Euthyphro's Dilemma (for atheists)

[Kylie]

Can’t be verified? So it’s impossible to verify motives for actions/behaviors? Because determining the true motive for an action can help determine if the action was malicious or accidental or what have you.

If it is impossible then yes, we can’t know or verify, but I find that position a bit too pessimistic for me to hold.

How exactly do you propose that we verify someone's motives?

I can't think of any way to do it, unless telepathy is a thing.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

How exactly do you propose that we verify someone's motives?

I can't think of any way to do it, unless telepathy is a thing.

I wonder if cops get telepathy as a gift when they join the force, somehow they have to establish motive .. maybe ask how they do it?

 

[Kylie]

I wonder if cops get telepathy as a gift when they join the force, somehow they have to establish motive .. maybe ask how they do it?

Sounds like a good idea. Show me a cop who knows 100% certain why a person did something, and we'll ask them.

 

[Moral Orel]

How can you hate someone for something they did without having a reason that you at least think is logical(may actually be logical)?

I hate lots of things for no logical reason. I hate brussel sprouts.

The reason for judging that it was wrong is literally based on the fact that he intentionally burned down the building with kids in it.

But that's just describing what he did. There are two propositions to choose from:

(1) Burning down a children's hospital is immoral.
(2) Burning down a children's hospital is not immoral.

Why is (1) true? If it's based on the fact that he burned down a children's hospital then you're saying:

Burning down a children's hospital is immoral because he burnt down a children's hospital.

That's silly.

Are we just thinking about this in directly opposing ways or what? Maybe pure logic removes all sensibility of empathy. Are you a Vulcan? That's it, isn't it.

Empathy, sure. I feel bad when other folk feel bad. I'm actually a bit of a cry-baby when it comes to sad movies and sad songs... and sad TV shows... and commercials... But those are feelings. Feelings aren't logic.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Sounds like a good idea. Show me a cop who knows 100% certain why a person did something, and we'll ask them.

I was half curious how you'd turn that into a joke, thanks for that.

 

[Chriliman]

How exactly do you propose that we verify someone's motives?

Yup, that's the tricky part I alluded to earlier. The point is, a true motive does exist, its just a matter of getting to it, either by the person being honest or by surrounding evidence and circumstances that show, beyond reasonable doubt, what their true motive is. Tough, I know, but not impossible.

 

[gaara4158]

Suppose someone gives one of their kidneys to a person who will die without it. Whether or not we want to say that they are "fulfilling a desire for themselves," it would be altogether strange to say that it is "for them." At most we would say that they acted (sacrificially) for someone else, and received a consoling affirmation that they did a good thing.

It is simply untrue to assert that the act was primarily done for themselves. You are essentially arguing for the position which says that all acts are equally selfish, and the arguments for such a claim break down quickly.

I’m not arguing that all acts are equally or even primarily selfish, I’m arguing that no acts are entirely selfless. Maybe that’s not the definition of altruism you all are working with, and that would account for our misalignment here.

 

[gaara4158]

Its not just for them though, that’d be selfish.

Does it have to be just for them, then, to not be altruism? Is everything that’s not just for the actor an act of altruism?

 

[Chriliman]

I hate lots of things for no logical reason. I hate brussel sprouts.

But the logical reason is because they taste bad to you. I mean, isn't that obvious?

But that's just describing what he did. There are two propositions to choose from:

(1) Burning down a children's hospital is immoral.
(2) Burning down a children's hospital is not immoral.

Why is (1) true? If it's based on the fact that he burned down a children's hospital then you're saying:

Burning down a children's hospital is immoral because he burnt down a children's hospital.

That's silly.

You're missing key information though. It's more like:

Burning down a children's hospital is immoral because he burnt down a children's hospital AND caused extreme suffering for personal gratification. That last bit is the important empathetic part that's obvious to anyone with sound senses.

Empathy, sure. I feel bad when other folk feel bad. I'm actually a bit of a cry-baby when it comes to sad movies and sad songs... and sad TV shows... and commercials... But those are feelings. Feelings aren't logic.

I don't see why the fact of true feelings can't be used to form logical conclusions.

 

[Chriliman]

Does it have to be just for them, then, to not be altruism? Is everything that’s not just for the actor an act of altruism?

If the focus is on the receiver of the good service, then I don't see why it can't be considered altruistic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I wonder if cops get telepathy as a gift when they join the force, somehow they have to establish motive .. maybe ask how they do it?

If telepathy exists, it is mediated by the electromagnetic force. Therefore you can stop any police intrusion into your thoughts with a standard, head-worn Faraday cage.

 

[Moral Orel]

But the logical reason is because they taste bad to you. I mean, isn't that obvious?

I think you're mixing up "logical" and "true" which are definitely related, but they aren't the same thing. It is true that I don't enjoy experiencing brussel sprouts, and that causes me to hate them. But I didn't choose to hate them based on rational deliberation. So yeah, it is true that I don't enjoy knowing about folk that burn down buildings, and that causes me to hate them.

You're missing key information though. It's more like:

Burning down a children's hospital is immoral because he burnt down a children's hospital AND caused extreme suffering for personal gratification. That last bit is the important empathetic part that's obvious to anyone with sound senses.

Just a more descriptive claim. Try filling in this blank:

Burning down a children's hospital and causing extreme suffering for personal gratification is objectively immoral because ______________

This has nothing to do with sound senses or empathy. We both have the same emotions in response to it. This has to do with sound reasoning. What do your personal feelings inform us about the rest of the world? Nothing.

I don't see why the fact of true feelings can't be used to form logical conclusions.

So let's say that fella that burnt down the children's hospital gets caught and thrown in prison. He hates the police that arrested him and the judge that sentenced him; he hates the witnesses that testified against him; he hates being testified against, he hates being arrested, and he hates being sentenced. Therefore it was wrong to do these things against him? No, of course not. Your personal emotional reaction to something is irrelevant to whether that thing is "right" or "wrong".

 

[Gregory Thompson]

If telepathy exists, it is mediated by the electromagnetic force. Therefore you can stop any police intrusion into your thoughts with a standard, head-worn Faraday cage.

Well, in human to human wi-fi first one must translate the alphabet of the mind one is discyphering. Since everyone thinks differently, the odds of knowing via telepathy would be quite rare.

 

[zippy2006]

I’m not arguing that all acts are equally or even primarily selfish, I’m arguing that no acts are entirely selfless. Maybe that’s not the definition of altruism you all are working with, and that would account for our misalignment here.

Okay, that is helpful. We do seem to have different definitions of "altruism."

It seems to me that your definition must be somewhat odd, though. I don't think anyone who actually believes in selflessness would define it in such a strict way, so that even the (self-affirming) belief that one performed a correct action precludes it from being selfless.

 

[zippy2006]

If telepathy exists, it is mediated by the electromagnetic force. Therefore you can stop any police intrusion into your thoughts with a standard, head-worn Faraday cage.

 

[Kylie]

Yup, that's the tricky part I alluded to earlier. The point is, a true motive does exist, its just a matter of getting to it, either by the person being honest or by surrounding evidence and circumstances that show, beyond reasonable doubt, what their true motive is. Tough, I know, but not impossible.

It can very well be impossible for anyone to know other than the person who did it.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It can very well be impossible for anyone to know other than the person who did it.

Which is why cops stick to interrogation, only a confession proves motive ... unless they lied.

 

[zippy2006]

It can very well be impossible for anyone to know other than the person who did it.

If the perpetrator knows their own motive, and knowing the motive is sufficient for objective morality, then objective morality exists. The objective moral fact would be known by the perpetrator and anyone else who is able to discover it. Even if no one else is able to discover it, the objective moral fact still exists via the perpetrator's knowledge.

There's not a prize at the end of this race you're running.

 

[Kylie]

Which is why cops stick to interrogation, only a confession proves motive ... unless they lied.

And as we all know, criminals never lie...

 

[Kylie]

If the perpetrator knows their own motive, and knowing the motive is sufficient for objective morality, then objective morality exists.

How in the world do you make that jump?

The fact that a person does something for a reason which they consider valid does not mean that there is objective morality.

The objective moral fact would be known by the perpetrator and anyone else who is able to discover it. Even if no one else is able to discover it, the objective moral fact still exists via the perpetrator's knowledge.

The only objective fact here is that the perpetrator has some reason which they consider sufficient justification for committing the action.

If a man beats his wife because she overcooked his toast, then there is a motive for the beating, but that doesn't mean that it's objectively moral to beat someone for overcooking your toast.