Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Euthyprho's Dilemma Deflated
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 17 of 55 (400950)
05-17-2007 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Trump won
05-17-2007 2:26 PM


Re: Reason cannot exist without a base of experience
Sorry, nothing but empty assertion, irrelevant to the thread or discussion, and without any support.
You said:
Wrong, there is perfect knowledge.
If there is such a thing, then present it so that it can be examined.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Trump won, posted 05-17-2007 2:26 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Trump won, posted 05-17-2007 2:43 PM jar has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 19 of 55 (400955)
05-17-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
05-17-2007 2:33 PM


Re: Reason cannot exist without a base of experience
It would be impossible to present all of human knowledge within a few sentences. I would not know what you are missing either. I am not sure why you don't believe perfect information exists. It is the only thing to keep a genius optimistic. "Such a thing" cannot be presented here and it can't even be argued sufficiently.
Edited by -messenjah of one, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 05-17-2007 2:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 05-17-2007 2:50 PM Trump won has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 20 of 55 (400956)
05-17-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
05-17-2007 2:34 PM


Re: Repetition is no argument, even when off topic ...
No, I told you.
It is not okay to kill.
Morality does not exist when people are reduced to a state of survival.
This is not a condition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 05-17-2007 2:34 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Stile, posted 05-18-2007 2:28 PM Trump won has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 21 of 55 (400957)
05-17-2007 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JustinC
05-16-2007 2:56 PM


Plato was the Jack Chick of Greece
One of the nice things about writing stuff like the Dialogues is that YOU get to frame both sides of the discussion. It makes life so easy.
The facts are that no one, not any one of us, actually know shit about what the God or God's want.
Further, what motivates "Good" is far less important, IMHO totally unimportant, when compared with what is "Good" in a given situation.
For that reason, the whole question is irrelevant and frankly, beyond sophomoric late evening debates, pretty much uninteresting.
Should we instead be asking how in a given situation we build a hierarchy of choices, from best to worst?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JustinC, posted 05-16-2007 2:56 PM JustinC has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 22 of 55 (400959)
05-17-2007 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Trump won
05-17-2007 2:43 PM


Re: Reason cannot exist without a base of experience
I am not sure why you don't believe perfect information exists.
Because neither you or anyone else has presented any evidence that it does exist.
"Such a thing" cannot be presented here and it can't even be argued sufficiently.
If it cannot be presented or argued, then honestly, it is simply not worth considering.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Trump won, posted 05-17-2007 2:43 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Trump won, posted 05-17-2007 2:54 PM jar has not replied
 Message 24 by Trump won, posted 05-17-2007 2:56 PM jar has replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 23 of 55 (400960)
05-17-2007 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
05-17-2007 2:50 PM


Re: Reason cannot exist without a base of experience
Evidence of perfect information is derived from reason. I cannot help you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 05-17-2007 2:50 PM jar has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 24 of 55 (400961)
05-17-2007 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
05-17-2007 2:50 PM


Re: Reason cannot exist without a base of experience
You cannot give a situation or moral dilemma where perfect information does not exist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 05-17-2007 2:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 05-17-2007 2:59 PM Trump won has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 25 of 55 (400962)
05-17-2007 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Trump won
05-17-2007 2:56 PM


Re: Reason cannot exist without a base of experience
You cannot give a situation or moral dilemma where perfect information does not exist
Of course I can.
A good example is the one I posed of resource allocation.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Trump won, posted 05-17-2007 2:56 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Trump won, posted 05-17-2007 3:03 PM jar has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 26 of 55 (400963)
05-17-2007 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
05-17-2007 2:59 PM


Re: Reason cannot exist without a base of experience
I fail to see where there is imperfect knowledge?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 05-17-2007 2:59 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Kader, posted 05-17-2007 5:05 PM Trump won has replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 27 of 55 (400964)
05-17-2007 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
05-17-2007 7:27 AM


quote:
For example if we tried to ground morality in terms of God's nature we would have to say that if God's nature were such that he approved of child rape, child rape would be good. And this applies to any and all moral commands.
This is the way I've always looked at the irrationality of grounding morality it terms of god's nature. In other words: what if his nature were different?
The reason I've been becoming a little suspect of this response is that I've been applying the same sort of argument to my own tentative ideas about morality. I'm not sure they're directly analogous, which is why I started this topic.
Let's say I ground morality in minimizing the suffering/maximizing the happiness of sentient beings, as is a popular way of stating a secular humanists viewpoint wrt to the issue. Would it be troublesome if say child rape did in fact increase the happiness of the rapist and the victim? Even though this is most suredly not the case in reality, what if it did? Would it then be moral to child rape?
I'm not too certain this a problem for the secularist though. Because I think the problem with with Euthyphro's dilemma is that what is moral (if morality is defined in terms of God's nature) could potentially be diametrically opposed to our most common moral intuitions. This leads to the absurd conclusion which you outlined.
When the "what if it were different?" question is framed wrt to secularists it may not be a big problem because child rape is but an instantiation of when the suffering of a sentient being is being increased, not decreased. If child rape did increase happiness in some other hypothetical reality, then it wouldn't necessarily be as absurd to call it moral.
I'm not sure I'm being real clear. Hopefully you get the gist of my concern.
Edited by JustinC, : typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 05-17-2007 7:27 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Chiroptera, posted 05-17-2007 4:04 PM JustinC has not replied
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 05-17-2007 4:35 PM JustinC has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 55 (400969)
05-17-2007 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by JustinC
05-17-2007 3:08 PM


When the "what if it were different?" question is framed wrt to secularists it may not be a big problem because child rape is but an instantiation of when the suffering of a sentient being is being increased, not decreased.
The same can be said for the objective moralist. "What if it were different" should be no big problem because in this case child rape would be an instantiation of what the Big Guy wants.
The reason it is a problem, though, is that the objective moralist assumes, even insists, that the objective standards of morality corresponds to the standards of morality that they just happen to hold. In fact, usually the point of the objective morality position is so that the moralist can insist that people must accept her morality without giving the issue much thought.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by JustinC, posted 05-17-2007 3:08 PM JustinC has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 29 of 55 (400973)
05-17-2007 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by JustinC
05-17-2007 3:08 PM


quote:
The reason I've been becoming a little suspect of this response is that I've been applying the same sort of argument to my own tentative ideas about morality. I'm not sure they're directly analogous, which is why I started this topic.
I think that any attempt to say that morality is objective runs into similar problems. That doesn't mean that the problems are invalid. It means that we don't have a valid grounding for objective morality. The problem is especially acute in the God version since there is no necessary link between God and any factor directly relevant to our judgement of an act.
quote:
Let's say I ground morality in minimizing the suffering/maximizing the happiness of sentient beings, as is a popular way of stating a secular humanists viewpoint wrt to the issue. Would it be troublesome if say child rape did in fact increase the happiness of the rapist and the victim? Even though this is most suredly not the case in reality, what if it did? Would it then be moral to child rape?
As you point out there is a clear difference here, isn't there ? If God's nature happened to favour child rape it could be every bit as horrific as we know it to be. But here you're having to propose that there are differences which most people would agree are relvant to judging the act . Which reveals that the humanistic idea is closer to our moral intuitions than the God idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by JustinC, posted 05-17-2007 3:08 PM JustinC has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 30 of 55 (400976)
05-17-2007 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Chiroptera
05-17-2007 9:33 AM


quote:
One could, in the end, simply define "good" to be what God wants. But this divorces the meaning of "good" from the intuitive idea that "good" is what people should do without taking into account rewards or punishments;
I don't necessary think that grounding morality in term of God's wants must necessarily imply that you are taking into account the rewards and punishment that God may decide to bestow upon you. Of course, you are taking into account the consequences of your actions, i.e, whether they conform to God's dictates but that is different. That is no less (atleast not to me) antithetical to morality than taking into account the suffering of individuals when considering your course of action in situation X.
quote:
in fact, it even begs the question: why, then, should people do what God wants? To then discuss this question then implies that in reality morality is separate from God.
Isn't this question intrinsic to any framework for morality? How does one justify the moral system itself?
It seems that within any framework normative statements make sense and can be justified with refernce to some general principles. 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. It seems there will be an infinite regress of frameworks is one is trying to justify normative statements as opposed to taking the sociological perspective and simply trying to explain them in terms of the environment which fosters certain values and behaviors.
You said you aren't an absolutist. Just out of curiousity, what does that entail for you? 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? Also, can you justify the want to spread your values to other cultures, or is this not a concern for you as long as their ideals don't significantly interfere with your way of life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 05-17-2007 9:33 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Chiroptera, posted 05-19-2007 2:56 PM JustinC has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024