Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Strivax]

No. Justifying a duty on the basis of the duty itself or on the basis of the good consequences of honoring the duty are two different things. A deontologist like Immanuel Kant would hold that the duty must be honored regardless of any good or bad consequences that it will bring about. Deontological schools simply do not justify duties on the basis of good consequences.

Seems a somewhat sterile view of duty to me. What is it that makes a duty a duty if it is not the consequences of performing or not performing that duty?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[zippy2006]

Seems a somewhat sterile view of duty to me. What is it that makes a duty a duty if it is not the consequences of performing or not performing that duty?

Hmm? To speak about consequences is to destroy the idea of duty altogether. Something done for the sake of consequences can never be done for the sake of duty, for duty is precisely the sort of thing that prescinds from consequences. You are talking about a boon, not a duty, and boons are never duties. The idea that consequences do not figure into duties qua duties just follows from the meaning of duty. It isn't sterile; it's just what duty is.

As an example you could think of a promise. Why are we obliged to fulfill promises? On a deontologist's view it is simply because of our duty to fulfill promises (to keep our word). The nature of promises demands that they be fulfilled. Consequences don't even enter into the justification. To justify promises on the basis of some external, temporal good that will obtain is to justify promises in a non-deontological way.

I think Englishmen and especially Americans have a tough time wrapping their heads around non-consequentialist moral positions. A few months ago <someone claimed> that the reason Christians follow the Ten Commandments is to have a "sense of being a good person," which is clearly a consequentialist reduction. Duty has certainly fallen on hard times.

 

[Moral Orel]

Better for whom? ... What do your morals say when it's better for one person but worse for another?

Again, why are you asking me? You brought up better, best, and bad outcomes. It's your conception of morality, you tell me.

How can you be sure that things will get better for whoever?

You said morality doesn't depend on actual outcomes, so why are you asking about this at all?

There is no general universal "better" that applies in all situations.

There doesn't need to be. You said there can be a "best outcome", so given a specific situation, there is an outcome that is better than other outcomes in that situation, no?

I'm not trying to get you to conceptualize morality differently from how you already do; I'm asking you to describe it. My questions aren't rhetorical.

 

[Strivax]

No. Justifying a duty on the basis of the duty itself or on the basis of the good consequences of honoring the duty are two different things. A deontologist like Immanuel Kant would hold that the duty must be honored regardless of any good or bad consequences that it will bring about. Deontological schools simply do not justify duties on the basis of good consequences.

I guess I'm not a deontologist then. Too many vicious autocrats over the course of recorded history have thought that morality is independent of consequences. Generally this mental tactic is to make them and their minions feel good about doing bad stuff.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Kylie]

Euthypro's Dilemma, now for ATHEISTS!
(agnostics too)

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

This is not an apologetic topic. For the sake of this discussion, it will be assumed that God(s) do not exist and never have. Any discussion of how God would answer this poll will be considered off topic.

I think this is a false dichotomy.

There are things which I consider moral which inconvenience me. And I do not claim that something is moral because I find it preferable.

 

[Astrid]

I think this is a false dichotomy.

There are things which I consider moral which inconvenience me. And I do not claim that something is moral because I find it preferable.

Of course its a false dichotomy.

 

[zippy2006]

I guess I'm not a deontologist then. Too many vicious autocrats over the course of recorded history have thought that morality is independent of consequences. Generally this tactic is to make them and their minions feel good about doing bad stuff.

The tyrannical rulers who ended up killing over 100 million people in the 20th century were consequentialists through and through. They were acting for the sake of consequences and they were acting on their belief that the end justifies the means, a staple doctrine of consequentialism. Eugenics, for example, is based on classic consequentialist reasoning.

The idea that negative deontological norms justify evil acts that result in terrible consequences really makes no sense at all. Such a position is deeply confused.

 

[Strivax]

As an example you could think of a promise. Why are we obliged to fulfill promises? On a deontologist's view it is simply because of our duty to fulfill promises (to keep our word). The nature of promises demands that they be fulfilled. Consequences don't even enter into the justification. To justify promises on the basis of some external, temporal good that will obtain is to justify promises in a non-deontological way.

We are 'obliged' to keep promises because if we get a reputation otherwise no one will trust us. That, and in a society where breaking one's word is common no one will trust anyone, and the social glue that holds the fabric of society together will be weakened.

As for claiming there is something intrinsic to the nature of a promise that demands it be kept; well, that is no justification at all, unless you specify what that something is.

...A deontologist like Immanuel Kant would hold that the duty must be honored regardless of any good or bad consequences that it will bring about...

The idea that negative deontological norms justify evil acts that result in terrible consequences really makes no sense at all. Such a position is deeply confused.

But you have already claimed that, for the deontological 'moral' agent, outcome is irrelevant. According to you, (s)he requires only the notion that some act is a matter of duty. Doubtless Hitler's Waffen SS thought they knew what their duty was. Result: holocaust.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think this is a false dichotomy.

There are things which I consider moral which inconvenience me. And I do not claim that something is moral because I find it preferable.

Are there zero things that you call moral and you also prefer them? Note that option 1 only says "some", it doesn't say "all".

 

[Moral Orel]

I must be dense, I see no dilemma.

Do you mean that you think there's a third option?

No

Of course its a false dichotomy.

lol

 

[Kylie]

Are there zero things that you call moral and you also prefer them? Note that option 1 only says "some", it doesn't say "all".

True, there are some things I prefer which are moral. There are some things which I do not prefer which I still consider moral. There are some things I prefer which some people would probably find IMmoral.

The OP suggests there is a relationship between preferable and moral which does not exist.

 

[Moral Orel]

True, there are some things I prefer which are moral.

Well, since you say that you don't call them moral because you prefer them, then you're a (1).

The OP suggests there is a relationship between preferable and moral which does not exist.

Ahh, but there is. The poll doesn't ask about what you prefer to do, only that you prefer the thing. In essence, that the world would be a better place if more people did the thing, and the world would be a worse place if less people did the thing.

That you are inconvenienced, or that you hate doing some moral thing is irrelevant. You prefer that people do those things over no one doing those things. That's all it takes for you to have a preference.

 

[Kylie]

Well, since you say that you don't call them moral because you prefer them, then you're a (1).

Ah, but that presupposes that I prefer them because they are moral.

What if I would prefer them regardless of whether they were moral or not?

Ahh, but there is. The poll doesn't ask about what you prefer to do, only that you prefer the thing. In essence, that the world would be a better place if more people did the thing, and the world would be a worse place if less people did the thing.

That you are inconvenienced, or that you hate doing some moral thing is irrelevant. You prefer that people do those things over no one doing those things. That's all it takes for you to have a preference.

Again, this presupposes that my preference for or against them depends on my view of their morality.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ah, but that presupposes that I prefer them because they are moral.

What if I would prefer them regardless of whether they were moral or not?

Again, this presupposes that my preference for or against them depends on my view of their morality.

If there is such a thing as a "good" way to behave, and a "bad" way to behave, and of course "good" is better than "bad", then whatever is moral/good is preferred.

This doesn't address how you decide what is "good" or "bad". That's where the dilemma kicks in. But we won't get to that until we settle the fact that people prefer good over bad. That notion seems utterly uncontroversial to me, but here we are.

 

[Kylie]

If there is such a thing as a "good" way to behave, and a "bad" way to behave, and of course "good" is better than "bad", then whatever is moral/good is preferred.

This doesn't address how you decide what is "good" or "bad". That's where the dilemma kicks in. But we won't get to that until we settle the fact that people prefer good over bad. That notion seems utterly uncontroversial to me, but here we are.

Why are you trying to make this about morality? There are plenty of things where I have a particular preference that have nothing to do with morality. My favorite cake, for example (mud cake, for the record).

 

[Moral Orel]

Why are you trying to make this about morality? There are plenty of things where I have a particular preference that have nothing to do with morality. My favorite cake, for example (mud cake, for the record).

There are things that you prefer that you don't call moral. So what? Everything you call moral, you prefer those things; that's all that is relevant. That's why you can't split the dilemma. It speaks only of the things you call moral. It doesn't make a statement about every single thing you prefer.

 

[Astrid]

lol

Laughing at your own confusion is ok but not worth
publicizing.

 

[zippy2006]

As for claiming there is something intrinsic to the nature of a promise that demands it be kept; well, that is no justification at all, unless you specify what that something is.

Do you understand what a promise is? Do you understand what "giving your word" means?

But you have already claimed that, for the deontological 'moral' agent, outcome is irrelevant. According to you, (s)he requires only the notion that some act is a matter of duty. Doubtless Hitler's Waffen SS thought they knew what their duty was. Result: holocaust.

Hitler wanted to exterminate Jews, gays, and the rest for the sake of a consequence, namely the goal of the racial "purity" of the German people. Every genocide is premised on consequentialist reasoning.

Hitler's evil was carried out on the basis of consequentialism, not because he believed theft or murder were intrinsically evil and we have a duty to abstain from them. If Hitler was a deontologist the Holocaust would have never happened. Honestly man, what are you even talking about!?

 

[Kylie]

There are things that you prefer that you don't call moral. So what? Everything you call moral, you prefer those things; that's all that is relevant. That's why you can't split the dilemma. It speaks only of the things you call moral. It doesn't make a statement about every single thing you prefer.

First of all, the phrasing of the OP suggests it is talking about the things I prefer, not the things I call moral.

Secondly, there are some things I enjoy that would be called immoral, but I really can't talk about them here without violating some rule. Suffice it to say, it involved my husband and myself, a rooftop pool at a hotel, and a very early hour of the morning.

 

[Strivax]

Do you understand what a promise is? Do you understand what "giving your word" means?...

Perfectly. But I still don't see how they necessarily result in a duty. One can quite easily imagine circumstances in which they clearly don't, for example, if the promise was coerced.

...If Hitler was a deontologist the Holocaust would have never happened. Honestly man, what are you even talking about!?...

I wasn't talking about Hitler, but about one of his elite troops, who gave an oath to serve the Fuhrer loyally, and obey the orders of his superiors. Do you think that circumstance gives rise to a duty?

Hitler's evil was carried out on the basis of consequentialism, not because he believed theft or murder were intrinsically evil and we have a duty to abstain from them.

Maybe Hitler thought it was his duty to rid the world of Jews, communists, homosexuals, gypsies, criminals, the disabled etc.

Just to spell out my point, it is that without due regard to the likely consequences, deontology can go seriously awry as a moral system.

Best wishes, Strivax.