Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Moral Orel]

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

No, that never happened. Look at our exchange again:

What's the relationship between morals and preferences you're expressing here?

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?

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

See that bolded word "here" where you referred to the post? I also used that bolded word "here" to refer to the post. That's how English works. I'm not going to keep giving reading lessons. Get lost.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well when are you going to do that?

Just as soon as he pins down his position.

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?

Yeah go back and read... we never got that far. I suspect that he doesn't want to.

That's what you did before you accused him of conflating necessity with preference,

We can agree that a need isn't a preference can't we?

and it is what led up to that accusation. As I already noted, "Orel's responses to that claim are conclusive..."

I don't recall what this is in response to.

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.

Freedom isn't an option...he'll die if he tries to escape. I thought that was clear. Those are his choices.

Are you saying he has no moral choice? If he can't have what he prefers....you can't think of any reason why one choice or the other could be a moral good?

Let's consider your equivocation between <preferring that something that needs to be done, be done> and <preferring that something need not be done>.

Again, this is about morals arising from need. What he prefers isn't relevant.

If the slavery example is too dramatic....how about this?

I hate taking out the trash and prefer when someone else does it.

I see taking out the trash as morally good behavior.

Are you saying that I can't possibly make both of those statements honestly?

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.

No offense, but I don't see how you can possibly get to a moral position with a non-possibility.

Can we say every cop shooting is immoral because they could have used magical pixie dust to render the subject asleep?

No we don't. Moral behavior is described as options available unless you're abstracting it to the point of deliberate vagueness.

Note, too, that your tangential preferences are also moral in nature.

Try not to presume too much. I don't know what you expect me to be honest about regarding my preferences.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, that never happened. Look at our exchange again:

Uh huh.

See that bolded word "here" where you referred to the post? I also used that bolded word "here" to refer to the post. That's how English works. I'm not going to keep giving reading lessons. Get lost.

I didn't think you would voluntarily take a harder position to defend.

Now you're saying that there's no difference between a behavior viewed as good or one viewed as bad....they're both matters of preference.

Because as you said, you aren't differentiating between the two.

Basically giving me twice as many options and simultaneously agreeing that preferences = morals or morals = preferences.

Are you sure? I don't even need examples to show how that's wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

I didn't think you would voluntarily take a harder position to defend.

Learn to read.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Learn to read.

I'm fine with you taking the harder position.

We don't have to even go through examples. I don't need to compare a negative moral judgment to anything to make it.

 

[zippy2006]

Again, this is about morals arising from need. What he prefers isn't relevant.

If the slavery example is too dramatic....how about this?

I hate taking out the trash and prefer when someone else does it.

I see taking out the trash as morally good behavior.

Are you saying that I can't possibly make both of those statements honestly?

Here is a fictional representation:

• Orel: If you make a moral claim then there is a preference underlying it.
• Ana: No, because I can claim that some behavior is moral and yet not prefer to carry out that behavior.
• Orel: Give an example.
• Ana: "I see taking out the trash as morally good behavior," but "I hate taking out the trash and prefer when someone else does it."
• Orel: The preference which underlies your moral claim is, "I prefer that the trash gets taken out." That preference is present whether or not any other preference is absent, and therefore my initial statement holds true.

Stated differently, because one can both dislike and prefer an option, a dislike for an option does not mean that no preference for that option exists. I might prefer broccoli qua health and dislike broccoli qua taste. If I eat it then my preference for its healthiness wins out over my dislike for its taste. Even if I don't eat it, my preference for its healthiness does not disappear. In a similar way, the fact that you prefer that the trash be taken out is not negated by the inconvenience it causes you. When you find some other bloke to take it out for you, 1) You commend the bloke for morally good behavior, 2) Your underlying preference that the trash be taken out is satisfied, and 3) Your tangential preference that you not be inconvenienced is also satisfied.

So your counterargument here fails. I can still prefer that the trash be taken out even if it inconveniences me to take it out.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here is a fictional representation:

• Orel: If you make a moral claim then there is a preference underlying it.
• Ana: No, because I can claim that some behavior is moral and yet not prefer to carry out that behavior.
• Orel: Give an example.
• Ana: "I see taking out the trash as morally good behavior," but "I hate taking out the trash and prefer when someone else does it."
• Orel: The preference which underlies your moral claim is, "I prefer that the trash gets taken out." That preference is present whether or not any other preference is absent, and therefore my initial statement holds true.

And you honestly don't see the problem with this?

I directly expressed my preference for not taking out the trash.

I said if it must be taken out....I prefer someone else do it. I hate it.

How exactly are you going to explain my direct preference for not taking out the trash as "a preference for the trash getting taken out"?

You think you can abstract it to point where it's ambiguous who is taking out the trash....and still designate that as my personal preference?

Stated differently, because one can both dislike and prefer an option, a dislike for an option does not mean that no preference for that option exists.

I already stated the preference. I hate it. I'd prefer not to do it.

You seem to think that you can magically turn this into a positive personal preference.....by referring to an ambiguous subject?

If the subject is ambiguous...how can you possibly attribute the preference to me?

When you find some other bloke to take it out for you, 1) You commend the bloke for morally good behavior, 2) Your underlying preference that the trash be taken out is satisfied, and 3) Your tangential preference that you not be inconvenienced is also satisfied.

None of this actually matters. Maybe I always take out the trash....maybe I never do.

In either scenario there's no reason both statements cannot be true.

So your counterargument here fails. I can still prefer that the trash be taken out even if it inconveniences me to take it out.

Your plan the whole time is to just choose a preference, abstract who does it, then attribute it to me?

That seems like a good argument to you? Pretty solid?

 

[zippy2006]

And you honestly don't see the problem with this?

I directly expressed my preference for not taking out the trash.

I said if it must be taken out....I prefer someone else do it. I hate it.

How exactly are you going to explain my direct preference for not taking out the trash as "a preference for the trash getting taken out"?

You think you can abstract it to point where it's ambiguous who is taking out the trash....and still designate that as my personal preference?



I already stated the preference. I hate it. I'd prefer not to do it.

You seem to think that you can magically turn this into a positive personal preference.....by referring to an ambiguous subject?

If the subject is ambiguous...how can you possibly attribute the preference to me?



None of this actually matters. Maybe I always take out the trash....maybe I never do.

In either scenario there's no reason both statements cannot be true.



Your plan the whole time is to just choose a preference, abstract who does it, then attribute it to me?

That seems like a good argument to you? Pretty solid?

So you would say: <If I dislike taking out the trash, Then I have no preference that the trash be taken out>

Here's a little tip for you, Ana: Everyone dislikes taking out the trash, and everyone prefers that the trash be taken out. It may not be an exaggeration to say that every single person in the world, including yourself, disproves your thesis. Two things can be true at the same time.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So you would say: <If I dislike taking out the trash, Then I have no preference that the trash be taken out>

No. I said all I need to in order to make a statement of preference about a behavior and then a moral statement about the same behavior.

All you're doing is adding statements I didn't make lol. At least you've been helpful in showing this is a tautology.

So if just fabricating statements and claiming that they have some surpassing truth value is valid argumentation....well....

The true preference underlying all previously stated preferences is that....

I prefer to never take out the trash.

Now what?

You gonna call me a liar and tell me what I really mean?

 

[zippy2006]

So you would say: <If I dislike taking out the trash, Then I have no preference that the trash be taken out>

At least you've been helpful in showing this is a tautology.

You think that false inference of yours is a tautology?

I'll leave you with #368. Most people would recognize what I wrote there as common sense. You should apparently think of it like a Zen koan.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You think that false inference of yours is a tautology?

I'm pretty certain this proposed relationship between preference and moral is a tautology.

I'll leave you with #368. Most people would recognize what I wrote there as common sense. You should apparently think of it like a Zen koan.

You should think of it as the "liar liar pants on fire" defense. That's just bad argumentation.

"Hey, your completely reasonable statements don't fit in my conception of reality....so I'll just change them around till they do!"

That wasn't even a good example zippy...I thought it up as I read the post. Took me 10 seconds.

This might be the weakest explanation of morality I've seen.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then I have no preference that the trash be taken out.

This isn't statement of preference for a behavior.

This is a statement of preference for the presence of garbage/trash.

Forgot to mention that in my previous post. Ones feelings about the presence of garbage and the feelings towards the behavior of removing it are not the same.

I'm guessing you probably do that a lot when you make the subject ambiguous.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So you would say: <If I dislike taking out the trash, Then I have no preference that the trash be taken out>

Here's a little tip for you, Ana: Everyone dislikes taking out the trash, and everyone prefers that the trash be taken out. It may not be an exaggeration to say that every single person in the world, including yourself, disproves your thesis. Two things can be true at the same time.

And another thing....

I'm not sure why you and Oral seem so extremely confident in your opinion but it looks like this is probably at play.

False consensus effect - Wikipedia

Statements like "everyone knows" and "this isn't even controversial" and "this is common sense" and so on....

It looks like you found some small agreement and mistakenly applied it to others.

Regardless, when you make a moral basis on a tautology, you make it glaringly obvious to find the flaw in it. I kept thinking that the moral position would become more complex....but no. It didn't. All I had to do was pick any of the thousands of both real and hypothetical examples where preference and morality are correlated as opposites.

That's it. If you can't explain why this completely reasonable position is impossible....you're both just wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

Then I have no preference that the trash be taken out

This isn't statement of preference for a behavior.

This is a statement of preference for the presence of garbage/trash.

Do you know what a verb is?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you know what a verb is?

Yeah, do you know what verb tenses are?

 

[Moral Orel]

Yeah

I don't think you do. If you don't think "trash be taken out" describes behavior, then you clearly don't understand how they work.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't think you do. If you don't think "trash be taken out" describes behavior, then you clearly don't understand how they work.

Tell me what tense it is lol. I wouldn't even make a point of this if it wasn't so ironic after you telling me to learn to read so many times.

What tense is it? Do you know? Can you look it up?

 

[Moral Orel]

Tell me what tense it is lol. I wouldn't even make a point of this if it wasn't so ironic after you telling me to learn to read so many times.

What tense is it? Do you know? Can you look it up?

Red herring. I could write the same thing in any of the tenses and it would still describe behavior. Past, present, and future behavior can all be described, derp. A weak attempt at deflection from your obvious error.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Red herring.

Nope. Verb tense is going to change the subject/object relationship.

Do you know what grammar is? Do you understand how it works in English?

What's the verb tense?

Amatuer hour indeed.

I could write the same thing in any of the tenses and it would still describe behavior.

You can use the same words...but you wouldn't be saying the same thing.

Past, present, and future behavior can all be described, derp.

Yeah, and unless stated clearly, some future tenses allow you to leave the subject ambiguous, derp.

A weak attempt at deflection from your obvious error.

Learn to read.

 

[Moral Orel]

Nope. Verb tense is going to change the subject/object relationship.

You prefer that the trash was taken out.
You prefer that the trash be taken out.
You prefer that the trash will be taken out.

Tense has nothing to do with the relation between subject and object. Still a red herring.