Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Ana the Ist]

Yup.

Lol at no point in this convo have you even attempted to make a counter argument.

Yep, the trash quote was the initial request,

Why didn't you mention that when I made an informal microscope argument?? Or mention it after I made a formal microscope argument? Why wait until the argument was made to change it from "any thing" to "trash"?

I think it's pretty obvious you realize that you can't do what you claimed you could.....

Thats not the amusing part....the amusing part is that you changed it to trash. It screams that not only will you fail...but you really don't understand why lol. Ask Zippy2006...I bet he can make a 2 premise trash argument in less than a minute. Why can't you? It's baffling.

the one you quoted was what me altering it to any "X is good."

Oh nice... you agree this is a different request. I don't have to explain that part.

in order to make you more comfortable with complying. Anything else I didn't explicitly change didn't change from the initial request.

Except the need for a formalized expression of the argument and the additional premise....yeah, nothing changed.

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

Things I've claimed? Did I ask you for 4 versions of the same argument?

No. I just asked questions until you revealed your position. You imagine preferences that explain morals. It took awhile to drag out of you...but that's ok. You needed help so you waited on zippy....and ad hominem was the stalling tactic then too. I think it's cute.

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."

Then why don't you just use the microscope argument? Ask zippy...switching to trash won't help.

A formal argument was requested from the very beginning. You just picked a random point to choose your starting position.

Yet you clearly described my Democracy example as a claim.

We already went over this.

Now "X is good for" is a different proposition.

Are you acknowledging that good can have multiple unrelated meanings?

Are you going to try to claim that I have to use the word "good" in a way that is synonymous with "like" so you can prop up your claim?

You're telling me this like it hasn't been my point for awhile now lol. Careful Orel....you admit this now and you're admitting the whole thread is just you imagining preferences explain morals because you refused to acknowledge that good has multiple meanings you are ignoring.

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.

No need to quibble. I've been pointing this out for most of the thread. One of my first posts to Zippy2006 emphasized this.

Once we differentiate good from preference in multiple ways...I just need to pick one that can be used as a moral statement. At that point....you'll insert some unrelated preference you imagined. You'll be proving me right in real time.

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

Because I can't make a moral judgments about a behavior based on purpose instead of preference? I'm pretty sure I can (there's a whole bunch of philosophers who have)....and what is going to be your response? You'll make up a preference that's the "hidden cause".

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.

That doesn't really matter now.

You've admitted that you don't want me making the argument....exactly what I predicted a post ago.

How did you put it??

It's like we're on different levels.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

No? Because you found some endless resource pleasure and comfort?

It's hard to think of anyone who thinks it's not a zer0 sum game....the sincerely religious maybe?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You must think this is going somewhere it ain't. So I'll be nice for once and make a compromise.

Did you just forget what you wrote?

You recognized a non-preferential "good". You recognized a utilitarian form of good.

Now you're asking me to make a moral statement as if I'm not going to choose that?

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.

I won't need statistics. 2 premises?

 

[Moral Orel]

Lol at no point in this convo have you even attempted to make a counter argument.

You made a claim about what the initial request was. I provided proof of a request with an earlier time stamp. I win, you lose, boo hoo.

You imagine preferences that explain morals.

Nope. Another straw man. This all stems from your verb tense nonsense and you acting like I was the one who brought it up.

Then why don't you just use the microscope argument?

Because it has nothing to do with morality, and that's what you want.

Yet you clearly described my Democracy example as a claim.

We already went over this.

Yes, you claimed "Democracy is good" and then dodged proving your claim.

Are you going to try to claim that I have to use the word "good" in a way that is synonymous with "like" so you can prop up your claim?

No, just that you use it in a moral statement. "Murder is bad for..." isn't a moral statement. "Murder is bad." is a moral statement.

You recognized a non-preferential "good". You recognized a utilitarian form of good.

I don't think I claimed that some thing "is good", but meh, maybe. I speak casually sometimes. Woopdeedoo.

I won't need statistics. 2 premises?

I'll do you one better. I'm going to tell you exactly what I'm going to do just so you can craft your argument around it.

You'll make an argument, and I'll either point out why you are missing/assuming/hiding a premise, or I'll challenge one of your premises if your argument is valid. If you are missing/hiding a premise, it's going to be because you think it's obvious and doesn't need to be stated, but that's exactly what I'm going to challenge. If you're missing a premise, your argument isn't valid. If you can't prove that premise, you can't prove your argument is sound. And if you can't prove your argument is sound, you do not have a rational reason for your belief.

Pretty much every argument has hidden premises because some things seem obvious. To get really technical, every argument assumes the big three Laws of Thought which need to be true for any argument to be valid. I'll obviously let you assume those without stating them, but other things you think are safe to assume probably aren't. You'll need to actually connect your premises to your conclusion. Here's an example of an invalid argument:

P1 A is B
P2 B is C
C A is D

See how 'D' just suddenly appears in the conclusion? That's invalid.

What I'm going to demonstrate is that it is impossible to prove your argument is sound. I'm not even going to demonstrate directly that preferences are involved. What I show is that it is impossible to rationally justify a moral statement. After it's clear that the belief is not held for rational reasons, we can fight over whether feelings are the cause for the belief, or if things are just "good" for no reason at all.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

Your vote was in the severe minority. I don't vote in my own polls, especially when there's only a handful of folks who voted, but you and me are it, buddy. Everybody else thinks we're crazy! I learned about pragmatism from you. Is that still what you call yourself these days?

 

[gaara4158]

Your vote was in the severe minority. I don't vote in my own polls, especially when there's only a handful of folks who voted, but you and me are it, buddy. Everybody else thinks we're crazy! I learned about pragmatism from you. Is that still what you call yourself these days?

I thought I might have read the prompt wrong to find myself in such a severe minority, but given your follow-up questions on the first page it looks like I’m among the few who read it correctly. Do we, as atheists not subscribing to a god-based morality, consider things moral because they align with our values, or do we shape our values according to what is moral? Unless we believe we can point to some objective basis for morality — which most atheists don’t attempt to do — we are forced to view “my values” and “morality” as one and the same.
I’m tickled to hear that I was the one to expose you to pragmatism. Have you looked further into it since those discussions? I have to admit my academic interest has drifted over to political/socioeconomic theory rather than epistemology over the past few years, but from what I remember I would say that yes, I do think my epistemology is still best described as pragmatism.

 

[gaara4158]

No? Because you found some endless resource pleasure and comfort?

It's hard to think of anyone who thinks it's not a zer0 sum game....the sincerely religious maybe?

Symbiotic relationships are a thing. I honestly can’t believe you aren’t aware of that.

 

[Moral Orel]

I thought I might have read the prompt wrong to find myself in such a severe minority, but given your follow-up questions on the first page it looks like I’m among the few who read it correctly. Do we, as atheists not subscribing to a god-based morality, consider things moral because they align with our values, or do we shape our values according to what is moral? Unless we believe we can point to some objective basis for morality — which most atheists don’t attempt to do — we are forced to view “my values” and “morality” as one and the same.

Heh, check out the results of the poll in the thread "Is Morality Objective?". Those are the results you'd expect. That's why I posed it as a dilemma. Most atheists know they're supposed to say that morality is subjective simply because most theists know they're supposed to say that morality is objective, but they can't accept the implications.

I honestly don't care about the implications. I can't be "right" about what I think is moral? Okay. Enough people feel the same way about the things I feel the strongest about to affect the changes I want, so what more do I need? If I want to get somebody on my side, the Appeal to Emotion Fallacy is probably the most persuasive argument ever conceived, so again, I don't need to be "right" to promote my preferences, lol.

I’m tickled to hear that I was the one to expose you to pragmatism. Have you looked further into it since those discussions? I have to admit my academic interest has drifted over to political/socioeconomic theory rather than epistemology over the past few years, but from what I remember I would say that yes, I do think my epistemology is still best described as pragmatism.

I probably read one article in The Stanford Encyclopedia and that was it. I never dive deep into any philosophy. In part simply because I don't care for one sided conversations. If I can't tell the author why he's wrong about this or that, what good is a book?!

But also, because I'm a pure-logic fanboi. My interests lie in making logic work. A lot of philosophies have some interesting ideas and things they make work for their foundation, but the bigger they build, the more mistakes they make. I only care about the parts that actually work at the beginning.

It's a weird love-hate thing I have going on where I love how philosophers do what they do, but I have a general disdain for what they do with it.

 

[zippy2006]

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.

I think that's right. I think eating ice cream is a moral act because it is an act involving intellect and will, and therefore must be governed by our ends, such as happiness. Further, I think most people would at least agree that in certain circumstances it is a moral act, such as when the obese person eats an excessive amount of ice cream.

On the other hand, I think the reason for the intuition which says that self-contained acts are not moral is Aristotle's observation that one cannot commit an injustice against oneself. I would say that justice is a subset of morality and that justice (and injustice) really does require more than one person, although morality does not. This is bound up in the prevalent idea that a breach of consent constitutes a special moral transgression, or as Aristotle more correctly observes, acting intentionally contrary to another's will is a necessary condition for the presence of an injustice.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think that's right. I think eating ice cream is a moral act because it is an act involving intellect and will, and therefore must be governed by our ends, such as happiness. Further, I think most people would at least agree that in certain circumstances it is a moral act, such as when the obese person eats an excessive amount of ice cream.

Do you remember our last argument about if/then statements and whether "want->ought"? Because I did...

You were right, I was wrong.

I'm not saying your argument works, but I am saying that my conception of if/then statements as "kinda sorta like mini arguments" was wrong.

On the other hand, I think the reason for the intuition which says that self-contained acts are not moral is Aristotle's observation that one cannot commit an injustice against oneself. I would say that justice is a subset of morality and that justice (and injustice) really does require more than one person, although morality does not. This is bound up in the prevalent idea that a breach of consent constitutes a special moral transgression, or as Aristotle more correctly observes, acting intentionally contrary to another's will is a necessary condition for the presence of an injustice.

What about split brain folks? Are they two people, or is that an instance of one person acting contrary to his own will?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You made a claim about what the initial request was. I provided proof of a request with an earlier time stamp. I win, you lose, boo hoo.

You already admitted these are different requests.

Nope. Another straw man. This all stems from your verb tense nonsense and you acting like I was the one who brought it up.

You brought up reading....while misunderstanding Zippy's statement.

Verb tense followed from that

Because it has nothing to do with morality, and that's what you want.

I can make it about morality if want.

What do you propose to do with such a moral statement?

Disprove it? Objectively?

Yes, you claimed "Democracy is good" and then dodged proving your claim.

Why would I have to prove it? I'm not a moral objectivist. I don't think anyone can "prove moral facts exist'.

No, just that you use it in a moral statement. "Murder is bad for..." isn't a moral statement. "Murder is bad." is a moral statement.

Or it isn't.

This all depends on what you mean by "bad". I'll assume you mean "morally bad" but honestly...I think that's giving you too much credit.

Premise 1-I believe performing ones job well can be described morally good.
Premise 2-I believe things exist which are too small to see with the naked eye.
Premise 3-I believe microscopes allow very small things to be seen.
Conclusion-therefore I believe using a microscope at work is morally good .

I even left a hidden premise there for ya buddy.

It's got nothing to do with preferences though...so have fun that.

I don't think I claimed that some thing "is good", but meh, maybe. I speak casually sometimes. Woopdeedoo.

Does it matter?

I'll do you one better. I'm going to tell you exactly what I'm going to do just so you can craft your argument around it.

I just skipped the rest of the post...you haven't accurately predicted anything so far.

You'll make an argument,

Yup, see above. Now let's see you disprove it or whatever you claim to do with it.

Symbiotic relationships are a thing. I honestly can’t believe you aren’t aware of that.

I am...just not aware of one that involves pleasure or isn't limited in any way.

 

[Moral Orel]

Premise 1-I believe performing ones job well can be described morally good.
Premise 2-I believe things exist which are too small to see with the naked eye.
Premise 3-I believe microscopes allow very small things to be seen.
Conclusion-therefore I believe using a microscope at work is morally good .

First, let's clean it up. You're not trying to prove that you believe something, you're trying to prove your belief is true. You don't need the "therefore" either.
Premise 1-I believe performing ones job well can be described morally good
Premise 2-I believe things exist which are too small to see with the naked eye
Premise 3-I believe microscopes allow very small things to be seen
Conclusion-therefore I believe using a microscope at work is morally good

Now look at the bolded part. You have two entirely different propositions. It would be like relating "runs" and "reads". You'll need to change "can be described" to "is". So what we have left is:

P1 Performing one's job well is morally good
P2 Things exist which are too small to see with the naked eye
P3 Microscopes allow very small things to be seen
C Using a microscope at work is morally good.

Now the hidden premise is that microscopes are used at work, ya? So to really make it work we need to add one more premise so it looks like this:

P1 Performing one's job well is morally good
P2 Things exist which are too small to see with the naked eye
P3 Microscopes allow very small things to be seen
P4 Some work requires very small things to be seen
C Using a microscope at work is morally good

Everything right so far? Just a little cleanup, ya? Still no mention of preferences. If you're going to fight me every step of the way, we might as well take it one step at a time, ya?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think that's right. I think eating ice cream is a moral act because it is an act involving intellect and will, and therefore must be governed by our ends, such as happiness. Further, I think most people would at least agree that in certain circumstances it is a moral act, such as when the obese person eats an excessive amount of ice cream.

On the other hand, I think the reason for the intuition which says that self-contained acts are not moral is Aristotle's observation that one cannot commit an injustice against oneself. I would say that justice is a subset of morality and that justice (and injustice) really does require more than one person, although morality does not. This is bound up in the prevalent idea that a breach of consent constitutes a special moral transgression, or as Aristotle more correctly observes, acting intentionally contrary to another's will is a necessary condition for the presence of an injustice.

Or it's the 3rd position that's most important...

Because morality between two people (set consent aside for now) looks a bit weird.

Regardless, zippy...did I mistake you for saying Orel was taking option 2 on the survey?

 

[gaara4158]

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.

I guess I’m going to put myself in yet another minority position, because I don’t see morality as something that concerns self-contained behaviors. To continue with your analogy, let’s say you go ahead and eat those Brussels sprouts even though you know it makes you unhappy to do so. Why’d you do it, then? Have you lost your mind, in which case you’re not a moral agent, or are you attempting to satisfy some other form of pleasure that isn’t from your taste buds? Do you find a certain richness in suffering? Were you trying to prove a point? I can’t see a way around this kind of action being self-serving and therefore not immoral if it’s something you consciously decided to do. It’s like a mirror of the old altruism paradox: can you truly commit an act for which there is zero return for you? Any attempt to do so comes with the return of proving yourself altruistic, making true altruism impossible.

 

[zippy2006]

Do you remember our last argument about if/then statements and whether "want->ought"? Because I did...

You were right, I was wrong.

I'm not saying your argument works, but I am saying that my conception of if/then statements as "kinda sorta like mini arguments" was wrong.

Okay, great, thanks. I think I remember it.

What about split brain folks? Are they two people, or is that an instance of one person acting contrary to his own will?

I don't know much about the condition. Perhaps they could be said to have two wills.

 

[zippy2006]

I guess I’m going to put myself in yet another minority position, because I don’t see morality as something that concerns self-contained behaviors. To continue with your analogy, let’s say you go ahead and eat those Brussels sprouts even though you know it makes you unhappy to do so. Why’d you do it, then? Have you lost your mind, in which case you’re not a moral agent, or are you attempting to satisfy some other form of pleasure that isn’t from your taste buds? Do you find a certain richness in suffering? Were you trying to prove a point? I can’t see a way around this kind of action being self-serving and therefore not immoral if it’s something you consciously decided to do.

At some point in there you switched from talking about "self-contained behavior" to talking about "self-serving behavior."

 

[Moral Orel]

I guess I’m going to put myself in yet another minority position, because I don’t see morality as something that concerns self-contained behaviors.

No, you're safe, that's the majority position. But let me put it to you this way... Morality is about "right and proper behavior". Sure, there's no objectively true "right" or what have you, but in essence it seeks to make a guide for how we should act. It seeks to answer the question, "What should I do?" Right?

Well I looked at my freezer and asked, "Should I eat ice cream or should I eat Brussel sprouts?", so I'd say I asked a moral question. We're leaving out considerations to other factors like my health for simplicities sake.

To continue with your analogy, let’s say you go ahead and eat those Brussels sprouts even though you know it makes you unhappy to do so. Why’d you do it, then? Have you lost your mind, in which case you’re not a moral agent, or are you attempting to satisfy some other form of pleasure that isn’t from your taste buds? Do you find a certain richness in suffering? Were you trying to prove a point? I can’t see a way around this kind of action being self-serving and therefore not immoral if it’s something you consciously decided to do.

If it is moral to choose things that cause happiness, it's possible to choose things that make ourselves unhappy, and therefore act immorally against ourselves. Just because I chose something seeking a bit of pleasure, doesn't mean I rationally should have expected to achieve any sort of state of happiness.

It’s like a mirror of the old altruism paradox: can you truly commit an act for which there is zero return for you? Any attempt to do so comes with the return of proving yourself altruistic, making true altruism impossible.

And now you're back in the minority with me, lol. I don't think altruism is really possible, and it's especially clear when people realize morality is built on preferences. Your preference that the world work together to maximize pleasure and minimize pain sounds sweet, but it's your preference, so it's you satisfying a desire for yourself if it's achieved. I have the same preference, but a lot of the reason why is because I don't like how I feel when I'm surrounded by grumpy people, lol.

On that note, I saw your discussion with Ana. I'd say that it will be a zero-sum game once we achieve maximum efficiency, but we aren't maximally efficient right now, so we can change things in ways that increase pleasure more than they increase pain. Obviously we can increase taxes on Jeff Bezos by .000000001% and give that extra $100 to person who is just shy of paying their rent and getting evicted and say definitively that Jeff's mild irritation (at best) is a less dramatic change than that poor person's elation. But at some point, there is only so much pleasure that a person can experience, right?

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't know much about the condition. Perhaps they could be said to have two wills.

Here's a fun article about it. Split Brain In some ways, it can be described as having two consciousnesses.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You made a claim about what the initial request was. I provided proof of a request with an earlier time stamp. I win, you lose, boo hoo.

You already admitted these are different requests.

Nope. Another straw man. This all stems from your verb tense nonsense and you acting like I was the one who brought it up.

You brought up reading....while misunderstanding Zippy's statement.

Verb tense followed from that.

Because it has nothing to do with morality, and that's what you want.

Yes, you claimed "Democracy is good" and then dodged proving your claim.

No, just that you use it in a moral statement. "Murder is bad for..." isn't a moral statement. "Murder is bad." is a moral statement.

It can be a moral statement.

And I don't have to prove "Democracy is good. I just have to argue it is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, you're safe, that's the majority position. But let me put it to you this way... Morality is about "right and proper behavior". Sure, there's no objectively true "right" or what have you, but in essence it seeks to make a guide for how we should act. It seeks to answer the question, "What should I do?" Right?

Not really. You already have reasons for what you do. Very few moral statements get made by the actor.

Well I looked at my freezer and asked, "Should I eat ice cream or should I eat Brussel sprouts?", so I'd say I asked a moral question. We're leaving out considerations to other factors like my health for simplicities sake.

If it is moral to choose things that cause happiness, it's possible to choose things that make ourselves unhappy, and therefore act immorally against ourselves. Just because I chose something seeking a bit of pleasure, doesn't mean I rationally should have expected to achieve any sort of state of happiness.

Odd that is how you think you're making moral claims.

And now you're back in the minority with me, lol. I don't think altruism is really possible, and it's especially clear when people realize morality is built on preferences. Your preference that the world work together to maximize pleasure and minimize pain sounds sweet, but it's your preference, so it's you satisfying a desire for yourself if it's achieved. I have the same preference, but a lot of the reason why is because I don't like how I feel when I'm surrounded by grumpy people, lol.

Perhaps your only real preference is group conformity and non-confrontation.

On that note, I saw your discussion with Ana. I'd say that it will be a zero-sum game once we achieve maximum efficiency, but we aren't maximally efficient right now, so we can change things in ways that increase pleasure more than they increase pain. Obviously we can increase taxes on Jeff Bezos by .000000001% and give that extra $100 to person who is just shy of paying their rent and getting evicted and say definitively that Jeff's mild irritation (at best) is a less dramatic change than that poor person's elation. But at some point, there is only so much pleasure that a person can experience, right?

....