Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[muichimotsu]

It doesn't have to be stuff you do.

Would you prefer that people murder other people more often or less often?

Would you prefer that people volunteer at charities more often or less often?

The problem is assuming atheism=moral relativism, since that's almost implied in the phrasing, as if my preference is in any way comparable to the hypothetical entity God that supposedly, in some formulations, declares that which is good because they are God (or because that which is good is in God's nature, which is still question begging)

What I prefer is not the same as what I believe to be moral through demonstration and evidence of the quality of actions relative to agreed upon virtues and/or consequences of the action in short and long term benefits for society and/or individuals.

 

[muichimotsu]

A hypothetical system of objective morality.

Then we have to get into what you mean by objective, if also the concept of hypothetical, because in science, that means there's predictive aspects to it, a control factor, etc, but people rarely reduce moral considerations to a scientific theoretical model where we can interpret data within that set of constraints and find them borne out or contradict the underlying ideas in some way

 

[Sabertooth]

Then we have to get into what you mean by objective, if also the concept of hypothetical,...

The hypothesis is that such a system exists.
(When someone questions the nature of morality, they assert that it does.)
On the hypothesis that it does exist, we look for more specific evidence to manage society as fairly as possible.
Since there is an element of "trial & error" in such legal constructs, we will still fail in that pursuit.
American slavery laws were a perfect example.

 

[muichimotsu]

The hypothesis is that such a system exists.
(When someone questions the nature of morality, they assert that it does.)
On the hypothesis that it does exist, we look for more specific evidence to manage society as fairly as possible.
Since there is an element of "trial & error" in such legal constructs, we will still fail in that pursuit.
American slavery laws were a perfect example.

Okay...so formulate the system in a way that would falsifiable for starters if you're utilizing scientific language

No one said we wouldn't fail, problem is when people try to advance claims of objective morality, it's usually not that at all, it's absolutist morality, authoritarian ideas and essentially being oppressive for the "good" of society.

And that's from those who claim they're advocating for this "natural law", while utilizing unnatural means to achieve it, violating peoples' agency and dignity in the process

Objective can mean independent of the mind, but it can also mean seeking as unbiased and reasoned a conclusion as possible given our phenomenological limitations that mean eliminating bias entirely would be basically out of the question.

I lean towards seeking objective morality in the latter sense, because a mind independent aspect for morality is not really feasible, in the same way we don't find just a triangle independent of the concept we have of it, nature doesn't comport to our thoughts about it, we adjust based on our observations. Trees and rocks still exist even if we don't think about them and would've existed even if we didn't come about to name them as such

 

[zippy2006]

I acknowledge the existence of moral things in the first 4 words of my sentence:

"I prefer moral things because I'm conditioned to do that by culture and somewhat by biology."

If thats not enough, we could add a preamble sentence to my statement that says: "There are moral things". But it seems redundant to me.

• Orel: Either everything you believe to be moral is based on your own preferences, or else some of your preferences are based on an antecedent recognition of morality.
• Durangoda: Some of my preferences are based on an antecedent recognition of morality, and this recognition is hard-wired/conditioned into me by society.
• Orel: Morality must be either chosen or recognized.

According to Durangoda some moral values are conditioned, not chosen or recognized. That is, those values are something one receives passively, not something that one actively appropriates via choice or recognition.

What's interesting is that the framing of the dilemma caters to Durangoda's answer. If preferences are contrasted with morality in an atheistic context, then morality must needs refer to some social (supra-individual) reality. My guess is that the poll had in mind recent threads where moral and non-moral (aesthetic) preferences were contrasted.

---------------

"You prefer people not have stuff they dislike happen to them."
What about an alcoholic forced into rehab?
Someone going to jail for a crime they committed?

You're missing the point and you're way off the mark in what you think my conception of morality is. Point is, the stuff people generally call moral, they also generally like. The stuff people generally call immoral, they also generally dislike.

It was fun to see you try to deal with what I will call the "ceteris paribus fallacy." Usually you are the one wielding it.

 

[zippy2006]

Just pick the poll answer that is true. Simple as that. Leave comments explaining your choice if you like.

In keeping with my "mere preference" and "ought-preference" language (where all 'oughts' are moral), I would say that some preferences are based on 'oughts' and some are not. Ought-preferences are ostensibly public and objective, and are therefore based on something publicly accessible such as reason, law, or social convention. Some of my preferences are ought-preferences. Not all of my preferences are mere preferences.


I think the poll may be confusing because it is mixing various different topics. "Either some of my preferences are based on morality or else all of (my) morality is based on my preferences." Someone unfamiliar with Euthyphro probably wouldn't perceive the dilemma, and the second option reads like an impossibility, since morality is usually not thought to be based on pure preference. If someone believed that all of their "oughts" are based on mere preferences divorced from morality, then this person would not be said to believe in morality.

I assume you adhere to the second option?

 

[Sabertooth]

No one said we wouldn't fail, problem is when people try to advance claims of objective morality, it's usually not that at all, it's absolutist morality, authoritarian ideas and essentially being oppressive for the "good" of society.

(In this thread) I am not advocating for a particular system.
I am just saying that the OP's question necessitates that one exists.

 

[Moral Orel]

I acknowledge the existence of moral things in the first 4 words of my sentence:

"I prefer moral things because I'm conditioned to do that by culture and somewhat by biology."

If thats not enough, we could add a preamble sentence to my statement that says: "There are moral things". But it seems redundant to me.

Okay, so there are moral things. Society figured out what they are, and then taught them to you. Ya?

 

[Moral Orel]

Depends what you mean by objective morality.

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

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

It has to be some rules "out there" somewhere for you to pick number one.

 

[muichimotsu]

(In this thread) I am not advocating for a particular system.
I am just saying that the OP's question necessitates that one exists.

Only if they assume morality must be mind independent and that's what is meant by an objective morality in the premise versus morality necessarily being subjective as something we apprehend ourselves as moral agents and make assessments about. That doesn't make it relative, it makes it experiential, even existential

 

[muichimotsu]

It has to be some rules "out there" somewhere for you to pick number one.

Problem is the question seems to suggest morality must either be absolutely mind independent or absolutely conditional to one's preferences, which is a false dichotomy in terms of even a sophomoric understanding of morality.

 

[Moral Orel]

The problem is assuming atheism=moral relativism, since that's almost implied in the phrasing, as if my preference is in any way comparable to the hypothetical entity God that supposedly, in some formulations, declares that which is good because they are God (or because that which is good is in God's nature, which is still question begging)

The thread assumes atheism to prevent general apologetic talk that will get it shut down and for no other reason.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ironically the reverse is also true.

No idea what makes you think that. I've made no comment on what your conception of morality is.

The difference is I am not trying to shoe horn you into my world view.

The world view that people think the world would be a better place if everyone did the stuff they believe ought to be done and didn't do the stuff that they believe ought not be done? Hardly seems controversial.

 

[Moral Orel]

Problem is the question seems to suggest morality must either be absolutely mind independent or absolutely conditional to one's preferences, which is a false dichotomy in terms of even a sophomoric understanding of morality.

How do you figure that bolded part fits the first one? A non-zero percentage of your moral beliefs aren't caused by your personal preferences. That's it. Maybe it's one of them, maybe it's all of them.

 

[Moral Orel]

Nope

Yep

 

[muichimotsu]

The thread assumes atheism to prevent general apologetic talk that will get it shut down and for no other reason.

Almost like apologetics is sounding pretty one-sided...

 

[muichimotsu]

How do you figure that bolded part fits the first one? A non-zero percentage of your moral beliefs aren't caused by your personal preferences. That's it. Maybe it's one of them, maybe it's all of them.

If we're talking about morality as something that simply is (which is part of Euthyphro's conclusion as the alternative to God's dictates, potentially) and also happens to align with preferences, then it remains mind independent in its essence, it merely incidentally happens to agree with preferences in the same inane way that Euthyphro brought up with God as a supposed arbiter of morality.

If morality is in any way just dictated rather than discerned, then it becomes little more than authoritarian ideology, even if it's masqueraded as magnanimous in some form or fashion

 

[Moral Orel]

Almost like apologetics is sounding pretty one-sided...

Eh, it's their platform. If they don't like that talk anymore, no biggie.

 

[Astrid]

Yep

So mired in god- beliefs that you cannot comprehend the thinking
of someone not so burdened hardly makes you
correct in your odd notions about atheists think.

 

[durangodawood]

Okay, so there are moral things. Society figured out what they are, and then taught them to you. Ya?

Either that, or society decided what our morals should be. Either way works for my vote in the poll.