it, then it would be objectively wrong of me to subject you to it BECAUSE of the fact that you hate it. I would try to find a better way to help you that doesn’t involve subjecting you to something you hate.

I don’t see what’s illogical about that.

I dunno about that.

I've had gynecological examinations that I've hated, yet I think my husband did the right thing insisting that I get them done.