Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Ana the Ist]

Already addressed here:



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

If both preference and morals need not relate to each other on....

1. Value (positive or negative)
2. Behavior.
3. What the behavior acts upon.

What is the relationship between preference and moral being suggested?

Because it's definitely right there in the survey. It's definitely causal regardless of which you pick.

And your statement above says that no relationship needs to exist at all.

I agree. That's been my point the entire time.

 

[Chriliman]

If both preference and morals need not relate to each other on....

1. Value (positive or negative)
2. Behavior.
3. What the behavior acts upon.

What is the relationship between preference and moral being suggested?

Because it's definitely right there in the survey. It's definitely causal regardless of which you pick.

And your statement above says that no relationship needs to exist at all.

I agree. That's been my point the entire time.

I agree, some of your preferences may have nothing to do with what’s moral, but when it comes to moral things, preferences are either caused by what’s moral or what’s moral is solely based on preferences. In reality, I think it’s a mix of both.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree, some of your preferences may have nothing to do with what’s moral, but when it comes to moral things, preferences are either caused by what’s moral or what’s moral is solely based on preferences. In reality, I think it’s a mix of both.

Do you really think that? It's certainly possible but it doesn't look that way

 

[Moral Orel]

What is the relationship that you believe exists between preferences and morals?

Learn to read. Asked and answered before.

Then why does this thread exist???

Learn to read. Asked and answered before.

What's invalid about it?

Conclusion follows premise. You can stick a "therefore" at the front of the conclusion.

No, a conclusion doesn't follow from a one-premise argument unless maybe it's a tautology. (@zippy says every argument has at least two premises). That you didn't know that should alarm you. You are not on the same level as Zippy and I. If you can't even formulate a basic argument, and you even think your first attempt was an argument, then you are way way way out of your depth. Your repeated failed attempts at formulating even a basic argument is all the proof I need to confirm that Dunning-Kruger is in effect here. I don't call people out on that often, you should feel honored.

You won't even comprehend my argument and you'll continue flailing away at it without understanding it in the slightest as you've done through the rest of this thread. You don't even understand that you've been arguing against (1) this whole time. You think I've been defending (2) but all I've been doing is shooting down your inane attempts at assaulting the premise for the dilemma. You don't understand what (2) claims. You don't know what's going on.

You said anything I believe is good.

I gave you the format, and you chose a different topic. That's fine, but you chose to change the format which ain't fine.

P1 _____
P2 _____
...
C Taking out the trash is good.

I didn't retype it all out every time I repeated my claim because I thought you could retain information for more than the span of a few posts. My mistake. I should have known better since it's clear you can't retain the entirety of a single sentence. Like I said, you're using a different kind of thing that isn't analogous to morality for the purpose of leaving room to say, "muh, but morality uses 'good' in a totally different way" and the whole exercise will turn into a red herring.

You literally can't form a valid argument. Why are you here? What possible reason do I have to continue to listen to your stream of consciousness prattle?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Learn to read. Asked and answered before.

Learn to read. Asked and answered before.

I have read....there's no describable relationship.

The closest thing to a relationship is the one I wrote....

For any moral statement you can imagine a preference causing it.

That's it. That's all you've been doing. Neither you nor zippy have touched the college survey rapist example. That's a tricky one where moral behavior and biological preferences are towards the exact same behavior. Hard to imagine what preference would interfere with a taste for vanilla....but I'm sure you'll come up with something. After all, non-options and imaginary preferences are on the table.

No, a conclusion doesn't follow from a one-premise argument unless maybe it's a tautology. (@zippy says every argument has at least two premises).

I didn't change anything about the argument by splitting it into a premise and conclusion....I can just as easily split it into 2 without adding a single point of substance.

It's a utilitarian form of subjective morality. We can do that just as easily as imagine preferences....we can switch to imagining purposes. It's been done.

That you didn't know that should alarm you.

Surprise....it doesn't. I'm not sure I agree with zippy...but I can look it up if it really bothers you.

You are not on the same level as Zippy and I.

This has been obvious for most of the thread lol.

If you can't even formulate a basic argument, and you even think your first attempt was an argument, then you are way way way out of your depth.

I filled your request on the first try.

Then you changed your request and I filled it on the second try.

Now you're changing it again....and you're sure I can't fill it again by splitting the first premise into two without including any sort of preferential statement?

It's not even difficult.

What will you do then? Insist I add a third premise?

You're embarrassing yourself. I can make at least 3 premises for the conclusion without changing the original statement. Have you even thought about it?



The problem isn't on my side of the argument.

Your repeated failed attempts at formulating even a basic argument is all the proof I need to confirm that Dunning-Kruger is in effect here.

Uh huh...people consistently proving you wrong is evidence of something.

Go back and read the post where I explained the importance of positionality to zippy. If I remember correctly, he disagreed about where the relevant discussion was....now he's practically insisting that I was correct.

I give zippy credit for not resorting to attacking me instead of my argument, and he's done all your heavy lifting for you, so I'm not going to beat him over the head with this....but you're clearly struggling to hang on because this seems to have wounded your ego.

You should let it go. You aren't the first moral subjectivist to struggle with this problem. Far smarter men than you have failed to solve this problem. Did you preferences haven't been suggested as the source of moral statements before? They might have used "desire" instead of preference but it's not really different in any substantial way.

You'd think if you were correct....the discussion would be over. Moral philosophy classes would be really short.

I don't call people out on that often, you should feel honored.

I doubt you actually understand the DK effect...most people on here don't. Last I checked, Dunning or maybe Kruger aren't that confident about their famous effect.

You won't even comprehend my argument and you'll continue flailing away at it without understanding it in the slightest as you've done through the rest of this thread.

Nah...I've said it multiple times now, you haven't even tried to refute it.

You're removing all possible other explanations for a moral statement or value by imagining a preference.

That's all....just imagining them as causes for morals. If you weren't just imagining them....you'd explain the parameters of what a valid preference is (the premise part of the formal version of this argument) but you can't do that without revealing you're wrong to everyone who has a couple of brain cells to rub together.

Fiction is fun but it's not useful for explaining morality in real life.

don't even understand that you've been arguing against (1) this whole time.

Zippy2006 or you said you were arguing for option 2. If it was zippy....then you never corrected him. If you were arguing for option 1 you wouldn't have blown a gasket at me for saying preferences=morals. I can only guess that you're trying to switch to a moral objectivist position to avoid your failure to defend option 2 in the slave example and I can already see which way that will go.

Don't bother. You've made enough posts arguing for option 2 that claiming option 1 at this point just looks like an attempt to protect your ego.

think I've been defending (2) but all I've been doing is shooting down your inane attempts at assaulting the premise for the dilemma. You don't understand what (2) claims. You don't know what's going on.

Right...

Hey @zippy2006, would you like a valid counter argument to the slave example that doesn't require appealing to a non-option? I'll gladly give you one that's not only consistent with my previous claims....but it explains why Orel is struggling with a real conclusion other than the slave thinking slavery is morally good.

I don't normally do this, but I think you might be close anyway and I don't want to mess up Orel’s chance at learning something. Just send me a private message....I promise it's not a trick, not gloating, and I won't be upset if you do decide to share it with Orel.

I've stated pretty clearly what's going on. You're imagining preferences.

I gave you the format, and you chose a different topic. That's fine, but you chose to change the format which ain't fine.

Oh? Do explain what the limitations are on "format" then....I doubt I'll need to create a new example to show how you've repeatedly changed "format".

I didn't retype it all out every time I repeated my claim because I thought you could retain information for more than the span of a few posts. My mistake. I should have known better since it's clear you can't retain the entirety of a single sentence. Like I said, you're using a different kind of thing that isn't analogous to morality for the purpose of leaving room to say, "muh, but morality uses 'good' in a totally different way" and the whole exercise will turn into a red herring.

Isn't analogous to morality?

Was that a rule somewhere?

How is a dislike of the stench of trash analogous to morality? It would have made more sense to appeal to a utilitarian form of subjective morality instead of preference. It would show you're wrong...but it would have made more sense.

You literally can't form a valid argument.

Lol sure. First form an argument. Then make it a formal argument. Now you want 2 premises.

Once I give you those....you'll form a counter argument appealing to preference, right? You won't come back begging and pleading for a third premise, right?

 

[Moral Orel]

I filled your request on the first try.

I know you think that, buddy. But a claim isn't an argument. You gotta learn the basics first.

Zippy2006 or you said you were arguing for option 2. If it was zippy....then you never corrected him. If you were arguing for option 1 you wouldn't have blown a gasket at me for saying preferences=morals. I can only guess that you're trying to switch to a moral objectivist position to avoid your failure to defend option 2 in the slave example and I can already see which way that will go.

See? You don't understand what is going on. You're completely lost.

Lol sure. First form an argument. Then make it a formal argument. Now you want 2 premises.

I just showed you my initial request which detailed a formal argument with two premises. Do you need a link to Hooked on Phonics?

Once I give you those [snip]

Whaddya mean "once I give you those"? You are incapable of providing a valid argument. You've tried and failed twice and don't understand why. You don't understand why a minimum of two premises is pertinent because you don't even know how arguments work or what they do. You think you can make an argument with zero premises!

Surprise....it doesn't. I'm not sure I agree with zippy...but I can look it up if it really bothers you.

lol Please do. Find a source that says an argument can contain zero premises. I'll be waiting with bated breath. There is a term for a zero-premise argument, it's called "a claim".

 

[Moral Orel]

I told Orel that A2 would be interesting to discuss, but I don't actually know what he thinks about ice cream (or whether he believes that the eating or tasting of ice cream is a behavior).

On a serious note, I doubt we have much to discuss here. A long time ago you explained that in your view all choices are moral choices. In my own special way, I agree.

Let's say I grant that there are real moral facts.
And I grant that humans can know these facts.

If that's the case, then certainly something to the effect of "People ought to be happy" or somesuch is true. I think it would be special pleading to claim that rule only applies to other people and how they're affected by my choices.

My wife hates chocolate ice cream. So it would be wrong of me to make her eat chocolate ice cream because it would make her unhappy. (Again, assuming the things I've granted).

I hate Brussel sprouts. So it would be wrong of me to make myself eat Brussel sprouts because it would make me unhappy. Ceteris Paribus

I think it's silly when folk try to claim moral choices must involve two people. I mean, they can define it that way if that's what they prefer though, lol.

 

[Ana the Ist]

On a serious note, I doubt we have much to discuss here. A long time ago you explained that in your view all choices are moral choices. In my own special way, I agree.

A long time ago? How long ago are you talking about,?

I don't recall saying that, but I've got no reason to doubt it. I've changed my view of morality fairly recently.

Let's say I grant that there are real moral facts.

OK.

And I grant that humans can know these facts

Ok.

If that's the case, then certainly something to the effect of "People ought to be happy" or somesuch is true. I think it would be special pleading to claim that rule only applies to other people and how they're affected by my choices.

Sure....logically, the same would apply to how those other people's behavior affects you.

My wife hates chocolate ice cream. So it would be wrong of me to make her eat chocolate ice cream because it would make her unhappy. (Again, assuming the things I've granted).

Ok

I hate Brussel sprouts. So it would be wrong of me to make myself eat Brussel sprouts because it would make me unhappy. Ceteris Paribus

I think it's silly when folk try to claim moral choices must involve two people. I mean, they can define it that way if that's what they prefer though, lol.

Because in reality a third party is the necessary factor (for a realistic description of morality)?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I know you think that, buddy. But a claim isn't an argument. You gotta learn the basics first.

You're right that a claim isn't an argument. I didn't realize that you wanted a formal argument off the start. Perhaps this was due to the fact that you kept referring to claims in statements such as this...

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".

Now, after I explained the difference (biological taste) you claimed that this wasn't actually a difference. I honestly didn't want to embarass you by pointing out it is a rather significant difference.

You can't choose your biological tastes. They simply are. You can, however, choose a preference for Democracy. That is a preference for strictly rational choice. You don't feel Democracy, you don't taste Democracy, you don't smell Democracy, you don't see Democracy, etc. You can't even know if you're in a Democracy conclusively....it could be that what you believe is a Democracy is in fact a dictatorship. It exists in concept and in practice, but one only needs the concept of it and another organization to make a preferential statement between the two.

Now...I understand that's difficult for some people, but I thought it would be obvious by my claim about microscopes. I was wrong...it wasn't obvious.

Not all formal arguments require two premises but hey, some do, so here we go...

Premise 1-because some things are smaller than the naked eye can see
Premise 2-because a microscope can be used for seeing things smaller than the naked eye is capable of
Conclusion-I believe a microscope is good for seeing some very small things imperceptible to the naked eye.

I know you aren't going to find this wildly different from my previous formation....or even the claim I made before it....and there's a reason for that.

I hope you figure it out one day. In the meantime, just go ahead and explain how this cannot rationally be true.

See? You don't understand what is going on. You're completely lost.

Ad hominems are your schtick. Impending sense of failing argument? Address anything but the argument.

Are you now claiming both positions are true? Is morality simultaneously objective and subjective? Are you simply oscillating between the two in hopes of avoiding the inevitable?

How would you propose to even begin to prove a moral fact?

I just showed you my initial request which detailed a formal argument with two premises. Do you need a link to Hooked on Phonics?

This is your initial request....

Now, I can demonstrate rationally and conclusively that any argument you have for any thing you believe "is good" will never work.

That's your initial request. An argument (not specifically formal) that any thing (claim) you (me) believe is good (the only limitation placed on the claim is I must believe it's good) will never work. Hilarious.

I didn't know you wanted it in a formal expression....because you didn't ask for it. I expected you wanted a claim, would argue against it, I would rebut, and you would or wouldn't rationally prove me wrong.

I'm granting that it makes more sense that you meant to request a formal argument, even though you didn't, and I simply missed that because the prior context was mostly about claims...

Now go on....let's see you rationally and conclusively demonstrate my formal argument (which wasn't specified originally) which now contains two premises (which it doesn't need lol) rationally and conclusively will never work.

Whaddya mean "once I give you those"? You are incapable of providing a valid argument.

See above.

You've tried and failed twice and don't understand why.

I understand why....it's because you didn't ask me for a formal argument. Then once I provided it, you realized you're wrong.

Now you're just going to avoid addressing it and continue with the ad hominems.

That's your schtick.

You don't understand why a minimum of two premises is pertinent because you don't even know how arguments work or what they do. You think you can make an argument with zero premises!

You can lol. People do it all the time.

lol Please do. Find a source that says an argument can contain zero premises. I'll be waiting with bated breath. There is a term for a zero-premise argument, it's called "a claim".

Sigh....

Informal Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Spring 2010 Edition)

Informal logic is sometimes presented as a theoretical alternative to formal logic. This kind of characterization may reflect early battles in philosophy departments which debated, sometimes with acrimony, whether informal logic should be considered "real" logic. Today, informal logic enjoys a more conciliatory relationship with formal logic. Its attempt to understand informal reasoning is usually (but not always) couched in natural language, but research in informal logic sometimes employs formal methods and it remains an open question whether the accounts of argument in which informal logic specializes can in principle be formalized.

There's literally entire informalized logical argumentation that gets taught, theorized, and made.

I don't really care if you understand that though....as you can see, the context and usage of "believe is good" hasn't changed from my first reply to this one.

The only thing that has changed is your request.

 

[gaara4158]

What a novel prompt! Having been gone for a spell I’m late to the party, but I’d like to respond to the OP, especially since my vote was in the minority:

My preferences are indeed what I use to dictate what is moral and what is immoral. That’s not to say I think pleasure is moral and pain is immoral per se, but rather that my guiding moral principles are oriented toward maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, which I ultimately justify with my own personal preference for a world in which everyone cooperates toward this end.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What a novel prompt! Having been gone for a spell I’m late to the party, but I’d like to respond to the OP, especially since my vote was in the minority:

You chose option 2 and it's in the minority?

Not surprised, just curious...it is Christian Forums after all.

My preferences are indeed what I use to dictate what is moral and what is immoral. That’s not to say I think pleasure is moral and pain is immoral per se, but rather that my guiding moral principles are oriented toward maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, which I ultimately justify with my own personal preference for a world in which everyone cooperates toward this end.

Do you even think such a world exists within the realm of possibility? Or due to the limited nature of all resources...all pleasure is ultimately finite and access or exploitability determines who is gaining pleasure and who is subsequently harmed...making your view an idealistic impossibility?

 

[gaara4158]

You chose option 2 and it's in the minority?

Not surprised, just curious...it is Christian Forums after all.



Do you even think such a world exists within the realm of possibility? Or due to the limited nature of all resources...all pleasure is ultimately finite and access or exploitability determines who is gaining pleasure and who is subsequently harmed...making your view an idealistic impossibility?

Of course not. Ideals need not be bound by the realm of practical possibility. However, they can be used generally to guide our modes of economic distribution and political power.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Of course not. Ideals need not be bound by the realm of practical possibility.

Ok, I'm guessing by context here that you're saying "of course not" to the first question....and tacitly accepting the second question as true.

However, they can be used generally to guide our modes of economic distribution and political power.

They sure can...

The problem I see is if we both accept the premise underlying the second question as true....then anyone who has more comfort and less harm would then need to decrease their comfort and increase their harm to do moral good.

This would hold true whether we were using the ideal to guide domestic or foreign policy, or simply interested in something as specific as....job opportunities.

 

[Moral Orel]

A long time ago? How long ago are you talking about,?

No one quoted you in this post, brah.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No one quoted you in this post, brah.

My mistake, brah....

See??? It's not that hard to admit. Everyone makes them....

On a related note...that's not a hypothetical argument? That's a real position you'd take?

 

[Moral Orel]

This is your initial request....

Now, I can demonstrate rationally and conclusively that any argument you have for any thing you believe "is good" will never work.

That's your initial request.

I already demonstrated that is false. That was not the initial request. I could even show you that I repeated my demand for a formal format after that quote and before your, ahem, "attempt". But what's the use if you just ignore conclusive proof against your claims already. "But dude, time is like, not linear and stuff happens in all sorts of orders... What does 'initial' even mean, dude?"

Ad hominems are your schtick.

Just for you little buddy! Winning arguments against you is too easy. I need a punching bag to make it fun.

that's not a hypothetical argument? That's a real position you'd take?

Isn't analogous to morality?

Was that a rule somewhere?

See? Just like I said, you want to turn the exercise into a red herring by keeping it away from the topic.

 

[gaara4158]

Ok, I'm guessing by context here that you're saying "of course not" to the first question....and tacitly accepting the second question as true.



They sure can...

The problem I see is if we both accept the premise underlying the second question as true....then anyone who has more comfort and less harm would then need to decrease their comfort and increase their harm to do moral good.

This would hold true whether we were using the ideal to guide domestic or foreign policy, or simply interested in something as specific as....job opportunities.

What premise? The premise that pleasure and pain are a zero sum game? I do not buy that premise.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I already demonstrated that is false.

Nope.

That was not the initial request.

It sure was. The one you quoted was about trash. The one I quoted was about any thing. I hope I don't have to explain that difference.

I could even show you that I repeated my demand for a formal format after that quote and before your, ahem, "attempt".

And I can show that if you were trying to get out of asking me about an argument about any thing because you think the specific request about trash will work better for you....I'd just like to point out 3 things....

1. I literally said you'd change your request.
2. In the paragraph right above that request, you said I'd need at least 1 premise, which is funny, because apparently you want at least 2 now.
3. A 2 premise trash argument won't go any better for you.

I'm tempted to make it just to see what stalling tactic you use next.

But what's the use if you just ignore conclusive proof against your claims already. "But dude, time is like, not linear and stuff happens in all sorts of orders... What does 'initial' even mean, dude?"

I didn't make any such argument. I filled your request 3 times now.

I just want to make sure you wanted the 2 premise formal trash argument before it becomes a 3 premise trash argument written as a logical equation lol. After which I can only guess....will you want a 4 page rhetorical argument about the value of trash through the 1900s?

Just for you little buddy! Winning arguments against you is too easy. I need a punching bag to make it fun.

You're putting this in the W column? For changing the request 4 times? Lol.

You aren't even going to confirm your request....I don't think you really want me to make an argument at this point.

Smartest answer you've made. That post is riddled with failures. Don't make that argument.

 

[Moral Orel]

Nope.

Yup.

It sure was. The one you quoted was about trash. The one I quoted was about any thing. I hope I don't have to explain that difference.

Yep, the trash quote was the initial request, the one you quoted was what me altering it to any "X is good." in order to make you more comfortable with complying. Anything else I didn't explicitly change didn't change from the initial request.

I'm tempted to make it just to see what stalling tactic you use next.

My stalling tactic? I've been waiting for you to prove the things you've claimed this whole time.

You're putting this in the W column? For changing the request 4 times? Lol.

Well, ya, I did change the initial request from the one I quoted that involved trash, to letting you use "Democracy is good" instead of "Taking out the trash is good" and then I altered the initial request again to allow any "X is good." A formal argument was requested from the very beginning. You just picked a random point to choose your starting position.

Now "X is good for" is a different proposition. As near as I can tell "good for" just means "does". Now we could quibble over whether "what a thing does" is the same as "what a thing is", but I would like to actually stay on topic for the thread.

Now that I see you're trying to steer away from morality on purpose, I'm not following your red herring.

2. In the paragraph right above that request, you said I'd need at least 1 premise, which is funny, because apparently you want at least 2 now.

Yes, at least one premise is required to make an argument. Even in informal speech, to argue is to give reason. Stating a belief is not giving a reason for that belief, ergo, it is not an argument.

 

[Moral Orel]

After which I can only guess....will you want a 4 page rhetorical argument about the value of trash through the 1900s?

You must think this is going somewhere it ain't. So I'll be nice for once and make a compromise. You make a moral statement to stay on topic: "X is right.", "X is wrong.", "X is good.", "X is bad.", and you organize your argument into a formal format so that I don't have to sort through it, and I'll let you fabricate statistics which I won't contest.