Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Astrid]

Yea, it’s a complex thing, but I don’t think the complexity of moral issues should dissuade us from trying to figure out a solution that works for everyone involved, but when viewing it as completely subjective, that seems impossible. There has to be some objectivity to ground reasons on, otherwise it may very well be impossible.

Are subjective takes typically unhinged from anything onjective?

 

[Astrid]

Let's just talk about number (2) that you agree makes for an arbitrary morality. What does it mean to be arbitrary, and what are the "bad" things about it.

For starters, it means that two people with differing preferences are both right. That can't really be, so they must both be wrong.

It also means that morality changes over time. That can't be either, right? A thing can't be wrong and then be right, and then be wrong. It's either right or wrong. This isn't a reference to an absolute, by the way. Absolute would be about being right or wrong regardless of the circumstances. I mean literally chronologically.

We can't just change our minds about some thing, and then the quality of that thing changes. That would be ridiculous. Our mind changed, not the thing.

Its right to shoot the enemy. But if he surrenders its wrong. When he tries to escape its right. When he falls wounded its wrong. When he slashes at you with a knife its right. After he is dead its wrong again.

 

[Chriliman]

Are subjective takes typically unhinged from anything onjective?

I would say no, which is why I don’t think morality is completely subjective.

 

[Chriliman]

Subjective in the existential sense is different from the ontological sense, where everyone's opinions are equally valid. When someone is ignorant or even just a psychopath with no empathy, then their claims from a subjective perspective are not necessarily beneficial, because they fail to even utilize that basic aspect of morality: empathizing or looking outside their individual viewpoint

That's the problem in terms of the words used, they're multifaceted in meaning and can thus be construed in ways not necessarily intended

True, which why we can disregard their subjective perspectives on the objective basis that they’re ignorant or psychopathic.

 

[Astrid]

I would say no, which is why I don’t think morality is completely subjective.

Animals understand a lot of basic morality.
The objective part comes in because the rules are
about what works best. Empirical, not mandated of heaven.

 

[Astrid]

True, which why we can disregard their subjective perspectives on the objective basis that they’re ignorant or psychopathic.

Weird

 

[Chriliman]

Animals understand a lot of basic morality.
The objective part comes in because the rules are
about what works best. Empirical, not mandated of heaven.

My understanding of what is meant by heaven is a bit different than others. For me, heaven is a joyful state of mind based in truth and love, whether that can last forever or not, I really don’t know(and actually can’t know, given that it would be never ending).

 

[Astrid]

My understanding of what is meant by heaven is a bit different than others. For me, heaven is a joyful state of mind based in truth and love, whether that can last forever or not, I really don’t know(and actually can’t know, given that it would be never ending).

I was referring to morality being dictated by
a god who by dictating it makes it "objective" "
tho its the god's personal preference.

 

[Chriliman]

I was referring to morality being dictated by
a god who by dictating it makes it "objective" "
tho its the god's personal preference.

Well, it would be the gods personal preference based on a complete understanding of objective reality, assuming the god is capable of that level of understanding. But I get what you’re saying: why even invoke such a god? And I think it’s because people genuinely believe they encounter such a god, which is great if true, obviously raises a bunch of questions lol and a dependence on faith, but sorry, I don’t wish to take this thread off topic any further.

 

[durangodawood]

...It also means that morality changes over time. That can't be either, right? A thing can't be wrong and then be right, and then be wrong. It's either right or wrong. This isn't a reference to an absolute, by the way. Absolute would be about being right or wrong regardless of the circumstances. I mean literally chronologically....

Well stealing is not a "thing". Its not like a ripe tomato which is red, and doesnt turn blue then back to red again.

I dont see how "right" and "wrong" exist in an action. Those judgements are our regard for the action. They are in us, not in the action. I think you agree.

 

[zippy2006]

This isn't a reference to an absolute, by the way. Absolute would be about being right or wrong regardless of the circumstances. I mean literally chronologically.

This hearkens back to our discussion where I stressed the complexity of terms like 'absolute' and 'relative'. If you want to define 'absolute' as indifference to circumstances, and you think morality is indifferent to temporal circumstances, then morality would be absolute in at least that one sense; namely it would be "temporally absolute." Time is most certainly a circumstance.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well stealing is not a "thing". Its not like a ripe tomato which is red, and doesnt turn blue then back to red again.

Well... Stealing, murdering, raping... These are all acts; acts being the things we judge morally. An act is defined as "a thing done".

I dont see how "right" and "wrong" exist in an action. Those judgements are our regard for the action. They are in us, not in the action. I think you agree.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. And I think I've recently come up with a good way to demonstrate it. If you haven't come across me using this in other discussions with other folks, all the better that we've both simultaneously come to the same conclusion. Here's the problem.

Any time we say, "N is A" where N is any noun, and A is any adjective, that sentence is states that A is a property of N. If A is not in fact a property or N, then that statement is false. That's just how grammar works.

But when we use certain terms for A, we accept that, "Oh, but you know that means I..." Let's try an example. What shall we use... Ah, I know, chocolate ice cream. If I tell you "Chocolate ice cream is good" then I have stated that "good" is a property of "chocolate ice cream", but like we agreed, it isn't a property of the thing. It's a statement about us. What I mean when I make that statement is "I enjoy chocolate ice cream".

So when I state "N is A" I'm really meaning "N verb N". In any other context we would say that it's nonsense to state that a thing has a property but mean that a thing does a thing.

So it seems clear that when I say "Chocolate ice cream is good" then when can safely determine that I am making a false statement. Only when I say what I mean can it be true ("I enjoy chocolate ice cream").

 

[Moral Orel]

This hearkens back to our discussion where I stressed the complexity of terms like 'absolute' and 'relative'. If you want to define 'absolute' as indifference to circumstances, and you think morality is indifferent to temporal circumstances, then morality would be absolute in at least that one sense; namely it would be "temporally absolute." Time is most certainly a circumstance.

Not if time is an illusion, man! Just kidding. Sure, that seems fine. Remember I already agreed that absolute and objective aren't mutually exclusive.

We might just as well say that time is irrelevant to morality, though.

 

[Moral Orel]

Its right to shoot the enemy. But if he surrenders its wrong. When he tries to escape its right. When he falls wounded its wrong. When he slashes at you with a knife its right. After he is dead its wrong again.

That the time is different in each situation is incidental. What you're describing is changing the circumstances, and it's impossible for morality to be absolute with regards to any circumstances.

For instance, if all you change is the time, then someone could say in 1845 that it is "wrong" to shoot a surrendered enemy, and also say in 2022 that it is "wrong" to shoot a surrendered enemy. But it would be ridiculous to say that just during the year of 1911 it was "right" to shoot a surrendered enemy.

 

[zippy2006]

Any time we say, "N is A" where N is any noun, and A is any adjective, that sentence is states that A is a property of N. If A is not in fact a property or N, then that statement is false. That's just how grammar works.

First, predication and property assignment are not the same thing. Property assignment is one interpretation of predication, but one which struggles in various ways.

Predicates do not always stand apart from their subject in the way that properties stand apart from their substratum. "Socrates is human" is a predication, but it isn't really a property assignment. 'Human' is not a property of some putatively ahuman substratum, 'Socrates'. Grammar simply does not assume that predication involves property assignment.

So it seems clear that when I say "Chocolate ice cream is good" then when can safely determine that I am making a false statement. Only when I say what I mean can it be true ("I enjoy chocolate ice cream").

Second, your understanding and application of the word 'good' is highly idiosyncratic. I think your claims here with respect to goodness are incorrect, but I don't have time to get into that right now. What I will say is that you should be very careful with such idiosyncratic usage, and with imposing that idiosyncratic assumption on other language users. Most people would disagree with your claim that goodness is never an intrinsic quality.

The other point is that the usage of 'good' that you here take as an example is not controversial in the necessary way. A more pertinent (and grammatically difficult) example would be, "It is good to not murder people."

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Moral Orel]

Most people would disagree with your claim that goodness is never an intrinsic quality.

Those who claim an intrinsic "goodness" are being accurate about their claim when they state that "a thing is good"; that's exactly what they mean. Those who mean "I like a thing" are making a false statement.

 

[Astrid]

That the time is different in each situation is incidental. What you're describing is changing the circumstances, and it's impossible for morality to be absolute with regards to any circumstances.

For instance, if all you change is the time, then someone could say in 1845 that it is "wrong" to shoot a surrendered enemy, and also say in 2022 that it is "wrong" to shoot a surrendered enemy. But it would be ridiculous to say that just during the year of 1911 it was "right" to shoot a surrendered enemy.

Are you aware that " time" is also a difference, a change?
And that no two situations are the same?

Of course you are.

You are just talking distinctions without any difference.

 

[Astrid]

Those who claim an intrinsic "goodness" are being accurate about their claim when they state that "a thing is good"; that's exactly what they mean. Those who mean "I like a thing" are making a false statement.

So if you win lottery you dont dare say " thats good".

 

[Moral Orel]

Are you aware that " time" is also a difference, a change?
And that no two situations are the same?

Of course you are.

You are just talking distinctions without any difference.

If time is the only thing that changed, then morality doesn't change. Morality doesn't change because time changed. Or morality is arbitrary and it does.

Saying, "At this time the circumstances are this and morality is one way, but at this other time the circumstances are totally different and morality is totally different" doesn't refute that.

So if you win lottery you dont dare say " thats good".

When speaking colloquially, I say false things all the time, so yeah. I say "chocolate ice cream is good" in casual conversation too.