Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Chriliman]

The basic problem is that Ana continually asserts that Orel's position is wrong, and then when he is asked why it is wrong, he says that he doesn't even know what Orel's position is.

Obviously it makes no sense to believe that a position is wrong and to simultaneously not know what the position is. Of course Orel <explicitly stated> that he holds to poll option (2), and I gave an alternative formulation in A1 <here>.

Ah ok, I think it stems from Ana’s idea that he can think of moral goods that he does not prefer, but the trash example boils down to preferring that someone else take out the trash. Maybe Ana should try to think of another example b/c I don’t think that one works. Right now, it still seems preference and morals are tightly linked.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm not personally affected by the behavior of pedophiles.

I do hold a moral judgement for their behavior.

Wanna try again?

Whether you care if kids are violated or not has no bearing on the fact that kids are negatively effected by being violated.

Note the extreme example. Why do you think people use extreme examples?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Whether you care if kids are violated or not has no bearing on the fact that kids are negatively effected by being violated.

Right. I have the judgement regardless of it affecting me.

Note the extreme example. Why do you think people use extreme examples?

In this case, because it's broadly socially normative.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ah ok, I think it stems from Ana’s idea that he can think of moral goods that he does not prefer, but the trash example boils down to preferring that someone else take out the trash.

It's taken awhile to pin down the argument they're making.

They wanted to dress it up as anything other than imagination. It doesn't explain anything.

I can imagine preferences too.

If our preferences are different who is correct? One of us? Neither of us?

Ignoring all other possibilities and describing everything in terms of "preference" as if that's all there is....isn't a theory.

Maybe Ana should try to think of another example b/c I don’t think that one works. Right now, it still seems preference and morals are tightly linked.

Right....because as long as they are allowed to imagine any preference for a moral....they can.

Real galaxy brain stuff here lol.

 

[Chriliman]

Right. I have the judgement regardless of it affecting me.

I think our judgments stem from how we’re affected by the effects of certain acts(did I use those words right lol). If we perceive innocence being violated, it angers us and judgment is given. Can you honestly say you were never affected by the knowledge of pedophiles?

 

[zippy2006]

Just unclear where the disagreement is between you and Orel/Zippy

Ah ok, I think it stems from Ana’s idea that he can think of moral goods that he does not prefer, but the trash example boils down to preferring that someone else take out the trash. Maybe Ana should try to think of another example b/c I don’t think that one works. Right now, it still seems preference and morals are tightly linked.

Expressed formally, this has been Ana’s approach:

M: “A moral claim is being made”
P: “A preference is being appealed to”
Pp: “A preference is present”
m1: “I see taking out the trash as morally good behavior”
p2: “I hate taking out the trash and prefer when someone else does it.”
A1: M -> P
A4: M -> Pp

---------------

Argument:

1. P -> Pp

{Premise}​

2. A1 -> A4

{From 1 and A1}​

3. ~A4 -> ~A1

{From 2; contrapositive}​

4. ~A4 <-> (M ^ ~Pp)

{Negation of conditional}​

5. m1 is an instance of M

{Premise}​

6. p2 is an instance of ~Pp

{Premise}​

7. (m1 ^ p2) -> ~A4

{From 4, 5, and 6; substitution}​

8. (m1 ^ p2)

{Premise}​

9. Therefore, ~A4

{From 7 and 8; modus ponens}​

10. Therefore, ~A1

{From 3 and 9; modus ponens}​

---------------

The error comes at (6). The relevant negation of Pp needed to falsify A4 would be, “No preference is present,” i.e. <~Pp: “No preference is present”>. But p2 is clearly not an instance of ~Pp. p2 excludes only a few preferences, not all. Some of the relevant preferences that it does not exclude are the consequent from post #368 or p1 from post #386. Ana’s argument is invalid. (Incidentally, I referenced a legitimate instance of ~Pp with p3 in post #387)

I agree with Ana’s belief that A1 is false, but I disagree with his belief that A4 is false, and therefore I would say that using (3) to attack Orel’s position will never work. Such an approach is far too coarse.

I am just the disinterested guy sitting on the sidelines, pointing out that Ana’s team is offsides. I don’t even agree with Orel’s position.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Expressed formally, this has been Ana’s approach:

M: “A moral claim is being made”
P: “A preference is being appealed to”
Pp: “A preference is present”
m1: “I see taking out the trash as morally good behavior”
p2: “I hate taking out the trash and prefer when someone else does it.”
A1: M -> P
A4: M -> Pp

---------------

Argument:

1. P -> Pp

{Premise}​

2. A1 -> A4

{From 1 and A1}​

3. ~A4 -> ~A1

{From 2; contrapositive}​

4. ~A4 <-> (M ^ ~Pp)

{Negation of conditional}​

5. m1 is an instance of M

{Premise}​

6. p2 is an instance of ~Pp

{Premise}​

7. (m1 ^ p2) -> ~A4

{From 4, 5, and 6; substitution}​

8. (m1 ^ p2)

{Premise}​

9. Therefore, ~A4

{From 7 and 8; modus ponens}​

10. Therefore, ~A1

{From 3 and 9; modus ponens}​

---------------

The error comes at (6). The relevant negation of Pp needed to falsify A4 would be, “No preference is present,” i.e. <~Pp: “No preference is present”>. But p2 is clearly not an instance of ~Pp. p2 excludes only a few preferences, not all. Some of the relevant preferences that it does not exclude are the consequent from post #368 or p1 from post #386. Ana’s argument is invalid. (Incidentally, I referenced a legitimate instance of ~Pp with p3 in post #387)

I agree with Ana’s belief that A1 is false, but I disagree with his belief that A4 is false, and therefore I would say that using (3) to attack Orel’s position will never work. Such an approach is far too coarse.

I am just the disinterested guy sitting on the sidelines, pointing out that Ana’s team is offsides. I don’t even agree with Orel’s position.

Ahem...

To quote the guy you're playing goalie for (not ref...but I don't mind)...

Nope. No act is necessary without a conditional. That's why I put your "has to be done" in quotes. You need to eat in order to live. You eat because you prefer to be alive than dead. You don't need to live; you don't need to eat.

Seriously, this is the most uncontroversial thing in the world. People like things they believe are good. People dislike things they believe are bad. Trying to argue that you don't like the things you call "good" is utterly ridiculous.

Now...these are his words, which he appears to have moved very far from.

That's ok...I'm cool with letting this slide.

I was more than willing to consider I misunderstood him or he simply spoke too quickly. If you can understand this starting point....

Does my construction of his position on the last page appear correct to you?

We can even shorten it to "theory- if you name a moral I can imagine a preference for it".

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think our judgments stem from how we’re affected by the effects of certain acts(did I use those words right lol). If we perceive innocence being violated, it angers us and judgment is given. Can you honestly say you were never affected by the knowledge of pedophiles?

I was required to read every summer by my parents. A set number of books. I bargained my way into at least getting to choose the books. So at 8 years old I was reading horror stories, conspiracy theories, and messed up stuff about history. I knew what happened in the Tower of London, the Roman coliseum, and the pools of Tiberius before I knew that some pedos actually lived in society.

Do you know what a catamite is?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Dp

 

[Chriliman]

I was required to read every summer by my parents. A set number of books. I bargained my way into at least getting to choose the books. So at 8 years old I was reading horror stories, conspiracy theories, and messed up stuff about history. I knew what happened in the Tower of London, the Roman coliseum, and the pools of Tiberius before I knew that some pedos actually lived in society.

Do you know what a catamite is?

That’s interesting, so in a way, you knew about horrible things before you had much context for why they’re horrible?

Do I want to know what a catamite is?

Did you avoid my question/point? Eh likely doesn’t matter, but I do appreciate when people answer my questions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That’s interesting, so in a way, you knew about horrible things before you had much context for why they’re horrible?

Context for why they're horrible.

No.

These things were decided on my own.

Do I want to know what a catamite is?

Probably not.

Did you avoid my question/point? Eh likely doesn’t matter, but I do appreciate when people answer my questions.

I don't think you really lose sleep at night for concern of pedos. You probably just don't like it when you hear of them.

 

[Moral Orel]

The object is the trash...the subject is ambiguous.

Sure. The subject is ambiguous in moral statements. "Murder is wrong". But none of that has anything to do with verb tense. "Murder was wrong". "Murder will be wrong". Verb tense was, is, and always will be a red herring to this discussion.

Where's the argument to support your claim that "Taking out the trash is good"?

The strawman he imagined I would try had something to do with non-behavioral preferences.

No, the strawman that you used was that "preferences = morality". You stated that if someone prefers bad thing A over bad thing B they must call A "good". That isn't what (2) states at all.

Right....because as long as they are allowed to imagine any preference for a moral....they can.

Real galaxy brain stuff here lol.

No imagination necessary. I can deduce your preferences based on what you tell me is good or bad. Good is better than not good. Not-bad is better than bad. Good is better than bad. That's how these words work. If you tell me that X is good, I know that you prefer X over ~X. Your attempt at a counterexample isn't comparing X and ~X. You're introducing another separate preference in place of ~X.

Now show me the argument to support your claim that "Taking out the trash is good" and I'll demonstrate why it doesn't work.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure. The subject is ambiguous in moral statements.

And that was a preferential statement.

Great self own.

Unless you want to say preferences (even those not about behavior) are morals.

You know, right where we started. Preferences = morals or morals = preferences.

Where's the argument to support your claim that "Taking out the trash is good"?

Why would I need that? It's a hypothetical.

No, the strawman that you used was that "preferences = morality".

This almost has me laughing.

ou stated that if someone prefers bad thing A over bad thing B they must call A "good". That isn't what (2) states at all.

No that's what you said when you removed need from the equation.

Remember when you decided needs were just preferences? I can quote you.

We can go back to the slave who doesn't choose to die....and I can point out that you must think he prefers slavery.

Then what? Positive preferences are moral goods? Slave prefers slavery over death, slave thinks slavery is good.

Yeah that got pretty stupid pretty quick.

You might do what zippy did...but then you're just making up non-options. There's no relationship between real choices (preferences) and morality at all.

This is because you decided to start with a tautology that explains nothing. You can imagine a preference behind every moral good. Whoop de do.

No imagination necessary.

And no explanatory power.

It's nothing but imagination.

It doesn't even matter if we bother talking about actual behavior. It doesn't matter if we leave it out.

You- Eventually you take out the trash because your tolerance for trash is overwhelmed and you prefer to not smell it more than you hate taking it out. Hence that is the hidden preference creating the moral judgment.

Me- Eventually I will take out the trash because I will have a guest and I prefer to impress them more than I dislike taking out the trash. Hence this is the hidden preference creating the moral judgement.

What is the truth value here? Both plausibly true.

Imagination is fun ain't it?

I can deduce your preferences based on what you tell me is good or bad.

Sure you can.

Good is better than not good. Not-bad is better than bad. Good is better than bad. That's how these words work.

Democracy is good. Spaghetti with meatballs is good.

Don't complain about those being two different types of preferences/morals. You included them when you imagined non-behavioral preferences in your reason for my view of taking out the trash as morally good.

I told you I was willing to describe just behavior....that didn't last long... you jumped on a non-behavioral preference immediately.

This is hilarious. How do these words work? Do you really think I have the same view of Democracy as I do Spaghetti? Lol.

If you tell me that X is good, I know that you prefer X over ~X.

And if we start describing actual choices...

What can you say about the slave who chooses slavery over death? You don't recognize need (even the need to survive, which is pretty absurd considering that is one of the few things we can describe all living things sharing, they're all just variations on survival mechanisms)....

Good thing I don’t have to defend this smooth brained conception of morality.

Your attempt at a counterexample isn't comparing X and ~X.

I described the same behavior in both preference and moral judgement.

You're introducing another separate preference in place of ~X.

Actually I can quote myself as explicitly rejecting it since it isn't a preference for the behavior. Zippy suggested it....back when you were letting him do all your heavy lifting.

He seems to be stepping away from this pea brained conception of morality but I'm not counting him out entirely. He did the heavy lifting for you after all.

Now show me the argument to support your claim that "Taking out the trash is good" and I'll demonstrate why it doesn't work.

I don't have to. You're the one claiming you can imagine a preference explaining it.

And that is your claim....that's all it is....and so what? I can imagine a different preference explaining it. Neither is necessarily true and that's why this conception of morality is worthless.

Your claim explains nothing about morality, preferences, or any relationship between them. You just made a tautological assertion (or epistemological infinite regress, but I'm pretty sure it's just a tautology) that is based on your imagination and the elimination of all other possible ways to construct a moral judgment.

And it stinks lol...it stinks on ice. It rationally forces you into accepting and defending absurd statements like slaves prefer slavery and see it as morally good or accepting nonsense like Spaghetti and Democracy are equally good. I'm pretty sure there's at least 2 more ways I can make it look dumb, but why bother?

Just admit it is and you can go back to whatever it is you think you're doing here and I'll go away.

If that seems harsh I'd like to point out that wayyy back when you were just insulting me...I would have left for the simple admission that you are wrong.

Now I want you to admit your position isn't just wrong...it's shallow, pedestrian, overly simplistic, and wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

And that was a preferential statement.

Great self own.

Unless you want to say preferences (even those not about behavior) are morals.

You know, right where we started. Preferences = morals or morals = preferences.

So weird... No mention of tenses anymore... Could it be because it was a red herring you're trying to deflect from? Nah, Ana doesn't have totally predictable schtick.

Then what? Positive preferences are moral goods? Slave prefers slavery over death, slave thinks slavery is good.

Yeah that got pretty stupid pretty quick.

Yes it is really, really, really stupid to think that (2) translates into "If you prefer it, then you call it morally good". Very stupid indeed. You can't drop your straw man because you can't learn to read.

And no explanatory power.

It's nothing but imagination.

It doesn't even matter if we bother talking about actual behavior. It doesn't matter if we leave it out.

You- Eventually you take out the trash because your tolerance for trash is overwhelmed and you prefer to not smell it more than you hate taking it out. Hence that is the hidden preference creating the moral judgment.

Me- Eventually I will take out the trash because I will have a guest and I prefer to impress them more than I dislike taking out the trash. Hence this is the hidden preference creating the moral judgement.

What is the truth value here? Both plausibly true.

Imagination is fun ain't it?

Yes, you did imagine me saying all that.

Are you having fun imagining and dreaming up ways you wish I would respond to your nonsense?

 

[Moral Orel]

Democracy is good

That ain't hypothetical, prove that. Show me the reasoning that doesn't involve "because I like it". Put it in a formal argument. You know how to do that, right?

Or pick something else. I don't care what. Whatever you think is simple to prove rationally. I'll show you how you can't and there won't be any reasoning left besides, "I like this".

 

[Ana the Ist]

So weird... No mention of tenses anymore... Could it be because it was a red herring you're trying to deflect from? Nah, Ana doesn't have totally predictable schtick.

I pointed out what the sentence was saying. You said something about reading or English idk. I pointed out I was correct because of verb tense. You said blah blah red herring. I was proven correct.

Don't get upset with me that you don't understand verb tenses and subject/object relationship. You were the one who brought up reading....not me.

Yes it is really, really, really stupid to think that (2) translates into "If you prefer it, then you call it morally good". Very stupid indeed. You can't drop your straw man because you can't learn to read.

Well? What are you going to say about the slave whose only choice is death and lives without friends, family, comfort, or hope for escape? Who suffers cruelty every day?

He only makes one choice. All other choices have been denied him.

You're either going to have admit that he chooses prefers a life of slavery over death or you'll have to say that he prefers something you imagined. A life outside of slavery. I'll point out that he cannot prefer that which he hasn't had. It may be that a life outside slavery is harder and crueler than he knew. He's just imagining a preference...and so are you....to avoid constructing odd sentences about his preferences and morals because you refuse to recognize need.

Yes, you did imagine me saying all that.

Zippy2006 said the preference but you backed him up. You originally stated a relationship between a preference for a behavior and a moral....it originally was about both moral goods and bads. It was originally correlated with the same value.

Then you starting running....sprinting away from this position.

Seriously, this is the most uncontroversial thing in the world. People like things they believe are good. People dislike things they believe are bad. Trying to argue that you don't like the things you call "good" is utterly ridiculous.

Morals are about behavior. They can conflict with feelings...about behavior and things. You can dislike that which you think is good and like that which you think is bad. This is uncontroversial.

Are you having fun imagining and dreaming up ways you wish I would respond to your nonsense?

Zippy2006 said it, you backed it up. Your position here is based on imagining preferences for morals and ignoring any other possible explanations. It's a worthless position that doesn't meaningfully explain morality in any way.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That ain't hypothetical, prove that.

Why? This isn't my conception of morality, it's yours.

Show me the reasoning that doesn't involve "because I like it". Put it in a formal argument. You know how to do that, right?

I can...but again, why?

Or pick something else. I don't care what. Whatever you think is simple to prove rationally. I'll show you how you can't and there won't be any reasoning left besides, "I like this".

We're both on the subjective side of this. I'm not the one who wrote this thread. I think I've got some conception that has some explanatory power, possibly testability in some circumstances. I'm not going to throw out a basic framework for morality here. It's not the time or place.

This is your thread, your position, based on your imagination. I would normally leave having pointed it out, but I'll stay just for the personal attacks and keep showing you're wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

I pointed out what the sentence was saying. You said something about reading or English idk. I pointed out I was correct because of verb tense. You said blah blah red herring. I was proven correct.

Don't get upset with me that you don't understand verb tenses and subject/object relationship. You were the one who brought up reading....not me.

I wrote what I did as a demonstration of changing verb tense without altering subject/object relationship. Zippy wrote what he did as a demonstration of a preference for something other than behavior. Verb tense never altered anything about the subject/object relationship.

Zippy2006 said the preference but you backed him up.

Nope. I rephrased a statement in a different tense while maintaining the same subject/object realtionship because you claimed changing the tense changed the subject/object relationship.

Morals are about behavior.

Well at least you learned something out of all of this. My favorite line from you this whole time was, "We're discussing morality here, you're not introducing behavior now!" lol

They can conflict with feelings...about behavior and things. You can dislike that which you think is good and like that which you think is bad. This is uncontroversial.

No, things are just complicated. Things are bittersweet and have pros and cons. You like and dislike aspects of every thing you make a judgement about and you say "I like" about the stuff that the pros outweigh those cons enough. I like the taste of chocolate ice cream. I don't like that it makes me gain weight. But ultimately, I prefer to eat chocolate ice cream because I care more about the flavor than my dress size.

Why?

Because it's your claim. It's your claim that there is a significant difference between statements like "Democracy is good" and "Spaghetti is good". So show me what that difference is and I'll show you my argument by demonstrating that you can't. Prove that some thing is "good" or "bad".

 

[Ana the Ist]

I wrote what I did as a demonstration of changing verb tense without altering subject/object relationship. Zippy wrote what he did as a demonstration of a preference for something other than behavior. Verb tense never altered anything about the subject/object relationship.

The trash is to be taken out.

Who is taking out the trash in the sentence above?

Nope. I rephrased a statement in a different tense while maintaining the same subject/object realtionship because you claimed changing the tense changed the subject/object relationship.

Yeah, you demonstrated that you didn't understand the sentence. Multiple times. You still are.

Well at least you learned something out of all of this. My favorite line from you this whole time was, "We're discussing morality here, you're not introducing behavior now!" lol

Yeah, moral statements are about behavior. It doesn't require anyone actually doing the behavior.

No, things are just complicated.

Oh?? Where was that option in the survey??

Things are bittersweet and have pros and cons. You like and dislike aspects of every thing you make a judgement about and you say "I like" about the stuff that the pros outweigh those cons. I like the taste of chocolate ice cream. I don't like that it makes me gain weight. But ultimately, I prefer to eat chocolate ice cream because I care more about the flavor than my dress size.

Or you don't.

Because it's your claim. It's your claim that there is a significant difference between statements like "Democracy is good" and "Spaghetti is good".

Spaghetti is good based on biological taste, Democracy can't be tasted. Different.

So show me what that difference is and I'll show you my argument by demonstrating that you can't. Prove that some thing is "good" or "bad".

Don't need to, I just showed the difference above.

 

[zippy2006]

To quote the guy you're playing goalie for (not ref...but I don't mind)...

Seriously, this is the most uncontroversial thing in the world. People like things they believe are good. People dislike things they believe are bad. Trying to argue that you don't like the things you call "good" is utterly ridiculous.

Now...these are his words, which he appears to have moved very far from.

That quote from Orel is a wonderfully succinct explanation of why your approach makes no sense, and it is precisely why I disagree with you regarding A4. At the very least, moral judgments must generate preferences. For example, if I say that murder is evil then I must also prefer that murder not take place. Your assertion that the preference does not follow upon the moral judgment is absurd, and every time someone asks why you believe such an absurd thing you outright refuse to give a reason.