Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Kylie]

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.

I don't see how this...

If the perpetrator knows their own motive, and knowing the motive is sufficient for objective morality, then objective morality exists. The objective moral fact would be known by the perpetrator and anyone else who is able to discover it. Even if no one else is able to discover it, the objective moral fact still exists via the perpetrator's knowledge.

...means, "And therefore nothing!"

As I've said, I read that post of yours as saying:

Premise 1: The perpetrator knows their own motive.
Premise 2: Knowing the motive is sufficient for objective morality.

Given premises 1 and 2, we can conclude that objective morality exists.
​

While I agree that the conclusion is a valid one from the premises, I disagree that premise 2 reflects reality. It's like saying, "Any living animal with feathers is a bird, cats have feathers, therefore cats are birds." While the conclusion does follow from the premises, the second premise that cats have feathers is not accurate to reality, and thus the conclusion itself is wrong.

I certainly did not read it as saying, "And therefore, nothing!"

And to answer your question, what I was doing in that post of mine you linked to was pointing out that it is possible that the only person who knows what the motivation for an act was would be the person who carried out that act.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

No....I can't believe this is a serious question.

What did I just point out about lying? Most people would say honesty is good, lying is bad. Most everyone lies a substantial amount of the time...many of those lies aren't even morally conflicted....they feel like the right thing to do.

So what is the relationship between the moral judgment and personal behavior? There isn't one....not really.

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.

I don't. It would seem that there's a considerable amount of evidence I'm right.

 

[Chriliman]

No....I can't believe this is a serious question.

What did I just point out about lying? Most people would say honesty is good, lying is bad. Most everyone lies a substantial amount of the time...many of those lies aren't even morally conflicted....they feel like the right thing to do.

So what is the relationship between the moral judgment and personal behavior? There isn't one....not really.

Most people would also say it's ok to lie to a Nazi who's wondering if you're hiding Jews in your house. Again, it's the motive behind the lie that should be judged.

 

[Chriliman]

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.

That's a good point that I tried to include in my explanation. I guess if there's no other better way to get long term benefit, then subjecting yourself to that which you hate, in order to received the long term benefit, may be the best moral route to take.

 

[Chriliman]

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%.

I see what you're saying, but still think there are cases where motive is 100% clear. I mean take murder for example; there's many cases where the motive is clearly to kill the person because of hatred.

Or if you prefer a not so extreme example, take a marriage proposal; I'm sure for at least the majority you would agree the motive is 100% to marry the person being proposed to.

 

[Chriliman]

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

Like I was saying to Kylie, if there is no long term benefit that all parties agree to, or if its just pointless to be subjected to it, then I don't see any benefit to subjecting anyone to that which they hate, especially if they don't give consent. That’s good reasoning to call it wrong, or if you prefer, to just not do it.

*patiently waiting for you to bring up the guy who hates going to prison*

I’m sure you agree imposing temporary consequences for certain actions in order to show a better way to behave is a good thing.

 

[Kylie]

That's a good point that I tried to include in my explanation. I guess if there's no other better way to get long term benefit, then subjecting yourself to that which you hate, in order to received the long term benefit, may be the best moral route to take.

Of course, that brings up the question, how do you determine "long term benefit" and weigh one long term result against another to see which produces the most benefit?

 

[Kylie]

I see what you're saying, but still think there are cases where motive is 100% clear. I mean take murder for example; there's many cases where the motive is clearly to kill the person because of hatred.

Is that enough? There are many people who experience a similar level of hatred for someone, yet never kill that person. And there are people who kill someone simply because the victim happens to be there.

Or if you prefer a not so extreme example, take a marriage proposal; I'm sure for at least the majority you would agree the motive is 100% to marry the person being proposed to.

And again, lots of different motives. Is the marriage motivated by convenience, such as a person marrying so they can legally stay in a country (I've also heard of an example where workers on an oil rig or something got married so they could have better quarters). Or maybe it's a gold digger who is marrying for money - how many times have we seen a young woman married to a very old rich man?

 

[zippy2006]

...I disagree that premise 2 reflects reality.

Go ahead and read posts #603 and #609.

(It is obvious to me that you are not going to understand my point, so I am just dropping this. Suffice it to say that you lost the argument with Chriliman as to whether motives can be known, and you refused to admit it, as usual.)

 

[Chriliman]

Is that enough? There are many people who experience a similar level of hatred for someone, yet never kill that person. And there are people who kill someone simply because the victim happens to be there.



And again, lots of different motives. Is the marriage motivated by convenience, such as a person marrying so they can legally stay in a country (I've also heard of an example where workers on an oil rig or something got married so they could have better quarters). Or maybe it's a gold digger who is marrying for money - how many times have we seen a young woman married to a very old rich man?

I know there can be lots of different motives, that’s not my point. I’m ok if you don’t agree it’s possible to know a motive.

 

[Kylie]

Go ahead and read posts #603 and #609.

I did.

I have no idea what that KM and DM stuff is.

(It is obvious to me that you are not going to understand my point, so I am just dropping this. Suffice it to say that you lost the argument with Chriliman as to whether motives can be known, and you refused to admit it, as usual.)

I have seen no arguments that show that my position is wrong. Would you care to tell me which post contained a refutation of my position?

 

[Kylie]

I know there can be lots of different motives, that’s not my point. I’m ok if you don’t agree it’s possible to know a motive.

I think you misunderstand my position.

I never said that it's not possible to know a motive.

My position is that the claim, "Motives are ALWAYS knowable" is not true.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Most people would also say it's ok to lie to .

Your wife when your wife asks "Does this dress make me look fat?"

Don't kid yourself....you aren't saving people from nazis. You lie out of convenience more than anything.

 

[Kylie]

Your wife when your wife asks "Does this dress make me look fat?"

I once asked my husband this question.

He answered, "No, it's not the dress."

He's lucky I have a sense of humour.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I once asked my husband this question.

He answered, "No, it's not the dress."

He's lucky I have a sense of humour.

I get that we can tell well intentioned lies for noble reasons like hiding jews from nazis....

In reality though, that's not what's happening. Most lies are entirely self serving, convenient methods of conflict avoidance.

 

[Chriliman]

I think you misunderstand my position.

I never said that it's not possible to know a motive.

My position is that the claim, "Motives are ALWAYS knowable" is not true.

Thats fine, my position doesn’t dispute that.

 

[Chriliman]

I get that we can tell well intentioned lies for noble reasons like hiding jews from nazis....

In reality though, that's not what's happening. Most lies are entirely self serving, convenient methods of conflict avoidance.

Id say even lying about hiding Jews in your house is conflict avoidance.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Id say even lying about hiding Jews in your house is conflict avoidance.

Telling the truth is probably the safer option for conflict avoidance.

Regardless, you won't know morals by viewing actions or knowing motives.

 

[Chriliman]

Telling the truth is probably the safer option for conflict avoidance.

Definitely healthier to tell the truth. It's good to get true feelings out, even if it leads to conflict because a lot of times, that conflict is what sharpens you.

Regardless, you won't know morals by viewing actions or knowing motives.

In your view, how does one know morals if not by seeing the affects motives and actions have on reality and those in it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

In your view, how does one know morals if not by seeing the affects motives and actions have on reality and those in it?

One doesn't know morals. One makes moral judgements, which are opinions, and although they might be stated as factual, they aren't.