Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Astrid]

Ha ha! Unless they have hit you with one first! Then one is in the realm of minimising harm, rather than preventing it outright.

But I am less concerned by the faults and failures of individuals, than the faults and failures of the powers that be; corporations and governments. They seem to me to be far more inclined to cause harm, and greater harm, than a thug with a baseball bat. If you doubt this, I would merely cite the invasion of the Ukraine.

But essentially yes, I would hold that that it is objectively wrong to wield baseball bats, or hand guns, or AK47 assault rifles, with the intention of causing harm. And if we all thought that way, we might live in a fairer, kinder, safer world. Until that time comes, we need to defend ourselves, and each other.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Its always specific cases to judge subjectively, no general
rule of whats moral or isnt.

 

[zippy2006]

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

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.

I haven't followed this entire conversation, but it seems to me that you are attributing A1 to Orel, and possibly A2 (and therefore A3).


M: "A moral claim is being made."
P: "A preference is being appealed to."

A1. M -> P
A2. P -> M
A3. M <=> P
​

If we grant A1 and A2 then A3 follows, and A3 signifies a kind of logical equivalence (similar to "="). Nevertheless, I think A1 is the most important and interesting claim. It may be better represented by the idea that morality is reducible to preferences, or that all moral claims are reducible to preference-claims.

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.

First, I don't know why it would be impossible to rationally justify intrinsic properties, including goodness (which @durangodawood also tried to argue in #151 and elsewhere).

Second, (1) strictly implies that some moral judgments are not dependent on preferences. Your claim that (1) implies that there are things which are "intrinsically good" would require further premises and argumentation, as well as a definition of what intrinsic goodness is.

Third, I think it would be more accurate to call preferences morally arbitrary. Total arbitrariness would apparently be something entirely random or entirely based on whim, and it isn't altogether clear that human preferences are entirely random or entirely based on whim. The key here is that the reason we take issue with (2) is rooted in our positive conception of morality, not merely the uncontroversial premise that 'morality is not pure arbitrariness.' Of course it is true that morality is not pure arbitrariness, but the rejection of (2) is rooted in something more than that.

...Of course, in #282 I pointed out that Ana's position is also incredibly vague and noncommittal. In general it is easier to criticize other positions than to set out your own.

 

[Chriliman]

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.

I think there’s room for an objectively best moral standard that doesn’t have to involve a supernatural eternal God. Humans could evolve to a point where we understand what’s best for society to thrive and possibly even reach immortality. But, hopefully that best objective morality is in place for everyone alive if that happens, otherwise that immortality might be more like hell.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So...

preferences = y
morals = x

Watch you go back and forth:

y = x

You didn't just say y = x ?

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!

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.

Even if I said "preferences = morality" originally instead of morality = preferences...

It doesn't matter. We both acknowledged that we both know some preferences (liking vanilla) have nothing to do with morality.

You understand what I said.

There's no strawman no goalpost shift....nothing.

And just after I gave you a little bit of meat from my actual argument

Your actual argument is in the survey. There's no correct choice there.

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.

There...I just acknowledged it. Sorry I reduced your argument to a simple statement without acknowledging the fact that some preferences have nothing to do with morality.

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.

Well I guess your OP is pointless then.

You make a moral statement because of your personal feelings, that doesn't mean your feelings = the behavior. That's inane.

None of this has anything to do with behavior. It's morals and preferences.

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

That's a completely different equality relationship. See how you brought up three factors? Mass, plants, atoms.

I only needed to bring up 2.

It's great that now you have some interest in actually paying attention,

Ad hominem.

but if you can't acknowledge you made a mistake, it doesn't bode well for how the rest this conversation might go.

I didn't even go back to check my original phrasing to see if you are correct and I originally said preferences = morality. I'm willing to take your word on it.

That's how little it matters.

Because you clearly understand what I'm saying now....and you can't argue out of it.

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​

Again ....are you saying that....

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

?

It's not hard. That's either your argument or you messed up the OP, the survey, multiple posts, and basically everything since.

If that's your argument....just admit it and I'll explain why you're wrong.

If it isn't.....delete the thread.

 

[zippy2006]

Because you clearly understand what I'm saying now....and you can't argue out of it.

This has surely become overly complicated. Orel holds to A1 and believes that at bottom morals are rooted in preferences and nothing more. He is willing to hold this position even though he believes that it results in problematic consequences, which he spelled out in #284.

• In #285 you claim that his position is tautological. I don't think it is, but even if it were, why would that be a problem? After all, tautologies are not false.
• In #285 you claim that you describe some things as morally good which you do not prefer. But Orel's responses to that claim are conclusive. Preferences always attend moral judgments. (The relevant question is whether the preferences are antecedent or consequent to the moral judgment)
• In #293 you claim that Orel conflated necessity with preference. That is incorrect. You are equivocating between <preferring that something that needs to be done, be done> and <preferring that something need not be done>. As long as the former sort of preference attends moral judgments, Orel's broader claim is vindicated. The latter sort of preference is not required (and is therefore beside the point).
• In #295 you claim that the negative consequence of Orel's position is less problematic than he believes, but that helps his case, it doesn't hinder it.

...and you can't argue out of it.

But the question at this point is: Why would he need to argue out of it? What reason have you given him to abandon his position?

 

[Moral Orel]

Even if I said "preferences = morality" originally instead of morality = preferences...

It doesn't matter. We both acknowledged that we both know some preferences (liking vanilla) have nothing to do with morality.

You understand what I said.

There's no strawman no goalpost shift....nothing.

It took quite a few posts for you to get around to mentioning vanilla. And only after calling you out on your schtick. Do you understand what '=' means now?

Your actual argument is in the survey. There's no correct choice there.

There is no argument in the survey. Do you know what an argument is?

There...I just acknowledged it. Sorry I reduced your argument to a simple statement without acknowledging the fact that some preferences have nothing to do with morality.

A false statement, that's the sticking point. Not that it was "simple".

Well I guess your OP is pointless then.

Sorry that it has clearly gone way over your head.

None of this has anything to do with behavior. It's morals and preferences.

Morals are about behavior. Do you know what "morals" are?

That's a completely different equality relationship. See how you brought up three factors? Mass, plants, atoms.

I only needed to bring up 2.

Wrong. Again, you'd have to understand the basics of what morality is about to understand that though.

Ad hominem.

Boo hoo. Until I use insults fallaciously, there ain't much point in pointing them out.

I didn't even go back to check my original phrasing to see if you are correct and I originally said preferences = morality. I'm willing to take your word on it.

That's how little it matters.

Because you clearly understand what I'm saying now....and you can't argue out of it.

We're talking about the claim you made, not new ones you want to replace them with.

Again ....are you saying that....

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

?

It's not hard. That's either your argument or you messed up the OP, the survey, multiple posts, and basically everything since.

If that's your argument....just admit it and I'll explain why you're wrong.

If it isn't.....delete the thread.

I already tried talking to you about something to do with my claim, and you ignored it. Stop pretending that you're arguing in good faith. I tried to address your issues with the claim, you only want to talk about your failed attempt to make a caricature of my claim. So that's all we're talking about I guess.

If we ever were to have a discussion it would have to start with you learning terms like "morals" and and "values" and "equals" and "argument" and "claim" etc. Remember what I said about this being amateur hour?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I haven't followed this entire conversation, but it seems to me that you are attributing A1 to Orel, and possibly A2 (and therefore A3).


M: "A moral claim is being made."
P: "A preference is being appealed to."

A1. M -> P
A2. P -> M
A3. M <=> P
​

If we grant A1 and A2 then A3 follows, and A3 signifies a kind of logical equivalence (similar to "="). Nevertheless, I think A1 is the most important and interesting claim. It may be better represented by the idea that morality is reducible to preferences, or that all moral claims are reducible to preference-claims.

You more or less have it. I can't say exactly what @Moral Orel means without him elaborating....which he isn't going to do.

There's not much there to elaborate.

He could claim morals are a subset of preferences....which might be what he's been going on about and the basis of most of his accusations towards me.

The thing is...I thought it was obvious we were only talking about preferences in regards to behavior....because moral statements are made in judgement of behavior.

We aren't talking about your favorite flavor of ice cream.

Or favorite color.

Or any of those things.

It's behavior, just behavior. This is obvious (or should be) but because I didn't state it off the bat....he's been clinging to it hoping to find some way out of his own position in the meantime.

First, I don't know why it would be impossible to rationally justify intrinsic properties, including goodness (which @durangodawood also tried to argue in #151 and elsewhere).

Second, (1) strictly implies that some moral judgments are not dependent on preferences. Your claim that (1) implies that there are things which are "intrinsically good" would require further premises and argumentation, as well as a definition of what intrinsic goodness is.

If it's objectively intrinsic it is so without your judgement. It's not really apparent why you would bother to make a moral statement in this scenario.

Furthermore, this is exactly why I insisted on good only being used in the context of a positive moral value. A cow is good like this? In what way? I can just as easily say a good cow is one that patiently and quietly waits it's turn to be slaughtered.

Third, I think it would be more accurate to call preferences morally arbitrary.

I see little relational value between morals and preferences. They might align....they might not. It doesn't seem to depend upon much....certainly not to each other.

Total arbitrariness would apparently be something entirely random or entirely based on whim, and it isn't altogether clear that human preferences are entirely random or entirely based on whim.

There's a different definition that applies in this context I think.

The key here is that the reason we take issue with (2) is rooted in our positive conception of morality, not merely the uncontroversial premise that 'morality is not pure arbitrariness.' Of course it is true that morality is not pure arbitrariness, but the rejection of (2) is rooted in something more than that.

I've completely abandoned my former concept of morality. I describe it phenomenologically. I have to now, that's what it appears to be.

...Of course, in #282 I pointed out that Ana's position is also incredibly vague and noncommittal. In general it is easier to criticize other positions than to set out your own.

Yeah, that's fair. In honesty, I'd be describing a concept of morality I haven't seen before and, as far as I know, is my own. Pretty arrogant, not likely to be well received. I'd like to bounce it off someone but I don't know who or who would care to listen.

Then there's the quandary itself of explaining the basic framework (aka the necessary constituents of any moral statement) and the variables which might be important (those which can dramatically change one's moral position).

People generally don't think of how this stuff can play out long term. It's a pretty commonly disregarded question. Too many variables.

But in retrospect they could have game theorized how nukes would play out....even if we can forgive them for not understanding where antibiotics would lead. Make sense?

So the thing is....even if any of my conception is true, that describing it the way I can think of it, makes it inherently useful. I can think of many things it might help understand.

In the very same way, it could be used for one's own ends, in very cruel and disturbing ways. Horrific even.

So even though what I think I have is the basic framework (it's useful by itself) and maybe 4-5 important variables (probably not what you think) that's still not a great proposition if I am right about any of it.

I would still land on the side of subjective morality in that dynamic....but I used to imagine the problem with describing morality as a problem of infinite variation. That's not really the problem. The problem is why do we agree on anything moral at all?

If you start tangling with that...while holding onto a subjective conception...you might understand why I abandoned the conception and started from scratch.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This has surely become overly complicated. Orel holds to A1 and believes that at bottom morals are rooted in preferences and nothing more. He is willing to hold this position even though he believes that it results in problematic consequences, which he spelled out in #284.

I can't read minds or anything. Judging by his posts...it seems like he was convinced I would make an argument that I had no intention of making.

Then I think he realized the argument that I was going to make, understood the problem it causes for his position....and that's why he never tried to clarify his supposed "actual position" from the one I described his position as.

• In #285 you claim that his position is tautological. I don't think it is, but even if it were, why would that be a problem? After all, tautologies are not false.

It might not be, like I said, he could be thinking of subsets....but I don't know. It doesn't matter. All I have to do is point out an easily understood and widespread example of preference and moral incongruence and it's done. If I wanted to be a jerk, I could just make one up that's believable but harder to argue against.

Which would you choose?

• In #285 you claim that you describe some things as morally good which you do not prefer. But Orel's responses to that claim are conclusive. Preferences always attend moral judgments. (The relevant question is whether the preferences are antecedent or consequent to the moral judgment)

Then his claim is about causality, not preferences, and he needs to reframe his position. I've given him plenty of time. I can either graciously accept his reframing as a tacit admission of knowing he was wrong....

Or I can burn down his new position by introducing something like intent.

Which would you choose? Lol.

• In #293 you claim that Orel conflated necessity with preference. That is incorrect. You are equivocating between <preferring that something that needs to be done, be done> and <preferring that something need not be done>. As long as the former sort of preference attends moral judgments, Orel's broader claim is vindicated. The latter sort of preference is not required (and is therefore beside the point).

Is that where you thought I was going? I'm pretty sure I was going to point out that a moral good can be created upon a need that isn't preferred.

I can't even imagine how twisted the arguments become when one tries to argue against this. You're not going to argue that because a slave chooses living over dying from suicide or the possibility of escape and dying upon capture....he must therefore prefer slavery to freedom or death, and therefore he sees this as a moral good.

You aren't going to even try arguing against this. I don't require "need" to bury his position....we can keep it at pure preference with or without any actual behavior. If the inclusion of need as a possible motive for preference and moral incongruity is too troublesome....I'm more than willing to graciously let it slide.

Doesn't stop it from being true though.

• In #295 you claim that the negative consequence of Orel's position is less problematic than he believes, but that helps his case, it doesn't hinder it.

I'll have to reread that one. Don't remember it.

But the question at this point is: Why would he need to argue out of it? What reason have you given him to abandon his position?

He doesn't want me to say it lol. He doesn't want to address my argument.

I told him I had one, it's simple enough....he probably realized he had one too before he could take back the prior 10 pages.

I guess that's embarrassing. Taking a argument position on page one, defending it for multiple pages, figuring out you're wrong later. It doesn't need to be embarrassing. We are all wrong sometimes. I was recently on here....I admitted it and retracted my statement. I left my original statement up....but my later post retracted it. I'm not embarrassed for something we all do. Nobody shamed me.

I already told him that he can just have the thread deleted. I'm not going to bring it up later and gloat or anything. It's not a competition to me. I like that he thinks rationally. I'm not trying to discourage it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It took quite a few posts for you to get around to mentioning vanilla.

Why would I have to? Why would I have to acknowledge that other preferences apart from behavior exist?

You're relating preferences and morals. Am I assuming too much when I assume that you aren't talking about preferences of no moral value?

You wasted time with this to try and think of a new framing for your position....but you've made it clear for multiple posts and there's that ugly survey that isn't going anywhere, so you're stuck.

And only after calling you out on your schtick. Do you understand what '=' means now?

What schtick?

There is no argument in the survey. Do you know what an argument is?

It's everything you have said to defend your position.

A false statement, that's the sticking point. Not that it was "simple".

Lol yeahhh....it's so false that you haven't moved from that position even a little.

Sorry that it has clearly gone way over your head.

I'm still waiting on you to reframe your position.

If I'm wrong....and you don't think that moral statements are statements of preference....

Feel free to explain why anytime.

I'll just sit here and listen to the crickets chirping.

Morals are about behavior. Do you know what "morals" are?

Yup. I also know that you need not have performed a behavior to hold a moral judgement.

Sorry kiddo...you won't be introducing behavior. It's not necessary for moral judgement. You don't think everyone who says murder is bad has performed murder. Nope.

So irregardless of behavior, moral judgements are made. In fact, behavior can be abstracted to the point of being blatantly vague and people still make moral judgements. Did you think about that before posting?

Wrong. Again, you'd have to understand the basics of what morality is about to understand that though.

And you'd understand why this sounds silly if you read my post to zippy and gave any real consideration to position three in the formulation of a moral statement.

Most people making judgements about behavior (particularly negative) in moral statements haven't done those behaviors.

Boo hoo. Until I use insults fallaciously, there ain't much point in pointing them out.

All insults are logically fallacious. That's the point. You're hoping to attack me. I haven't even made an argument. You either think it's one I wasn't going to make....but I'm pretty sure you can think of one similar.

Nope. You're just kinda stuck. Can't ask what I was going to say without clarifying (not changing) your position. Can't guess the argument I'm going to make (or you did and you can't make it without refuting yourself) so you're just stuck with logical fallacies. Attack me. Move the goalposts. Try whatever you think I won't notice....I'll just keep you here.

We're talking about the claim you made, not new ones you want to replace them with.

I'm fine with the one I made. You've tried to distort it....it's possible you genuinely misunderstood it....either way, you definitely get it now.

I said that this is your position...your claim....

A statement of moral good is a statement of preference.

If I'm wrong....feel free to explain. I'm enjoying watching you try to find a way out of this that doesn't contradict everything you've said. Obviously you aren't finding it. If you found it, you wouldn't waste time by attacking me.

Any day now.

I already tried talking to you about something to do with my claim, and you ignored it. Stop pretending that you're arguing in good faith. I tried to address your issues with the claim, you only want to talk about your failed attempt to make a caricature of my claim. So that's all we're talking about I guess.

Would this "something" in any way require substantially rewriting your survey?

It's not exactly filled with options. If you believe something other than 1 or 2 why haven't you brought it up and removed the survey and drastically altered your OP?

Does that feel like an admission of being wrong?

If we ever were to have a discussion it would have to start with you learning terms like "morals" and and "values" and "equals" and "argument" and "claim" etc. Remember what I said about this being amateur hour?

It's definitely amatuer something. Well.....

Go on...

Explain how I misstated your position and how much different your new position (your "actual" position) is from everything you wrote so far. I can you quote you plenty of times....

 

[Moral Orel]

You're not going to argue that because a slave chooses living over dying from suicide or the possibility of escape and dying upon capture....he must therefore prefer slavery to freedom or death, and therefore he sees this as a moral good.

There, ya see? Strawman. This states that my claim is "preference -> moral good". That's false. "If I prefer slavery over death, then I call slavery morally good". Wrong. My claim in option (2) is simple enough.

All things which are moral, are moral because I prefer those things

See the bolded part? That's the set of behaviors we're talking about. That's the "if" in this if/then conditional. We are not talking about the set of things I prefer. Even if we only talk about behavior, you're still wrong. You've been trying to flip it the entire time, and I called you on it. Too bad, so sad.

Lol yeahhh....it's so false that you haven't moved from that position even a little.

Correct, my position hasn't budged. We're just trying to help you get your little head around it, buddy.

Yup. I also know that you need not have performed a behavior to hold a moral judgement.

Sorry kiddo...you won't be introducing behavior. It's not necessary for moral judgement. You don't think everyone who says murder is bad has performed murder. Nope.

So irregardless of behavior, moral judgements are made. In fact, behavior can be abstracted to the point of being blatantly vague and people still make moral judgements. Did you think about that before posting?

I won't be introducing "behavior" to a discussion on morality... Are you listening to yourself?

And "irregardless"? Really?

All insults are logically fallacious. That's the point. You're hoping to attack me. I haven't even made an argument. You either think it's one I wasn't going to make....but I'm pretty sure you can think of one similar.

Nope. You're just kinda stuck. Can't ask what I was going to say without clarifying (not changing) your position. Can't guess the argument I'm going to make (or you did and you can't make it without refuting yourself) so you're just stuck with logical fallacies. Attack me. Move the goalposts. Try whatever you think I won't notice....I'll just keep you here.

Nothing is logically fallacious that isn't part of an argument. Add "logically fallacious" and "logical fallacies" to the growing list of terms you don't understand.

I'm fine with the one I made. You've tried to distort it....it's possible you genuinely misunderstood it....either way, you definitely get it now.

I said that this is your position...your claim....

A statement of moral good is a statement of preference.

If I'm wrong....feel free to explain. I'm enjoying watching you try to find a way out of this that doesn't contradict everything you've said. Obviously you aren't finding it. If you found it, you wouldn't waste time by attacking me.

Any day now.

Fine with the one you made? Okay, that's "preferences = morality". As you've elaborated, you think my claim is that if I prefer it, then I call it morally good. But we both know that's false, don't we?

Would this "something" in any way require substantially rewriting your survey?

It's not exactly filled with options. If you believe something other than 1 or 2 why haven't you brought it up and removed the survey and drastically altered your OP?

Does that feel like an admission of being wrong?

There's nothing wrong with the options, and there's nothing new I need to add to the survey.

I love how you put "something" in scare quotes, as if you didn't respond to a post with me fleshing out my argument a little, and redacting any mention of it from your response. As if I might not have made it because you dodged it. lol Pathetic.

It's definitely amatuer something. Well.....

Go on...

Explain how I misstated your position and how much different your new position (your "actual" position) is from everything you wrote so far. I can you quote you plenty of times....

My actual position = my original position. See how that '=' works?

 

[Ana the Ist]

How about this one?

Uh-oh! We got our first attempt to split the horns!

So lemme ask... Think of what you would consider the most heinous thing you would say "is immoral". Then think of the most pleasant moral thing you would say "is moral". You don't need to tell me what they are. You have no preference for which one you would like to occur? Either is fine?

That's page one. What's the relationship between morals and preferences you're expressing here?

 

[Ana the Ist]

There, ya see? Strawman. This states that my claim is "preference -> moral good". That's false. "If I prefer slavery over death, then I call slavery morally good". Wrong. My claim in option (2) is simple enough.

All things which are moral, are moral because I prefer those things

Ok....and you're holding to that?

Someone cannot see something as moral and prefer the opposite???

Because everyone appears to have missed the blatantly obvious example of this and....coincidentally....my conception of moral statements explains this example pretty easily.

But we agree? Your position falls apart once I point out an example of a moral good that someone believes is true but strongly doesn't prefer?

 

[Moral Orel]

That's page one. What's the relationship between morals and preferences you're expressing here?

The only relationship I talk about here is a correlation. It makes no distinction between (1) and (2).

That's what this thread is about. The correlation. I don't care which option people pick here. I'm only arguing that they have to pick one. Simply because people prefer good stuff over bad stuff. The least controversial statement ever made.

Ok....and you're holding to that?

Someone cannot see something as moral and prefer the opposite???

Because everyone appears to have missed the blatantly obvious example of this and....coincidentally....my conception of moral statements explains this example pretty easily.

But we agree? Your position falls apart once I point out an example of a moral good that someone strongly doesn't prefer?

So I can take this response as an acknowledgement of all the errors you've made and I've pointed out since you're just dodging the whole post? Are we going to spend a bunch more pages of you telling me I'm wrong about a claim you don't understand just to have you sweep that under the rug too? After all of your mistakes, you still think you're going to crush my position in a single blow without bothering to hear an argument for it?

You've already tried this line waaaaay back in the beginning. I need to listen to this again because...

 

[Ana the Ist]

Correct, my position hasn't budged. We're just trying to help you get your little head around it, buddy.

Oh if only you knew how comically large my head is.

This has been fun. I'm glad you finally screwed up and clarified your position. It was what I meant to say....if I did originally say preference = moral. I don't think I'll agree again, the correction was acknowledged and made....you seem to have taken it well.

I already told you I didn't have to introduce need. You screwed up.

I won't be introducing "behavior" to a discussion on morality... Are you listening to yourself?

Yeah....why would it matter whether or not someone engages in the behavior?

And "irregardless"? Really?

Really. I don't see that behavior can tell you anything about morals or preferences.

Nothing is logically fallacious that isn't part of an argument.

Geez....then all those strawmen you accused me of aren't logical fallacies. That's all most logical fallacies are lol attempts to avoid addressing an argument.

Add "logically fallacious" and "logical fallacies" to the growing list of terms you don't understand.

This is a great self own.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The only relationship I talk about here is a correlation. It makes no distinction between (1) and (2).

Right. You make no distinction. You see one as the other. If you didn't, the correlation wouldn't make any sense.

That's what this thread is about. The correlation.

If there is one (and there probably is) it's slim, nearly undetectable, and unrelated to the formation to the vast majority of moral statements.

But I'm sure it's a variable to some small degree. The idea that your survey presents doesn't offer #3 neither of these options are even close.

I don't care which option people pick here. I'm only arguing that they have to pick one. Simply because people prefer good stuff over bad stuff. The least controversial statement ever made.

People prefer preferred stuff.

You're making the same mistake as zippy and abstracting "good" with things people like. Preferences are relational though, not just subjective, so all I have to do is play around with those relational aspects and choose the "good" of sets of non preferences. And they can indeed find it good....morally.

And that's just another way to rip your position apart.

So I can take this response as an acknowledgement of all the errors you've made and I've pointed out since you're just dodging the whole post? Are we going to spend a bunch more pages of you telling me I'm wrong about a claim you don't understand just to have you sweep that under the rug too? After all of your mistakes, you still think you're going to crush my position in a single blow without bothering to hear an argument for it?

Yeah....whatever. If I genuinely misunderstood your position....go back and look at your original responses. It seems like you agree. Then without clarifying, you accuse me of complete nonsense for trying to understand exactly what your position was. I'm not the one attacking you and I wasn't playing shenanigans. I genuinely wanted to pin down the axiomatic crux of your position.

Lighten up.

Now that you've done that. Do you agree that my abstract formulation of a counter argument basically disproves your position?

I promise I won't choose a hypothetical example. I'll choose a real one....with hefty loads of evidence that by all appearances the conflict between moral good and preference is real. Obviously we can't know such things to a certainty....but I promise you will look silly trying to argue against it. You probably won't want to.

Fair?

 

[Moral Orel]

Right. You make no distinction. You see one as the other. If you didn't, the correlation wouldn't make any sense.

Strawman in the first line. My statement doesn't make a distinction, that doesn't mean there isn't one. Get lost.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Strawman in the first line. My statement doesn't make a distinction, that doesn't mean there isn't one. Get lost.

Well if you're not going to say it....why would I assume it? I literally agreed with your exact wording of your position. Look.

The only relationship I talk about here is a correlation. It makes no distinction between (1) and (2).

You said directly that the survey, which you represented as your position (choice 2) makes no distinction between the two choices.

Essentially you could have asked if morals=preferences or preferences=morals.

Those are two choices with no distinction. It's not my fault that every time you try to formulate a coherent statement it sounds exactly like what I said it was.

What exactly do you want me to respond to?

Should I just keep guessing at whatever you're trying to say?

Do you even know what a bad faith argument is?

What's the distinction between a statement of moral good and a statement of preference?

I don't want to hear about this distinction after I explain why you're wrong.

Also I don't leave on request. I told you that you can just delete the thread. We both know you're wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here you are again....

Do you mean that you think there's a third option? Or do you just mean that you see no problem with one or both of the options?

No third option? Is there a second option where moral statements and preferential statements about behavior aren't the same thing?

Is there a distinction there or not?

For a guy who throws out this many personal attacks....and keeps trying to avoid explaining himself....you'd think at some point you'd just call it quits. You're drowning and I haven't even made an argument yet...I've just repeated your position back to you, in your own words most recently.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Depends what you mean by objective morality.

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

I'm certain that I can find cultures with moral positions you find abhorrent.

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

No....but it helps you to obey his morality if you believe hes watching and judging.

 

[zippy2006]

All I have to do is point out an easily understood and widespread example of preference and moral incongruence and it's done.

Well when are you going to do that? I disagree with Orel's position, but I honestly haven't seen you present a critique of his position that sticks. What is this argument that you believe devastates his theory?

Is that where you thought I was going? I'm pretty sure I was going to point out that a moral good can be created upon a need that isn't preferred.

That's what you did before you accused him of conflating necessity with preference, and it is what led up to that accusation. As I already noted, "Orel's responses to that claim are conclusive..."

I can't even imagine how twisted the arguments become when one tries to argue against this. You're not going to argue that because a slave chooses living over dying from suicide or the possibility of escape and dying upon capture....he must therefore prefer slavery to freedom or death, and therefore he sees this as a moral good.

These are invalid inferences. When a slave chooses to try to escape at the risk of death, he does not "therefore prefer slavery to freedom or death." That makes no sense. The truth is the opposite of what you say. He prefers freedom or death to slavery.

Let's consider your equivocation between <preferring that something that needs to be done, be done> and <preferring that something need not be done>. We would say that it is moral for the slave to escape slavery at the risk of death. This means, at the same time, that we prefer that slaves escape slavery. The preference and the moral judgment go hand in hand.

Now your rejoinder is apparently, "But I would prefer that the slave never need to escape slavery. I would prefer that slavery never exist at all." As Orel already noted, this new preference is irrelevant to the question. Orel said that preferences attend moral judgments, and we already saw that a preference attends the moral judgment regarding escaping slavery. The separate preferences of "Preferring that slavery exist," or "Preferring that a person be faced with the prospect of escaping slavery," do not need to be present in order for Orel's theory to stand.

Note, too, that your tangential preferences are also moral in nature. You think slavery is a moral evil, and you think the slave who must decide whether to escape is deciding how to navigate a moral evil. This is of course why we think the slave ought to escape in the first place: because slavery is a moral evil. These "separate preferences," far from disproving Orel's thesis, support it and are entailed by it. Anyone who asserts the moral claim that slaves should be free must also prefer that slavery not exist. The "absence of the preference that slavery exist" is entailed by Orel's position, and does not disprove it in the least.