Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Social and Religious Issues ⇒ Faith and Belief ⇒

Euthyprho's Dilemma Deflated

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Euthyprho's Dilemma Deflated
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 11 of 55 (400941)
05-17-2007 2:15 PM 		Reply to: Message 5 by Trump won
05-17-2007 10:24 AM

Re: Criticism of Emotivism
A man who feels that murdering people is right yells "Murdering is right!"
Where as a man who believes murdering is wrong yells "Murdering is wrong!"
​
This is exactly what we have in a war: each side thinks they are morally right and morally justified in killing the other side.
​
This is just an appeal to emotionalism using murder to make people choose sides on what is considered moral. Thus it is false by your own argument ... or your argument is false: your choice.
​
Enjoy.
​
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Trump won, posted 05-17-2007 10:24 AM Trump won has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Trump won, posted 05-17-2007 2:23 PM RAZD has replied
  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 16 of 55 (400947)
05-17-2007 2:27 PM 		Reply to: Message 1 by JustinC
05-16-2007 2:56 PM

false dichotomy
do the gods love something because it is pious or is it pious because the gods love it ?
​
I'm having trouble with this being an issue at all
​
pi·ous -adjectivehaving or showing a dutiful spirit of reverence for God or an earnest wish to fulfill religious obligations.
​
A person can be pious, whether that person is loved or not could depend on different views by different gods ...
​
A person can be loved, whether that person is pious or not could depend on different views of different gods ...
​
Thus you could have pious\loved, pious\unloved, non-pious\loved and non-pious\unloved.
​
There isn't necessarily a relation of one to the other. One would have to demonstrate that such a relation exists first, then pose the question.
​
Enjoy.
​
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JustinC, posted 05-16-2007 2:56 PM JustinC has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by JustinC, posted 05-17-2007 4:50 PM RAZD has replied
  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 18 of 55 (400951)
05-17-2007 2:34 PM 		Reply to: Message 14 by Trump won
05-17-2007 2:23 PM

Repetition is no argument, even when off topic ...
their is little option other than to beat them down.
​
Ah, so it's okay to kill "fascists" ...
​
Sorry you are still using the appeal to emotion with your terminology. You are still wrong by your own argument or your argument is wrong.
​
Now being in such an enlightened state you should know that repeating a refuted argument does not make it any more valid.
​
Now perhaps we can get back to the topic (before you get suspended) ...
​
Enjoy.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Trump won, posted 05-17-2007 2:23 PM Trump won has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Trump won, posted 05-17-2007 2:45 PM RAZD has not replied
  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 44 of 55 (401354)
05-19-2007 11:34 AM 		Reply to: Message 32 by JustinC
05-17-2007 4:50 PM

Re: false dichotomy
But if I may take a stab I'd say that he tacitly assumed there to be concensus amongst the God's wrt to piousness. So the different gods/different views argument wouldn't apply.
​
The false dichotomy does not apply just to multiple gods, you could also have all four conditions with a singular god. To avoid it you need to show a link between pious and good. Without demonstration for such a link asserting only two of the cases apply begs the question as well.
​
But the pantheon was quite and eclectic bunch so I don't see how concensus could be reached, but that's the only way I can make sense of the question.
​
Kind of like trying to find consensus among people eh? Societies are essentially anarchies where different people agree to different rules for what they consider "civilized" behavior.
​
This of course is why morality is relative ...
​
Enjoy.
​
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by JustinC, posted 05-17-2007 4:50 PM JustinC has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by JustinC, posted 05-19-2007 11:41 AM RAZD has replied
  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 46 of 55 (401360)
05-19-2007 11:53 AM 		Reply to: Message 45 by JustinC
05-19-2007 11:41 AM

Re: false dichotomy
But if one then wants to justify the framework itself, they have to appeal to another meta-framework. This is no less of a problem for secularist morality than it is for a theistic framework.
​
This only counts if you assert some absolute source. If you don't assert some absolute source but a relative source then the framework comes from the individual(s) with each one forming a sort of circle of moral structures that overlap those of other individuals to create a social consensus for moral behavior that is dependent on the individuals in the society.
​
Is it the belief that absolute morality doesn't make sense outside of the cultural framework one finds themselves in at a certain place and time?
​
Absolutely ... . What is moral behavior for an individual alone in the woods (whether the tree falls or not)? If it is a man, is he still wrong?
​
Morality is about the interaction of people, not about some absolute behavior: any specific behavior you name can be moral in one situation and immoral in another, thus it is context not behavior, and context is society.
​
Enjoy.
​
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by JustinC, posted 05-19-2007 11:41 AM JustinC has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by JustinC, posted 05-19-2007 12:04 PM RAZD has replied
  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 53 of 55 (401831)
05-22-2007 11:37 AM 		Reply to: Message 47 by JustinC
05-19-2007 12:04 PM

absolutist change = force, relativist change = education
By what standards to you appeal to when trying to come up with a consensus?
​
What standard is necessary?
​
con·sen·sus -noun 1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
​
The majority opinion changes as the population changes. So does general agreement. This is how democratic anarchy works.
​
This is one of my problems with relativism: how do we justify imposing our relative values on other societies, i.e., saying "our frameworks right, yours is wrong."
​
You don't. Only absolutists "justify" imposing their beliefs on others. They do this by appealing to an artificial source or to the apparent majority (ie the fallacy of the "moral majority" being what someone claims - by absolute values - rather than being an oxymoron).
​
You can no more force someone to accept another "moral code" than you can force people to become democratic by force. This is part of why the Botch Administration approach to the middle east is doomed to failure (another is that they refuse to discuss things with the "opposition" preferring to demonize them instead so they will never understand what the problem is).
​
When it comes to cultural values there are two basic options: (1) accept traditional values for the culture you are raised in without question or (2) question all values and judge their relevance to you and society. This later approach is enhanced by education and knowledge, while the former is enhanced by force and ignorance.
​
Enjoy.
​
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by JustinC, posted 05-19-2007 12:04 PM JustinC has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024