Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Ana the Ist]

You've got a quote of me claiming that "morals = preferences = needs"? Let's see it.

I didn't say anything about needs....you tacked that on all by yourself when you tried to argue that morality = preference. That's the only way you can avoid preferences arising from need instead of morality.

Would you like me to force you to tack more onto your bad argument?

I'm not one of those "don't label me" types. But I am too lazy to research all of them to see what fits specifically. Moral non-realism is a broad enough category. I'm in there somewhere.

Ok.

I'm here to argue for sport.

Which is why you resort to the same lazy arguments and personal attacks when you can't admit you're wrong.

But if your "arguments" require me to respond with things like "that isn't what I wrote" and "that's not what that word means", then it isn't an argument anymore. That's teaching someone to read. No thanks.

I already quoted you. If you want another example, I can simply quote from the OP's survey question.

Option 1....preferences are created by morals.

Option 2....morals are statements of preference.

Which is precisely why I didn't answer....because morals and preferences aren't related. Provably so.

Everything you want me to write here I've already written in the threads I pointed you to.

You didn't link any threads. Don't kid yourself.

 

[Moral Orel]

I didn't say anything about needs....you tacked that on all by yourself when you tried to argue that morality = preference. That's the only way you can avoid preferences arising from need instead of morality.

Would you like me to force you to tack more onto your bad argument?

Ok.

Which is why you resort to the same lazy arguments and personal attacks when you can't admit you're wrong.

I already quoted you. If you want another example, I can simply quote from the OP's survey question.

Option 1....preferences are created by morals.

Option 2....morals are statements of preference.

Which is precisely why I didn't answer....because morals and preferences aren't related. Provably so.

You didn't link any threads. Don't kid yourself.

Like I said, I'm not here to teach folks to read.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Like I said, I'm not here to teach folks to read.

We can all read....it's a false dichotomy created by not only your insistence on a relationship between preferences and morality....but your misunderstanding of the dilemma.

It only applies to a "God-created" view of morality.

 

[Moral Orel]

We can all read....

So you say, but then you keep telling me I claimed things I never wrote so...

See, I know your schtick. Sorry, but I'm not taking the bait. You're pretty good at debate, but you're pretty bad at arguments. There's a difference. You concoct a strawman, and then you goad your opponent into engaging you on that strawman.

You showed your hand too soon. If you waited till further in the conversation, I might have gotten invested enough to fall for it. As a debate technique it's pretty good at throwing your opponent off balance and getting them to make mistakes. But as a form of rational argumentation it's abysmal.

....but your misunderstanding of the dilemma.

It only applies to a "God-created" view of morality.

lol no. In the God version only one option has God "creating" morality. Creating morality makes it arbitrary. Doesn't matter who does it. Special Pleading fail. In the other option, God doesn't create it, it exists regardless of Him and for no reason.

I love that you just told me I misunderstood the dilemma. hahaha

 

[Ana the Ist]

So you say, but then you keep telling me I claimed things I never wrote so...

If I quote what you wrote...we'll just go through the same argument we just went through. It ends with me pointing out that not all morals are based on preferences and you trying to tie in "need" through the biological "preference" to continue living lol....which you apparently think is arbitrary.

No need to repeat it. You ran because you probably see where it's going.

See, I know your schtick.

Schtick lol.

Sorry, but I'm not taking the bait.

No bait. If I actually misrepresented your statement....you would have corrected me by now.

I represented your statement fairly. You just can't argue for it anymore.

You're pretty good at debate, but you're pretty bad at arguments.

Ad hominem. You can't address the post so.....personal attacks.

How cliche.

There's a difference. You concoct a strawman, and then you goad your opponent into engaging you on that strawman.

Your position only constitutes a relationship between two concepts.

1. Preferences.
2. Morality.

There's a very limited amount of ways these two concepts can be combined. If the way I described them isn't the way you described them....you would have explained the difference by now.

Instead, you've resorted to the exact same tactics as everyone else who is wrong.

You showed your hand too soon. If you waited till further in the conversation, I might have gotten invested enough to fall for it.

It's not a hand, schtick, game, etc.

And you're using the term strawman wrong.

For it to be a strawman....I'd have to be talking about something other than the relationship between preferences and morality.

As a debate technique

This isn't a debate technique. You won't point out the "strawman" for the same reason you don't address my post.

You realized you're wrong.

it's pretty good at throwing your opponent off balance and getting them to make mistakes. But as a form of rational argumentation it's abysmal.

Oh no....the guy using ad hominem attacks on me doesn't like the "strawman" he claims I made but won't be able to point out or explain.

lol no. In the God version only one option has God "creating" morality.

Oh no...you don't even understand the "problem". Did you look up the "dilemma" before making the thread?

There's only two options and "god creating morality" isn't one of them.

It's either....

God loves behavior x because it's good.

Or...

Behavior X is good because God loves it.

Consider having the mods delete the thread.

Creating morality makes it arbitrary.

I don't think you actually know what "arbitrary" means.

Doesn't matter who does it. Special Pleading fail. In the other option, God doesn't create

God doesn't create morality in either option.

Reading fail.

 

[Moral Orel]

If I actually misrepresented your statement....you would have corrected me by now.

I did.

It only applies to a "God-created" view of morality.

God doesn't create morality in either option.

Hahaha, love it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I did.

You said...

I can't even unpack all the things that are wrong with this. Try harder.

Hahaha, love it.

Yeah, I shouldn't have said "God-created"....because I was talking about the "view" of morality....not morality.

Saying that "god creates your view of morality" isn't the same as saying "god creates morality".

But that's my fault for not being more precise with my words and quotations.

I can see why you'd misunderstand it.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't see how you concluded preferences = morality

You said...

Morals =/= preferences

That was me pointing out I never made the claim you imagined.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That was me pointing out I never made the claim you imagined.

Just so we're clear....you aren't pointing out a strawman because I didn't make one.

You said...

That was something you already said way back in the beginning when you ruled out number (2).

If you aren't into responding more now, that's cool. If you never feel like jumping back in, that's cool too.

Let me spell out the problems associated with the options for you. For (2) most people recognize right away that morality becomes totally arbitrary if it is determined by personal preference. Most folks can't accept that. The problem with (1) is that what is good has to be intrinsically good. And it's impossible to justify rationally that something is intrinsically good. So things must be good/evil for no reason at all.

No reason or arbitrary reasons, those are the choices. As a Moral Subjectivist, I've accepted that (2) is true, as unsatisfying as it is. I don't vote in my own polls, though.

Obviously you aren't talking about all preferences. That's obvious. You aren't claiming that a preference for vanilla over chocolate is a moral position.

But you are clearly saying that all moral statements are ultimately statements of preference....and you're wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

Obviously you aren't talking about all preferences. That's obvious. You aren't claiming that a preference for vanilla over chocolate is a moral position.

Ah so you do understand how I never claimed "Morals = preferences". Ergo, you made a misrepresentation of my argument that's easily refuted. Ergo, you made a strawman.

When you said, "you concluded preferences = morality" that was false, and you knew it was obviously false. Yeah, that's a strawman, buddy. I mean for Pete's sake, your opening post to me violated the Law of Identity. Do you know what '=' means? Very amateurish.

But you are clearly saying that all moral statements are ultimately statements of preference....and you're wrong.

So now you want a redo after me calling out your schtick and you continuing to drag it out for another couple pages all the while denying you were doing exactly what I described you doing? lol

 

[Strivax]

So, just to put a point of view you may or may not have considered yet. I consider God's Will for us and morality synonymous. God, being omnibenevolent, wants the best for us, and being and doing the best we can be and do inevitably involves being and doing what is moral. Two things, in this view, prevent us from morals; 1) we do not know what is moral and 2) even if we did know, we may not wish to do it. On our journey through life, however, we discover what is moral, and why it is best to be moral. In other words, this is one of those topics where we think God's thoughts, after Him, given sufficient experience.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ah so you do understand how I never claimed "Morals = preferences".

And you now clearly understand that I understand what you were saying.

It actually looks like this was clear to you when you responded to the post where I framed your position as "morals = preferences".

That's because that is your position.

It may be a simplification but it is your position. You think morals are matters of preference towards certain behaviors in certain situations.

Am I wrong? That's what you appeared to argue as some sort of "uncontroversial" common knowledge. Do you think that people hold moral positions that aren't matters of preference?

I didn't say preferences = morals. That would have been a misunderstanding of what you wrote....but it's still nowhere close to a strawman. The difference between that and what I said is the difference between saying....

1. Yachts are boats.
2. Boats are yachts.

#1 is true....yachts are boats. #2 is false....there's plenty of non-yacht boats.

None of this really needs explained. You knew what I meant and I knew what you meant. How do I know this? Because I stated something like...

"I can think of a moral position that I don't prefer."

Which clearly implies that I can also think of a moral position that I do prefer. Then we had a short back and forth of only a few posts that ended at the conclusion that we can hold moral positions out of necessity that we don't prefer at all. You pointed out that these were conditional (I think that is the word you used) and I agreed....and pointed out that means that they aren't arbitrary preferences at that point.

And of course, you understood this.

That's what a disagreement between two rational thinkers looks like. It's short. We both got there quickly.

The only disappointing thing is that instead of conceding, admitting you're wrong, or simply dropping your position....you did what everyone else does.

You attempted to claim disinterest....which isn't true from someone who argues this topic on multiple threads, apparently for fun. Then you began the same old personal attacks that I'm so used to by now I just see them as confirmation that we both know I'm right. Then attempted to claim I was engaging in logical fallacies like the strawman....despite admitting in this post I understood what your argument was the entire time.

I don't know if it's a matter of pride....and that's why you argue for sport. It's not a matter of pride for me though. I genuinely try to help people see why they're making bad arguments. I'm not always nice about it. I'm wrong sometimes and I've admitted it. My ego isn't tied up in proving my intellect by rationally deconstructing bad arguments. That's too easy to make me feel smart.

It's much harder to rationally construct a good argument. I suspect that is why you ended up with the argument you're making here.

 

[Moral Orel]

"morals = preferences"...that is your position.

I didn't say preferences = morals. That would have been a misunderstanding of what you wrote...

Law of Identity strike two. You don't know what '=' means...

Then attempted to claim I was engaging in logical fallacies like the strawman....despite admitting in this post I understood what your argument was the entire time.

Yes, you understood my position and intentionally misrepresented it. That's what a strawman is! lol

That's what you appeared to argue as some sort of "uncontroversial" common knowledge.

To be clear, I know that my choice of (2) is controversial, to an extent. Moral non-realism is the less popular side of the spectrum. What is not controversial is that values are tied to morality. The question this poll asks is how are they tied. You say they aren't related. That's ridiculous.

Then you began the same old personal attacks that I'm so used to by now I just see them as confirmation that we both know I'm right.

Don't let it go to your head. We have our own dynamic as opponents that neither of us are polite, both of us enjoy being rude, and neither of us will report the other for it. If you can't make it past one post without explicitly violating one of the foundational rules of thought, then that's all the entertainment this conversation is good for.

Then we had a short back and forth of only a few posts that ended at the conclusion that we can hold moral positions out of necessity that we don't prefer at all. You pointed out that these were conditional (I think that is the word you used) and I agreed....and pointed out that means that they aren't arbitrary preferences at that point.

Wrong, I said "need" is conditional. As in, it is a conditional statement. There is no true statement of the form "One needs to X." It is only true in the form "One needs to X in order to...". Reality is such a way that it causes our preferences to be one thing or another. That isn't the same as being "conditional" as I've described "need" being "conditional". Our conversation can be summed up as this:

Orel: "Need" is conditional.
Ana: AHA! So you admit "preferences are conditional" and morality isn't arbitrary!
Orel: Needs =/= preferences.

It's much harder to rationally construct a good argument. I suspect that is why you ended up with the argument you're making here.

To be clear, I haven't argued for my whole position here. I haven't argued that (2) is true. Only that values and morals are intertwined. That's the uncontroversial bit.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Law of Identity strike two. You don't know what '=' means...

Never studied formal logic huh? The "=" is used for a lot more than just mathematics.

You're proposing a theoretical equal relationship between a statement of morality about a behavior and a statement of preference about the same behavior.

If you doubt this...read your own survey. There's no option where they aren't equally correlated.

No...I didn't misrepresent your argument. I'm not going to dig up the language to do the long form of the logical writing of your position when the short version is so easy.

To be clear, I know that my choice of (2) is controversial, to an extent. Moral non-realism is the less popular side of the spectrum. What is not controversial is that values are tied to morality. The question this poll asks is how are they tied. You say they aren't related. That's ridiculous.

You said preferences. This is your attempt at a goalpost shift.

Sorry, the survey says preferences. You said preferences. We're going with preferences.

Don't let it go to your head. We have our own dynamic as opponents that neither of us are polite, both of us enjoy being rude, and neither of us will report the other for it.

I don't see you as an opponent. You're one of the few people who tries to think rationally on here.

If you can't make it past one post without explicitly violating one of the foundational rules of thought, then that's all the entertainment this conversation is good for.

If I had started off with a fallacy....I'd agree with you on this.

I didn't though, and you wouldn't be trying to alter your position if I did.

Wrong, I said "need" is conditional. As in, it is a conditional statement. There is no true statement of the form "One needs to X." It is only true in the form "One needs to X in order to...".

And???

Reality is such a way that it causes our preferences to be one thing or another.

That's determinism. We couldn't call those preferences arbitrary. I'm not sure we can even call them subjective.

That isn't the same as being "conditional" as I've described "need" being "conditional". Our conversation can be summed up as this:

Let's make a complete picture here...

Ana: I can think of moral statements not based upon preferences.
Orel: No you can't!
Ana: Sure I can, I can make them based upon need, opposing my preferences.
Orel: "Need" is conditional.
Ana: Right, which makes moral statements arising from needs conditional, not arbitrary or preferential.
Orel: Needs are preferential. You don't need anything. You don't need to eat, you can just die. You prefer to eat.
Ana: Are you sure you want to go with that argument?
Orel: I'm done with this discussion. It's amatuer hour.

To be clear, I haven't argued for my whole position here. I haven't argued that (2) is true. Only that values and morals are intertwined. That's the uncontroversial bit.

Preferences. You said preferences.

 

[Moral Orel]

Never studied formal logic huh? The "=" is used for a lot more than just mathematics.

Never studied formal logic, huh? That's what I was citing, derp.
Law of Identity

If I had started off with a fallacy....I'd agree with you on this.

I didn't though, and you wouldn't be trying to alter your position if I did.

Since I never claimed "preferences = morality" or "morals = preferences" (both of which you used) yeah, you intentionally misrepresented my position with an obvious falsehood. Straw man.

I haven't altered my position, but I'll get into that later in this post.

And???

And that thing that you're referring to with "in order to" is the thing you prefer.

You're not going to escape the is/ought problem with hypothetical imperatives, bro. I know that's where you're headed with your "ad hoc" rationale.

Preferences. You said preferences.

Hahaha. I knew that would upset you. Preferences are nothing more than a hierarchal ordering of the things you value, the things you desire, the things you want. If you've got no preference, you've got no feeling about it whatsoever, ergo you don't value it.

If you value X,
then you want X,
and you want X more than you want not-X. Preference.

If you prefer X
And X if and only if Y
Then you prefer Y too.

The poll works exactly the same whether I say "value" or "preference" or "feelings" or "desires". They don't all '=' each other, but you can't have one and not the others.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Never studied formal logic, huh? That's what I was citing, derp.
Law of Identity

Ok, then you should understand that you're proposing second order reflexive equality where y=x.

I'm not downloading all the junk I'd need to write it out long form.

To put it simply so anyone reading understands....

You're arguing a statement of moral good is a statement of personal preference.

Since I never claimed "preferences = morality" or "morals = preferences" (both of which you used) yeah, you intentionally misrepresented my position with an obvious falsehood. Straw man.

Then explain what is wrong with the way I stated your position above.

A statement of moral good is a statement of personal preference.

Explain how that is different from whatever your argument is.

If you can't....then we're done with your "strawman" nonsense.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok, then you should understand that you're proposing second order reflexive equality where y=x.

So...

preferences = y
morals = x

Watch you go back and forth:

I don't see how you concluded preferences = morality.

y = x

I didn't say preferences = morals.

You didn't just say y = x ?

"morals = preferences"...that is your position.

Now x = y...

lol Look at it! If you can't look at that and see how you obviously goofed up, then you're not even going to understand my actual argument for Moral Subjectivity.

Even if we can't flip y and x, you started by telling me that all preferences are morals!

A statement of moral good is a statement of personal preference.

Explain how that is different from whatever your argument is.

If you can't....then we're done with your "strawman" nonsense.

This isn't what you said originally. How did you put it? Oh yeah. "Preferences = morality". You said "preferences = morality". This is your attempt at a goal post shift.

And just after I gave you a little bit of meat from my actual argument you choose to ignore all of that and focus on pretending you didn't make a mistake. You still want to argue about the straw man without ever getting to the point. Schtick.

Just own that what you actually said was false and you knew that when you said it. Coming up with new things to say doesn't change that. Your new phrasing doesn't mean the same thing as your old phrasing.

Even without the whole fact that not all preferences are about morality, it still doesn't work. Morals are statements about "proper" or "good" or "right" behavior. Preferences are feelings you have. They aren't the same thing any way you think about them. You make a moral statement because of your personal feelings, that doesn't mean your feelings = the behavior. That's inane.

Planets have mass because they're made of atoms. That doesn't mean atoms = mass or mass = atoms.

It's great that now you have some interest in actually paying attention, but if you can't acknowledge you made a mistake, it doesn't bode well for how the rest this conversation might go. Show me that you argue in good faith.

"The only disappointing thing is that instead of conceding, admitting you're wrong, or simply dropping your position....you did what everyone else does." - An Atheist​

 

[Strivax]

Just to interject a tuppeny-ha'ppeny worth, here's how I think about it. Most people have a preferred moral code. That implies some sets of ethics are better than others, whichever code you prefer. If some sets of ethics are better than others, one of them must be best of all, whether we individually espouse it not. If it is best, it must be objectively best, or none of us could say, for example, paedophilia is objectively wrong, only that it is a matter of preference. To me, that would seem to be an entirely unsatisfactory result.

For believers, of course, it is God who is objectively best, and by being so, sets the standards. I honestly do not see how a non-believer can reconcile his/her moral preferences with objectivity. But I'm quite prepared to be thus enlightened.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Astrid]

Just to interject a tuppeny-ha'ppeny worth, here's how I think about it. Most people have a preferred moral code. That implies some sets of ethics are better than others, whichever code you prefer. If some sets of ethics are better than others, one of them must be best of all, whether we individually espouse it not. If it is best, it must be objectively best, or none of us could say, for example, paedophilia is objectively wrong, only that it is a matter of preference. To me, that would seem to be an entirely unsatisfactory result.

For believers, of course, it is God who is objectively best, and by being so, sets the standards. I honestly do not see how a non-believer can reconcile his/her moral preferences with objectivity. But I'm quite prepared to be thus enlightened.

Best wishes, Strivax.

What is better is subjective. See Talibans who
seek their own notions of purity and virtue.

Perhaps some are "better" anyway. We all like
to think so.

That there is a "best", far less an ultimate set
of values in no way logically follows.

Considering the range of behaviour sanctioned in the
name of God, the "objective" nature of said morality
is tough to detect.

 

[Strivax]

Considering the range of behaviour sanctioned in the
name of God, the "objective" nature of said morality
is tough to detect.

Agreed. But this only shows we have yet to achieve knowledge of the perfect morality of God. And even if we had, and knew we had, there remains the task of actually implementing it, which is a whole different can of worms, depending as it does on good character, spiritual stature and moral fibre.

Best wishes, Strivax.