|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4844 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Euthyprho's Dilemma Deflated | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Evidence of perfect information is derived from reason. I cannot help you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
You cannot give a situation or moral dilemma where perfect information does not exist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
I fail to see where there is imperfect knowledge?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4844 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4844 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote: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: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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024