Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[gaara4158]

No, no utility needed. I just don't see any rational reason that these boundaries are anything other than arbitrary and defined themselves by preferences.

Different consequences are different, they aren't special. I predict what might happen to me when other folk aren't involved too. I watch a movie trailer and judge whether I'm going to enjoy myself or not if I were to watch it. We're doing all the same things in predicting how a person feels and the consequences to us because of those actions.

Sure. That makes sense. A perfect system is going to implement acts that don't alter pleasure:suffering at a 1:1 ratio, and that beats the zero sum game. I think it's pretty obvious we can do that.

Think about kids trading lunch items in school. Billy likes apples, but his mom packed an orange. Tommy likes oranges, but his mom packed an apple. If they trade, Billy lost an orange and Tommy lost an apple, but they're both happier now than with their original items. Ooh, that's a good analogy. I like that one.

All words are defined by preferences as determined by their utility. If there isn’t utility in qualifying all decisions as “moral” why do so?

 

[Moral Orel]

All words are defined by preferences as determined by their utility. If there isn’t utility in qualifying all decisions as “moral” why do so?

I don't see any reason to care whether we do or not. I just have a habit of analyzing the logic of things. Why prefer to draw a line? What do you gain? There's no utility in drawing boundaries either. We're still going to do what we prefer to do whether or not we call it "moral" or "amoral". How would changing the label affect our decisions in any way?

 

[Moral Orel]

If we define “immoral” as something that we decide to do which serves no purpose in pleasure and actively brings about displeasure, I don’t think that’s something we’re actually capable of committing against ourselves. At least not on purpose. The very act of making a decision satisfies something psychologically that makes total self-denial impossible.

No one thinks about "immoral" that way. Every evil actor gets some pleasure from their act. That would render every single act amoral to define it that way.

However, we could define "immoral" as that which causes more displeasure than pleasure, and everything works even with only one actor.

Everything has a trade-off. Like we discussed, we can beat the ratio and not be 1:1 to avoid the zero-sum game. But every act I do makes me at least a little more tired, and being tired is not pleasurable. Except for sleeping, which I enjoy because I feel refreshed afterwards, but I had to forgo doing actual activities I would have liked to do, which causes displeasure.

 

[gaara4158]

I don't see any reason to care whether we do or not. I just have a habit of analyzing the logic of things. Why prefer to draw a line? What do you gain? There's no utility in drawing boundaries either. We're still going to do what we prefer to do whether or not we call it "moral" or "amoral". How would changing the label affect our decisions in any way?

Well, if you don’t think the boundary between the self and others is of any significance that’s fair enough, I’m just not that far down the path of enlightenment.

 

[gaara4158]

No one thinks about "immoral" that way. Every evil actor gets some pleasure from their act. That would render every single act amoral to define it that way.

However, we could define "immoral" as that which causes more displeasure than pleasure, and everything works even with only one actor.

Everything has a trade-off. Like we discussed, we can beat the ratio and not be 1:1 to avoid the zero-sum game. But every act I do makes me at least a little more tired, and being tired is not pleasurable. Except for sleeping, which I enjoy because I feel refreshed afterwards, but I had to forgo doing actual activities I would have liked to do, which causes displeasure.

It just doesn’t seem necessary to recognize a moral dimension to intrapersonal acts when all considerations you’d call moral are already accounted for by the person who is both the decision maker and the sole receiver of its consequences.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't see any direct utility either.

I do.

For the same reason this is invalid:

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

Insert the hidden premise.

I figured I'd hide one for you to look for so you aren't tempted to later.

You start with saying there is something that can be described as good.

Right....this is exactly what you claimed to be able to disprove. Crazy stuff, but you said it.

You can see why I don't actually need a formal argument for this....nor will it need validity or coherence.

But you opened #494 with the claim, "I don’t see morality as something that concerns self-contained behaviors." I didn't see arguments for that claim in the post.

I'm with gaara....

Ever see The Martian zippy?? Consider it a thought experiment. You're Matt Damon.....your only differences are...

1. No way of communication.
2. 100% certainty you won't be rescued.
3. Enough food and water for 5 lifetimes.

What moral statements can you make about your behavior?

Just describing things accurately.

Lol you think? If I give you a preference....you can't tell me anything about morals. If I give you a moral, you've can't tell me anything about preferences. If I explain why a person holds a moral judgment...you'll make up a preference for why they hold the moral.

If I reduce someone to one decision....slavery or death....you end up saying he prefers slavery and thinks it's moral.

This has no explanatory power or connection to reality.

What's the utility in drawing arbitrary lines between different kinds of behavior?

What's the utility in making up preferences that describe morals? It doesn't actually describe reality.

That's where my middle ground comes in. It isn't a zero sum game while we're making pleasure increases and suffering decreases more efficient. But utopia will hit a wall... But who cares? It's utopia!

I can't imagine what you think the word efficient means in this context.....

Nor do I see why efficiency matters at all. If I take a job (resource) I have, as a matter of consequence, denied everyone else capable of doing the job an opportunity (resource) to get that job (resource).

Well that's a zero sum game. It doesn't matter that both the number of jobs and number of people seeking them is dynamic.

If the number of job seekers ever exceeds the number of jobs, you see a great excess of poor (think great depression) and if you ever see the number of jobs (particularly those no one wants) exceed that of the job seekers....you almost always see a form of forced labor like slavery, conscription, labor camps, debt bondage, etc.

The people crossing our southern border to seek a better life typically enter a form of debt bondage. The debt is typically paid off in 2-5 years, because the cartels need a steady stream of new poor and that comes from the former debtors telling potential debtors it works.

 

[Moral Orel]

You can see why I don't actually need a formal argument for this....nor will it need validity or coherence.

You claimed you can prove statements like "X is good". Now you say you can prove things without the argument being valid or coherent? Well, that certainly seemed like your argument style, but I didn't know it was on purpose, lol.

If you're okay with making invalid and incoherent arguments, then I guess we're done.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It just doesn’t seem necessary to recognize a moral dimension to intrapersonal acts when all considerations you’d call moral are already accounted for by the person who is both the decision maker and the sole receiver of its consequences.

In fact, we don't do this. We don't describe our own actions like eating lunch or making a right turn as morally good or bad....nor do we typically even think of them that way.

That's not how morality works in real life. Actors typically don't even consider the morality of their actions when they do engage with others (that is, when their behavior affects someone directly and they are in view of the person).

I think the majority of moral judgements are made by 3rd party observers....and most moral statements are made between them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You claimed you can prove statements like "X is good".

Lol no...I didn't. If you think I did...go back and quote me.

You're treating logical coherence and validity as if it describes reality. It doesn't. It describes a relationship between words you simpleton lol.

Do you think we could convict someone of a crime by making a logical argument for why they committed the crime? Do they get acquitted because they failed to make a logical argument for why they didn't commit the crime?

We use evidence....not logic. Why do you think that is? Why do you think science is capable of putting people on the moon? Because of strong logical arguments?

Making a logical argument doesn't prove anything about reality. Someone can decide something is immoral or moral for completely illogical reasons.

 

[Moral Orel]

You're treating logical coherence and validity as if it describes reality. It doesn't. It describes a relationship between words you simpleton lol.

Ahh, once you realize your arguments are invalid and incoherent, I'm the simpleton. hahahaha!

If rational arguments don't describe reality, then there are no true conclusions to any rational arguments. You've lost so bad you've fallen into the "Yeah, but like, everything is subjective, man!" defense. Pathetic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You claimed you can prove statements like "X is good". Now you say you can prove things without the argument being valid or coherent? Well, that certainly seemed like your argument style, but I didn't know it was on purpose, lol.

If you're okay with making invalid and incoherent arguments, then I guess we're done.

Is this why you wanted a formal logical argument???

I couldn't figure it out lol. I seriously thought you were just trying to stall...

It's actually worse than that...you don't know what logic is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ahh, once you realize your arguments are invalid and incoherent, I'm the simpleton. hahahaha!

Yeah....you are. You didn't find any claim from me trying to prove anything except that you're wrong. Preferences aren't related to morality.

Your claim was this....

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

Notice how you never mentioned anything about limiting my statement to formal logic?

Yeah....why would I? Formal logic doesn't prove anything except mathematics and the relationship between words.

Do you think the law of non-contradiction literally means you cannot be both inside a house and outside of it at the same time?

If rational arguments

Rationality isn't limited to logic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm guessing it's already been pointed out that non-theistic morality is not automatically based on preference

Yup...but I would avoid arguing it unless you want to deal with a lot of personal attacks and a very long, very stupid, argument.

Also...do you think I can't find some people who would rather stay home Sundays than "observe the sabbath and keep it holy"?

Abdication of moral judgment isn't the same as preferring to abdicate moral judgment. You could say that theistic morality isn't based on preferences either.

 

[zippy2006]

If we define “immoral” as something that we decide to do which serves no purpose in pleasure and actively brings about displeasure, I don’t think that’s something we’re actually capable of committing against ourselves. At least not on purpose.

The hedonist can err in his hedonism, just not on purpose. But if immorality means erring on purpose (or committing evil on purpose) then I think most everyone would agree that immorality does not exist, whether in public or private matters.

 

[zippy2006]

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.

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.

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.

Here is Aquinas on the question:

"Injury is opposed to justice. Now the natural law forbids not only injustice, but also whatever is opposed to any of the virtues: for instance it is contrary to the natural law to eat immoderately, although by doing so a man uses his own property without injury to anyone."

-ST Sup.65.3.ad4​

 

[zippy2006]

I'm guessing it's already been pointed out that non-theistic morality is not automatically based on preference

I don't think anyone has provided arguments for that position which withstand scrutiny, so you haven't missed much.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The hedonist can err in his hedonism, just not on purpose.

This would presume that you are limited to real options only when describing morality.

No imaginary options...no non options.

But if immorality means erring on purpose (or committing evil on purpose) then I think most everyone would agree that immorality does not exist, whether in public or private matters.

I would not agree.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here is Aquinas on the question:

"Injury is opposed to justice. Now the natural law forbids not only injustice, but also whatever is opposed to any of the virtues: for instance it is contrary to the natural law to eat immoderately, although by doing so a man uses his own property without injury to anyone."

-ST Sup.65.3.ad4​

I have no idea which natural law he is referring to here...

Furthermore, he seems to be conflating morality and legality.

One can act immorally within legality and legally but immorally.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah, that'll be the day. Meanwhile back we go to pretending that Christians are reading the Bible objectively

Zippy is saying that while fully understanding that he cannot explain the relationship between preferences and morals (regardless of which option one chooses on the survey) and even worse, it appears that the solution to any contradictory morals and preferences are solved by imagining a preference not stated. It's hard to say if it's a case of begging the question or special pleading without the stated relationship.

 

[zippy2006]

If rational arguments don't describe reality, then there are no true conclusions to any rational arguments. You've lost so bad you've fallen into the "Yeah, but like, everything is subjective, man!" defense.

I just checked and currently more than 20% of the posts in the thread are Ana's. Since his first post at #200, he has posted over 32% of the replies. Welcome to the internet age, where there is nothing in the box but packing peanuts.