Morality is objective, except when it isn't

[Oompa Loompa]

You redacted a large portion of what I said. And as if that wasn't enough to disinterest me in your opinion, you now start talking like a psychopath. I tend to steer clear of those who don't find murder to be obviously evil. If both you and your God don't see anything wrong with murder, I don't understand why you think I'd want to join.

You never said anything about murder. We were talking about killing. I assume you know the difference.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I'll take a crack at that.

Moral evil is anything that increases harm, reduces wellbeing, or does both. Harm and wellbeing are objectively quantifiable, necessitating no appeal to opinion, so that is what I use as a standard.

However, that is only the "is" side of the equation. To get to an "ought" - that is, why ought someone adopt that standard - that will always come down to a value judgement. Values are necessarily subjective. "Objective value" is an oxymoron.

And that is true whether Yahweh exists or not. Even granting that he does, you cannot name any "is" statement pertaining to moral behavior and supposedly derived from Yahweh - "murder is sinful", for example - and get an "ought" from it, without including some kind of value judgement. Though you're welcome to try, and fail, if you want to.

What if a perceived "evil" increases harm for one and simultaneously decreases harm for another in an equal proportion? What if the perceived "evil" decreases the wellbeing of one while simultaneously increases the wellbeing of another in an equal proportion? Like a cat eating a mouse. Mice may find the cat to be "evil" but the cat would have a different opinion.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

What if a perceived "evil" increases harm for one and simultaneously decreases harm for another in an equal proportion? What if the perceived "evil" decreases the wellbeing of one while simultaneously increases the wellbeing of another in an equal proportion? Like a cat eating a mouse. Mice may find the cat to be "evil" but the cat would have a different opinion.

In that particular example, I don't think cats and mice are capable of making such moral assessments. I would consider that an amoral transaction. Someone like Peter Singer might have a different view.

Pertinent to the subject, at no point is invoking Yahweh of the slightest help in discerning any of this. Whether he exists or not, you are still left to your own devices, having to make some kind of value judgement. Even if he outright tells you "under no circumstances are you to harm another person, even in situations where it may increase your wellbeing", that tells you nothing at all about whether you ought to honor that commandment, absent a value judgment.

 

[JohnClay]

Genocide / ethnic cleansing is wrong vs...

Deuteronomy 20:16-17

However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.
​

Though God's command includes wiping out the animals too.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No, it's not really like that, NV. You've misunderstood what I've intended to imply. What I'm implying is that you're assuming interation holds in all cases for all ideas; I'm saying it may on only in some cases, maybe a lot of cases. But where the Euthyphro Dilemma is concerned, you're yanking an old 4x6 frame off of one picture, dusting it off, repainting it, and then claiming that you can use it on a newer 11x14 picture----simply because you've decided that "Hey, a frame refurbished is still an appropriate frame!"



That's just the thing, NV, l like some other philosophers and/or theologians, I HAVE used my own interated intelligence and, through various assessments and reconsiderations, I've come to see that the adoption, transference and reapplication of Plato's Socratic Euthyphronic Dilemma DOESN'T hold up.

I see.
So tell me: does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Really! I didn't realize it at all. I would be very interested indeed in seeing how you did it.

Apparently, as it surprisingly turned out for me, the way in which I "did it" is similar to the way some other philosophers and theologians have already done it (but they're probably not the ones you're used to reading---I know they're not for me ).

Here's a link to the thread I created some time ago on this very topic. I still count it as a work in progress since a philosophers work never seems to be truly done:

Shall we take apart the Euthyphro Dilemma piece by piece?​

And in case you need a little more on the counter arguments that have already existed and to which it seems folks just blithely ignore, here's a few words from Wikipedia to wet our appetites [see section 2.3 in the Wiki article]:

Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia​

At any rate, I'm sure there's more than can be subjectively said on the matter; and I'm pretty sure that where hard skeptics are concerned, there surely will be. I'm just skeptical that there'll be much that anyone will be able to say on an objective level since ---- well, y'know ---- none of us can actually get the God of the Bible under the microscope or to settle in one spot for very long so we can get a clear picture of His overall Nature.

That comes as something of a surprise to me, because I always felt that the arguments developed from Euthyphro's Dilemma offered an insuperable obstacle to Christians (and any other theists) who claim that morality is based on the existence of a god or gods.

Well, you know what they say about feelings ... they can be fleeting.

Don't worry about it.

Thanks for your understanding.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Apparently, as it surprisingly turned out for me, the way in which I "did it" is similar to the way some other philosophers and theologians have already done it (but they're probably not the ones you're used to reading---I know they're not for me ).

Here's a link to the thread I created some time ago on this very topic. I still count it as a work in progress since a philosophers work never seems to be truly done:

Shall we take apart the Euthyphro Dilemma piece by piece?​

And in case you need a little more on the counter arguments that have already existed and to which it seems folks just blithely ignore, here's a few words from Wikipedia to wet our appetites [see section 2.3 in the Wiki article]:

Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia​

At any rate, I'm sure there's more than can be subjectively said on the matter; and I'm pretty sure that where hard skeptics are concerned, there surely will be. I'm just skeptical that there'll be much that anyone will be able to say on an objective level since ---- well, y'know ---- none of us can actually get the God of the Bible under the microscope or to settle in one spot for very long so we can get a clear picture of His overall Nature.

Well, you know what they say about feelings ... they can be fleeting.

Thanks for your understanding.

Are you sure you want to bring that thread to our attention, Philo? I mean, it looks very much as if you lost the argument in it.
Basically, you said "Euthyphro doesn't apply to Christianity, because it was proposed with the Greek Gods in mind," and other users said, "So how about you see if you can answer Socrates' question about the Christian God?"
Then you didn't say much in response, and the thread wound down fairly quickly.

So if you want us to believe you have completely rooted out and destroyed the Euthyphro Dilemma, you're going to have to try addressing it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you sure you want to bring that thread to our attention, Philo? I mean, it looks very much as if you lost the argument in it.

I did? I wasn't aware of that. In fact, my interlocutors have since disappeared. AND I might add, I really don't see where they ever really, or fully, addressed my arguments or counter-arguments. There were flat out denials or roughshodding (i.e. ignoring) what I said so as to bully their points.

Of course, as you can see, I'm still here and ever ready to continue spiralling through the hermeneutic circle where Euthyphro is concerned. I haven't gone bye-bye. In fact, it probably wouldn't be too much to say that I'll keep pounding down the misapplication of the Euthyphro Dilemma until it finally shrivels up and blows away as just so much chaff in the wind ... as you may already know, I feel that's part of my callling in life.

Basically, you said "Euthyphro doesn't apply to Christianity, because it was proposed with the Greek Gods in mind," and other users said, "So how about you see if you can answer Socrates' question about the Christian God?"

That exactly my point: NO ONE GETS TO CLAIM THEY'VE ITERATED PLATO's SOCRATIC IDEAS AND THEN, JUST WILLY NILLY, APPLY THEM TO CHRISTIANITY. Yet, it seems I have to keep asking, nay demanding, people pay attention to their oversights and negligences. Somehow, skeptics (and apparently even some theists) seem to think that they can just iterate their way into applying whatever aspects of Socrates various arguments they feel like snatching up, and they tend to do so without fully justifying why and how they will do so, but all the while claiming that they have done so.

Then you didn't say much in response, and the thread wound down fairly quickly.

Right. That's what happens when folks unexplainably disappear. Of course, I don't assume that they merely conceded the discussion to me; no, I just take it for what it is----they disappeared (... only God knows why).

So if you want us to believe you have completely rooted out and destroyed the Euthyphro Dilemma, you're going to have to try addressing it.

Actually, extending the questions of method along with my gripe against the automatic pretenstions of iteration of conceptual models, I'm going to have to say the ball is actually in the skeptic's court, not mine. They're the one's saying that some clunky, poly-theistic analysis through Plato somehow can be applied to a completely different mode of theism (biblical mono-theism in this case), and to my mind, it is up to the skeptic to explain how, when, where and why their adaptation of the Euthyphro isn't haphazardly applied..............................

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Apparently, as it surprisingly turned out for me, the way in which I "did it" is similar to the way some other philosophers and theologians have already done it (but they're probably not the ones you're used to reading---I know they're not for me ).

Here's a link to the thread I created some time ago on this very topic. I still count it as a work in progress since a philosophers work never seems to be truly done:

Shall we take apart the Euthyphro Dilemma piece by piece?​

​

That’s the lamest response to Euthyphro I’ve ever seen. You did nothing to split the horns of the dilemma. You just said “look, the original says gods - plural”.

The horns of the dilemma are exactly the same, whether you’re talking about Yahweh, or the gods of the Greek pantheon. Or any god, or gods.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

​

That’s the lamest response to Euthyphro I’ve ever seen. You did nothing to split the horns of the dilemma. You just said “look, the original says gods - plural”.

The horns of the dilemma are exactly the same, whether you’re talking about Yahweh, or the gods of the Greek pantheon. Or any god, or gods.

And you're falling into the same methodological misstep that your compatriots do here, Eight Foot. You'll need to realize that I'm engaging the BOOK of Euthyphro and NOT some mamby-pamby ill-gotten, abstracted and deductively abbreviated strawman version of what skeptics think Socrates' dilemma would look like if it was (and unfortunately is) applied to Christianity.

No, you guys are simply being called out by me for having done little to no hermeneutical work. If anything, you need to tighten your belts and buckle up rather than parroting what you passively take from various atheistic literature and youtube videos. So, get to hopping!!!

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

And you're falling into the same methodological misstep that your compatriots do here

You're a rare animal indeed. I've never encountered anyone else - adult, or child - who believes the only way in which philosophical concepts may be applied is in the original context in which they were composed. I don't even know what to call this - "conceptual originalism"?

It's also not a strawman. The horns of the dilemma are the crux of the argument, not the fact that the word "god" happens to be pluralized.

But that's ok. If you really are that hung up on this bizarre originalist approach, I have a way around it. I have just come up with my own dilemma, here and now, on this very message board. I call it Schmuthyphro's Dilemma:

Is it moral because it comes from the Christian God, or does it come from the Christian God because it is moral?

Now, what's your answer to Schmuthyphro's Dilemma?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're a rare animal indeed. I've never encountered anyone else - adult, or child - who believes the only way in which philosophical concepts may be applied is in the original context in which they were composed. I don't even know what to call this - "conceptual originalism"?

It's also not a strawman. The horns of the dilemma are the crux of the argument, not the fact that the word "god" happens to be pluralized.

But that's ok. If you really are that hung up on this bizarre originalist approach, I have a way around it. I have just come up with my own dilemma, here and now, on this very message board. I call it Schmuthyphro's Dilemma:

Is it moral because it comes from the Christian God, or does it come from the Christian God because it is moral?

Now, what's your answer to Schmuthyphro's Dilemma?

Somehow, I don't think you realize that you've ... just proved my very point! By your methodology (no methodological justification) I could just say: sure, and when you have a moment, please comfort me by telling me you don't do something so foolish as to build a fire in the middle of your living room... just because "you can."

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Somehow, I don't think you realize that you've ... just proved my very point! By your methodology (no methodological justification) I could just say: sure, and when you have a moment, please comfort me by telling me you don't do something so foolish as to build a fire in the middle of your living room... just because "you can."

What a bizarre non-sequitur.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I did? I wasn't aware of that.

Let me break it to you. You lost the debate with impressive speed.

In fact, my interlocutors have since disappeared. AND I might add, I really don't see where they ever really, or fully, addressed my arguments or counter-arguments. There were flat out denials or roughshodding (i.e. ignoring) what I said so as to bully their points.

The thread basically finished because they asked you a question and you didn't answer. That's all.
It was an interesting little read, but fell a bit flat.

Of course, as you can see, I'm still here and ever ready to continue spiralling through the hermeneutic circle where Euthyphro is concerned. I haven't gone bye-bye. In fact, it probably wouldn't be too much to say that I'll keep pounding down the misapplication of the Euthyphro Dilemma until it finally shrivels up and blows away as just so much chaff in the wind ... as you may already know, I feel that's part of my callling in life.

Just out of curiosity, Philo, do you believe that you have ever lost an argument in your life?

That exactly my point: NO ONE GETS TO CLAIM THEY'VE ITERATED PLATO's SOCRATIC IDEAS AND THEN, JUST WILLY NILLY, APPLY THEM TO CHRISTIANITY.

Of course they do. It's perfectly simple, as has been pointed out many times. Plato posed an interesting question. Applied to Christianity, it has the effect of demolishing Christian theistic morality. Feel free to disprove this by addressing the question, if you are able.

I'm going to have to say the ball is actually in the skeptic's court, not mine.

Right. Here we go again, then:
Philo: does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?
Your turn.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What a bizarre non-sequitur.

I'd rather call it 'methodological accountability.' --- y'know, like in science. Or Hermeneutics.

But if you want to call it a non-sequitur because you can, have at it!! Doing so in this way doesn't help your cause, Eight Foot. In fact, it makes it look rather weak by your display of needless resistance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let me break it to you. You lost the debate with impressive speed.

The thread basically finished because they asked you a question and you didn't answer. That's all.
It was an interesting little read, but fell a bit flat.

Of course it fell flat. My interlocutor's split before we finished ... However, ironically, I suppose the fault will also be layed upon me. How convenient for you guys, right?!

Just out of curiosity, Philo, do you believe that you have ever lost an argument in your life?

Not yet. People seem to leave the discussion (debate?) before we reach the end ...

I'm still waiting for my bout with Thanos. Thanos hasn't arrived yet, apparently!

Of course they do. It's perfectly simple, as has been pointed out many times. Plato posed an interesting question. Applied to Christianity, it has the effect of demolishing Christian theistic morality. Feel free to disprove this by addressing the question, if you are able.

No, simply saying that Plato did this or did that without actually YOUR showing of evidence from the text doesn't make for a qualified conclusion. However, it does make for a bit of satisfying rhetoric for any skeptical onlookers who want to go ahead and just assume that since you're the atheist here (with all attending claims to logical facility), you MUST BE IN THE RIGHT!

The thing is, all that any onlooker here has to do ......... is ask me to read and study the entire text of Euthyphro for ourselves together, page by classic page, and I would.

I don't see any of you skeptics really offering the same.

Right. Here we go again, then:
Philo: does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?
Your turn.

Right: Here you go proving my overall point. Thank you!! That's two bits of evidence now in my favor.

Just keep doing what you're doing. It makes my apologetics work so much easier.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You're a rare animal indeed.

It takes all sorts!

And you're falling into the same methodological misstep that your compatriots do here, Eight Foot. You'll need to realize that I'm engaging the BOOK of Euthyphro and NOT some mamby-pamby ill-gotten, abstracted and deductively abbreviated strawman version of what skeptics think Socrates' dilemma would look like if it was (and unfortunately is) applied to Christianity.

That's interesting. Have fun with it. In the meantime, however, you may note that you are an a forum in which nobelievers are invited to post challenges to the Christian faith. One such has been posed to you. Will you leave it unanswered?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Of course it fell flat. My interlocutor's split before we finished ... However, ironically, I suppose the fault will also be layed upon me. How convenient for you guys, right?!

Not yet. People seem to leave the discussion (debate?) before we reach the end ...

I'm still waiting for my bout with Thanos. Thanos hasn't arrived yet, apparently!

No, simply saying that Plato did this or did that without actually YOUR showing of evidence from the text doesn't make for a qualified conclusion. However, it does make for a bit of satisfying rhetoric for any skeptical onlookers who want to go ahead and just assume that since you're the atheist here (with all attending claims to logical facility), you MUST BE IN THE RIGHT!

The thing is, all that any onlooker here has to do ......... is ask me to read and study the entire text of Euthyphro for ourselves together, page by classic page, and I would.

I don't see any of you skeptics really offering the same.

Right: Here you go proving my overall point. Thank you!! That's two bits of evidence now in my favor.

Just keep doing what you're doing. It makes my apologetics work so much easier.

Okay. So you're unable to answer the question?
Euthyphro triumphs again.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It takes all sorts!


That's interesting. Have fun with it. In the meantime, however, you may note that you are an a forum in which nobelievers are invited to post challenges to the Christian faith. One such has been posed to you. Will you leave it unanswered?

I already volleyed back? Did you miss the shot?

Also, everyone here should know that there ISN'T just one assumed form of CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS. I go for the offensive kind, not the defensive sort. If that rankles the expectations of some people, I can't help how they feel about it.

You see, I believe that Apologetics is a Bi-lateral interlocutionary activity, not a Uni-lateral one where Christians are simply plied by questions and that it is (for some odd reason) only they who have to answer. No, it's Bi-Lateral, but it seems so few atheists seem to understand this. But here's the wake-up call, REALITY is bigger than our subjective notions of how we think Christian communication has to work....or than what one little verse in the Bible might seem to imply.

So, frankly, I won't play The GAME the way that folks have been acculturated to do these days. No, instead, I'll take more expansive cues from Christian Philosophers, Christian Hermeneuticists and various TYPES of Christian Apologists.

E.G.

Gundry, Stanley N. Five views on apologetics. Zondervan Academic, 2010.

Lodge, J. G. (2014). Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views (Spectrum Multiview Books).

....among other relevant sources that SHOULD come into the play of any discussion about the Bible.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I already volleyed back? Did you miss the shot?

Also, everyone here should know that this ISN'T just one assumed form of CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS. I go for the offensive kind, not the defensive sort. If that rankles the expectations of some people, I can't help how they feel about it.

You see, I believe that Apologetics is a Bi-lateral interlocutionary activity, not a Uni-lateral one of Christians simply being plied by questions and only they have to answer. No, it's Bi-Lateral, but it seems so few atheists seem to understand this. But here's the wake-up call, REALITY is bigger than our subjective notions of how we think Christian communication has to work....or than what one little verse in the Bible might seem to imply.

So, frankly, I won't play The GAME the way that folks have been acculturated to do these days. No, instead, I'll take more expansive cues from Christian Philosophers, Christian Hermeneuticists and various TYPES of Christian Apologists.

E.G.

Gundry, Stanley N. Five views on apologetics. Zondervan Academic, 2010.

Lodge, J. G. (2014). Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views (Spectrum Multiview Books).

....among other relevant sources that SHOULD come into the play of any discussion about the Bible.

(shrug)
Okay. If you won't play the game, you've lost it.

If you have an offensive to take against nonbelievers, by all means do so. But as far as I can see, nobody is disputing that the original Euthyphro was not made against the Christian God, so you're kicking at shadows. All we're saying is that the Euthyphro dilemma can easily be applied to the Christian God with a simple question. In order to beat us, you'll have to address that question.

I don't blame you for not wanting to. Several Christians have recently tried to, and none of them were able to. That's why I keep it in my signature with other "questions Christians can't answer." Or, in this case, dare I say...daren't?