Euthyphro

[RockAndRoll]

Define 'right' and 'wrong'. (in the moral sense)
What does it actually mean for something to be right or wrong?

[Africa]

We just had a thread about this bro.

[RockAndRoll]

Not really, that thread was about why killing is wrong. No one ever actually defined right and wrong. I made a few attempts at getting someone to, but no one did. I think this deserves its on thread anyways. I think it'll be interesting.

[spitfirejunky]

It's hard to define this concept on its own because it's always directly connected with spiritual wellbeing. If we assume that the spirit is non-existent, then this concept is pretty much meaningless.

In other words, why should it matter that an action is inherently "right" if the only results we can observe of this action are that which occur in the physical world?

[sweboy]

Morality is just a biological attribute that humans have been given by evolution. The things that we generally feel are "wrong" are things that could make it harder for our genes to live on (i.e killing our children), and we think that things that help our genes is "good". But of course the human mind is very complex and deep by now, so things are not really black and white and everything can't be explained as easily as the baby killing example, but the fundamental principle remains. And of course nurture also plays a very big part when it comes to the shaping of someone's morals.

But since we are so arrogant and close-minded, we like to think that morality transcends humans and that "right" and "wrong" is something that can be universally defined. Silly stuff.

[Africa]

*Empathy

[-1up!-]

Right and wrong are human constructs.

Subjective human constructs. :p

[italic zero]

External logical constants, much like the laws of physics.

[Precarious]

Right and wrong are human constructs.

Subjective human constructs. :p

So are you saying that truth is subjective?

[PerpetualBurn]

External logical constants, much like the laws of physics.

Do you intend to support this outrageous claim?

[Iskandar]

External logical constants, much like the laws of physics.
I don't see how this is possible. Physics is the laws governing the actions and reactions of matter etc., while morals have to do with human behaviour. Human behaviour is not uniform and therefore cannot be governed by universally applicable laws.

[italic zero]

Evolution has set up the minimization of suffering and the maximization of pleasure as the goal for all of humanity. Therefore, with this naturally defined goal, morals are the logical systems by which the goal may be attained. On a shortsighted individual scale this would lead to traditional hedonism, however in the larger view utilitarianism provides the best for the individual as well as the whole (see how Kant justifies human rights), though the latter is the ultimate goal as defined by the systems of nature.

[PerpetualBurn]

Got non-sequitur?

[italic zero]

Morals are right and wrong; right is the process to obtaining a goal; the naturally imposed goal is utilitarianism.

[PerpetualBurn]

Do morals not have to be categorical to be morals?

And if that's true, it's silly to suggest that evolutionary development determines universal good. You can't differentiate the evolution of humans from the evolution of anything else.

And nothing that aids the species can ever be seen as morally wrong.

[Iskandar]

however in the larger view utilitarianism provides the best for the individual as well as the whole
The inherent flaw of utilitarianism is that it tends to **** all over the individual and/or minority in pursuance of the common good.

[LittlePound]

Right=Doing what God asks you to do
Wrong=Doing something that God has asked you not to do.

[Iskandar]

Right=Doing what God asks you to do
Wrong=Doing something that God has asked you not to do.
When we get into the manifold theories of moral justice beyond divine command theory, we realize it's rarely that simple.

[PerpetualBurn]

What if God asked me to rape your mother?

Or, better yet, I now get to pose Euthyphro's dilemma. Hurray!

Is it good because God says it's good, or does God say it's good because he knows it to be good?

[LittlePound]

When we get into the manifold theories of moral justice beyond divine command theory, we realize it's rarely that simple.
It's always that simple, people just like to complicate things.
What if God asked me to rape your mother?
You'd only have to worry about that if God didn't perfectly love us. But God does love us with perfect love, and he is perfect love, so it wouldn't be in his nature to command me to do that. So i guess i'm in luck, i'll never have to do it becuase God would never command it of me.

[Precarious]

Human behaviour is not uniform and therefore cannot be governed by universally applicable laws.

Perhaps it is completely arbitrary, random and meaningless. But I bet you take a sh*t everyday like every other human being on the planet. That is a natural law of human behaviour. We are either robots or free agents. There are physical, natural constraints on human behaviour that are unavoidable,. Humans can not avoid the consequences of gravity. Gravity is a universal law. So there are some constraints that govern human behaviour at least in a physical system. People can not behave in a way that violates the physical world can they?

[PerpetualBurn]

You'd only have to worry about that if God didn't perfectly love us. But God does love us with perfect love, and he is perfect love, so it wouldn't be in his nature to command me to do that. So i guess i'm in luck, i'll never have to do it becuase God would never command it of me.Way to ignore a hypothetical, moron.

[LittlePound]

What if God asked me to rape your mother?

Or, better yet, I now get to pose Euthyphro's dilemma. Hurray!

Is it good because God says it's good, or does God say it's good because he knows it to be good?

Maybe a little of both. God is the ultimate good. Something can only be good if it comes from God. So i'd say it's leans a little more towards the "becuase God says so" but also, the reason God says so is becuase in his infinite wisdom he can see what's best for all so it'd also be "becuase God knows it to be good".

[PerpetualBurn]

No, it can't be both. They're mutually exclusive.

[Iskandar]

It's always that simple, people just like to complicate things.
You mean not all people espouse divine command theory, which is one of many competing theories of moral justice.

[LittlePound]

no, i meant what i said.

[Iskandar]

no, i meant what i said.
What you said could only be correct if every single person adhered to it. However, that isn't the case.

[LittlePound]

what i said could be correct if only one person adhered to it, that just means all but that one person would be wrong.

[Iskandar]

what i said could be correct if only one person adhered to it, that just means all but that one person would be wrong.
So why should everybody else believe what this person says, and follow it?

[PerpetualBurn]

Hey, numbnuts, respond to Euthyphro's dilemma properly.

It doesn't make sense to be both.

Either God chooses it or God knows it.

Choose one.

[italic zero]

The inherent flaw of utilitarianism is that it tends to **** all over the individual and/or minority in pursuance of the common good.
only in its most simplistic application

[Precarious]

No, it can't be both. They're mutually exclusive.

How is it mutually exclusive, ontologically, what follows from a grammar must be because one knows what it is.

[PerpetualBurn]

only in its most simplistic applicationHey, did you just ignore eveything else that was said on purpose?

[LittlePound]

So why should everybody else believe what this person says, and follow it?

Becuase it's the truth.
Hey, numbnuts, respond to Euthyphro's dilemma properly.

It doesn't make sense to be both.

Either God chooses it or God knows it.

Choose one.

It doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense to you. I'm sorry to let you in on this secret but you don't know everything.
It is impossible for a man to comprehend how God could be both perfectly loving/merciful and perfectly just at the same time. In fact, all of God's qualities are impossible for a human to completely grasp in the perfect sense that is God becuase we are imperfect. You say God can't say what is good becuase he knows what is good. I say you're wrong and you (nor I) have any inkling of what God can or can't do. We're all in the dark. Christians (some atleast) have a slightly more clear image of what God becuase we do our best to listen to his word, but in the end, when we get to heaven, we too will realize how far off we are becuase a perfect being is inconceivable by fallen minds. Why can't you grasp that God is, and can do the impossible becuase HE IS GOD.

[PerpetualBurn]

How is it mutually exclusive, ontologically, what follows from a grammar must be because one knows what it is.

Okay, where it says "say it's good" exchange it for "dictates it to be good".

And now understand that in Euthyphro's dilemma Socrates is referring to whether the God's dictate or logically deduce logic.

That is, to they simply choose it, or is there some code by which they work it out (in which case, they aren't choosing it).

Understood?

[PerpetualBurn]

It doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense to you. I'm sorry to let you in on this secret but you don't know everything.
It is impossible for a man to comprehend how God could be both perfectly loving/merciful and perfectly just at the same time. In fact, all of God's qualities are impossible for a human to completely grasp in the perfect sense that is God becuase we are imperfect. You say God can't say what is good becuase he knows what is good. I say you're wrong and you (nor I) have any inkling of what God can or can't do. We're all in the dark. Christians (some atleast) have a slightly more clear image of what God becuase we do our best to listen to his word, but in the end, when we get to heaven, we too will realize how far off we are becuase a perfect being is inconceivable by fallen minds. Why can't you grasp that God is, and can do the impossible becuase HE IS GOD.

I haven't said anything yet, I've merely posed the question in hopes of a nice answer.

See my above post for why you must pick one:

God works out what is good (he hasn't chosen it)
God simply decides what is good (it's his whim)

Choose.

[italic zero]

Do morals not have to be categorical to be morals?

And if that's true, it's silly to suggest that evolutionary development determines universal good. You can't differentiate the evolution of humans from the evolution of anything else.

And nothing that aids the species can ever be seen as morally wrong.
How is the basis I laid out not categorical? I would say human morals differ from non-human morals only in complexity. As far as aiding the species, that's a tricky phrase, as there is no set goal for evolution, so killing the weak and encouraging the strong (however you want to define either term) is not a part of morality. However, there is a set reward system which creates a set human (or animal if you like) goal.

[LittlePound]

see my above post why it is possible for them to coexist seeing as all of God's qualities cause that same dilemma of appearing to impossble to coexist. I'm done talking to you until you actually start paying attention to posts.

[PerpetualBurn]

see my above post why it is possible for them to coexist seeing as all of God's qualities cause that same dilemma of appearing to impossble to coexist. I'm done talking to you until you actually start paying attention to posts.

You freaking moron.

Either he chooses it, or he figures it out.

Please, I don't understand your middle ground effort, expand.

[italic zero]

your argument that you're referring to is basically 'God is God so he can do mutually exclusive things' am i correct?

Besides the fact that it's a huge cop out, it's not completely applicable as I'm not entirely sure you really understood the question.

To LP

[LittlePound]

I already have, it's possible for God to do what's impossible to the human mind becuase the human mind has no concept of what's perfect. We cannot grasp what is perfect.
God encompasses both perfect love and perfect justice. He is perfectly forgiving and yet people still go to hell. All of these seem like they can't co exist, but they do becuase God is perfect. The reason we can't grasp them is becuase we're not perfect.
All i'm saying is, perhaps it is possible for God to have both. It's good because he says it's good, but he says it's good becuase he knows the outcome is for the best. He uses his foreknowledge and authority both to determine what's good. That's while he'll never change, becuase before he ever laid down the law, he could see all that was going to happen, so his law is perfect until the end of the ages becuase it was made with all of time in mind.

[italic zero]

what the hell are we doing debating this on christmas eve

[PerpetualBurn]

I already have, it's possible for God to do what's impossible to the human mind becuase the human mind has no concept of what's perfect. We cannot grasp what is perfect.

How can God do the logically impossible?

God encompasses both perfect love and perfect justice. He is perfectly forgiving and yet people still go to hell. All of these seem like they can't co exist, but they do becuase God is perfect. The reason we can't grasp them is becuase we're not perfect.
All i'm saying is, perhaps it is possible for God to have both. It's good because he says it's good, but he says it's good becuase he knows the outcome is for the best. He uses his foreknowledge and authority both to determine what's good. That's while he'll never change, becuase before he ever laid down the law, he could see all that was going to happen, so his law is perfect until the end of the ages becuase it was made with all of time in mind.

Why do you have to spoil a reasonable post by going on about so much irrelevant crap?

I don't care about God changing or anything like that.

[LittlePound]

How can God do the logically impossible?

How can you expect God to be confined by something that is man made?
All we can do is look at things with imperfect knowledge and logic. You can't get a pefect outcome using an imperfect approach.


Why do you have to spoil a reasonable post by going on about so much irrelevant crap?

I don't care about God changing or anything like that.

You would have to understand the characteristics of God for you to understand my post at all seeing as it deals with the characteristics of God. If you don't care about it, then stop talking about what God is capable and not capable of doing.

[PerpetualBurn]

Logic isn't man made.

[LittlePound]

Logic isn't man made.

No, but imperfect logic is and that's all you, or any one of the rest of us have.
And if you used this logic, you could still come up with God is able to do the impossible.
Let's see, if God is all powerful, that means he could do anything, and anything includes everything that's impossible, so he could do it. Now we see how logic breaks down when you put it to questions like "Can God make a weight so heavy he can't lift it". That can't be logically answered becuase God is a being outside of our imperfect logic becuase he's perfect and we are not.

[PerpetualBurn]

If there's something illogical about what I've said, then show me.

You can't simply assert that it's imperfect when blatantly it isn't.

[Precarious]

Logic isn't man made.

If it's not man made, than who made it?

[RockAndRoll]

Right and wrong are human constructs.

Subjective human constructs. :p

That doesn't really answer the question. You named one of the qualities of right and wrong, that they are human constructs, but you haven't actually told me what the terms mean.

[RockAndRoll]

If it's not man made, than who made it?

No one.

[jaredong]

I think its quite impossible to go about with definite rules on what is right and wrong. Every time people propose a set of guidelines and laws, it could just be taken to an extreme and then it becomes absurd.

Some people believe that we should do things that result in the most happiness for the most number of people. But then you could have mobs of KKK lynching just 1 man and the sum total would still be +happiness.

Some people say which is the "right" path is the one that results in the most pleasure. But then what if there was a drug with zero side effects which made you really content and happy with you life. Or perhaps a virtual reality technology (Matrix Style) which made everyone believe they are fulfilling they're life dream while they're actually doing mundane or ordinary things. (A wall painter believes he is a famous artist).

Some rules we believe to be universal "dont eat people". But many cultures around the world carry out cannibalism and they have no problems with it. If you cant get people everywhere to agree on what is right and wrong, then what to do?

You could say "God says what is right/wrong. God decides morality" but then what? You cannot really convince anyone else in any other religion because their "God" says so too. Ignoring the "My God is the *right* God", what else to say?

Even if you apply the "do unto others how you expect others to do unto you" idea its not perfect. A hardcore racist would still believe that if he was say.. black, he should still be discriminated against.

Ultimately though, I think its extremely difficult to figure out ethics and what is right and wrong in the world. And yet is it not one of the most important things that we have to know in life? : mind boggled :

[RockAndRoll]

I think its quite impossible to go about with definite rules on what is right and wrong.
The idea isn't to say which things are right and which things are wrong, rather what right and wrong actually mean.

Maybe killing is right, maybe killing is wrong. But unless we assign some meaning to the words right and wrong it's really a moot point. Without some meaning to the words we might as well say killing is ghaferklaby.

[spitfirejunky]

How can God do the logically impossible?

Omnipotence.

[sweboy]

Evolution has set up the minimization of suffering and the maximization of pleasure as the goal for all of humanity. Therefore, with this naturally defined goal, morals are the logical systems by which the goal may be attained. On a shortsighted individual scale this would lead to traditional hedonism, however in the larger view utilitarianism provides the best for the individual as well as the whole (see how Kant justifies human rights), though the latter is the ultimate goal as defined by the systems of nature.

I'm sorry, but wtf? Evolutions has not "set up the minimization of suffering and the maximization of pleasure as the goal for all of humanity". Evolution has not set up any goals whatsoever for anything. Evolution is an unintelligent, aimless process incapable of directing or defining universal goals; it just happens. There is no difference between biological evolution and the creation of nebulas, or whatever; neither defines any universal truths. All our attributes are there for the sake of survival, not for the sake of unjustified happiness. I mean, happiness and suffering are just biological attributes, unintelligently choosen by the enviroment on this particular planet, that helps organisms pass their genes on. If you as an organism want a silly "goal defined by nature", that goal is to spread your genes as much as possible, but that is an instinctive goal that only applies to you and other organisms and is by no means universal.

[Precarious]

No one.

So what than is logic a universal law like physics?

[Precarious]

Logic isn't man made.

And here I was led to believe Aristotle invented logic. Silly me!

[PerpetualIdiot]

To hell with Aristotle, I invented logic. I'm so logical, when I take a sh*t it's always right. There is no right and wrong, euthyphro proved it. You should all listen to me because I am logic incarnate and always right.

[PerpetualBurn]

To hell with Aristotle, I invented logic. I'm so logical, when I take a sh*t it's always right. There is no right and wrong, euthyphro proved it. You should all listen to me because I am logic incarnate and always right.

I wake up. I piss excellence.

Oh, and Euthyphro's argument was the one being disproved, dolt.

Read a book.

[RockAndRoll]

Omnipotence.

Nope. Doing the illogical is entirely meaningless.

[PerpetualIdiot]

I wake up. I piss excellence.

Oh, and Euthyphro's argument was the one being disproved, dolt.

Read a book.

Shutup you moron, you know nothing of what you are talking about. I am logical and always right.

[PerpetualBurn]

What's funny is that you're going to get banned because you found yourself incapable beating me in an actual argument.

Sometimes I wonder if I can be any more awesome.

[steveliekzmen]

you're awesome dude

[PerpetualIdiot]

What's funny is that you're going to get banned because you found yourself incapable beating me in an actual argument.

Sometimes I wonder if I can be any more awesome.

No, I am much more awesome than you, because I am logical.

Sometimes I wonder how many arguments I can avoid that might prove I could be wrong.

Stop trolling me buffoon.

[PerpetualIdiot]

you're awesome dude

Yes I know I am, thanks. I am glad I have admirers here.

[BassRevelation]

thats one heck of an impersonation.

oh btw, has siva shown up in the thread? I liked his take on euthyphro's argument. It was unique/interesting.

[lunchforthesky]

Hey, numbnuts, respond to Euthyphro's dilemma properly.

It doesn't make sense to be both.

Either God chooses it or God knows it.

Choose one.

You cant expect someone who posts this:

Right=Doing what God asks you to do
Wrong=Doing something that God has asked you not to do.

To properly answer anything logical, he clearly lives in a dream world outside of the constraints of evidence, reason and logic.

[spitfirejunky]

Nope. Doing the illogical is entirely meaningless.

If God can't defy logic, then God isn't omnipotent.

[Petros]

Euthyphro's dilemma is false. Let's look at the dilemma as it was described by Russel:

"If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God."

Morality is neither God's whim nor is God responsible to a higher law. God would not decree that rape, murder and toture are morally good, because it goes against His character. God's character is immutable, and God is perfectly good. Therefore morality is rooted in the nature of God himself. Since morality is the nature of God, his commands are not whims but because He is Holy. And God is not above himself, nor is there anything above God that commands him. God's divine nature is not limited by an external code that dictates his actions.

The second problem is how do you define good? If good is God's nature and character, than Good=God, and thus God=God, results in a meaningless tautology. But God is not the same thing as goodness, it is a quality of God's character. It is an essential characteristic of God, so there is no tautology. God is not the same thing as good, good is a part of the immutable nature of God.

But what is good? Goodness is moral intuition that exists prior to divine command. It can be seen in the prophet's of the old testament, before the divine command was handed to them, that they instinctively knew what was moral (Gen 18:25). Abraham knew what was a moral decision before the divine law was given to him. How would Abraham know what was morally right before God had given the divine command? Moral knowledge is inbuilt in human beings.

If God does not exist, than moral terms are incoherent and are nonsense. But this is not the case, because morality is objective, and an objective standard of morality does exist, which is evidenced in all societies and all human cultures. There is no culture that exists that considers cowardice a virtue, or that murder is right. There is no society that exists that condones the murder of innocent civilians of it's culture. It is an objective fact, not a subjective and arbitrary choice of nature or human whim. There is an objective standard that exists prior to divine command, as evidenced in humans preceding the giving of the command; and there is the reality that there exists objective truth whether or not someone knows why the choice is right or wrong.

Therefore euthyphro's dilemma is a false micharacterization of the christian God.

[Iskandar]

Becuase it's the truth.
You're going to have to do better than "divine command is the truth because it's the truth" if you want to convince me.

[LittlePound]

You're going to have to do better than "divine command is the truth because it's the truth" if you want to convince me.

I guess that's ok becuase i'm not here to convince you. All i'm called to do is present the truth, i don't have to convince you of it. All i have to do is present it for what it is, after that your blood is own your head. I can't save anyone, i can't even save myself. However, i can present the truth and people can choose to believe, it has nothing to do with convincing them.

[Iskandar]

I guess that's ok becuase i'm not here to convince you. All i'm called to do is present the truth, i don't have to convince you of it. All i have to do is present it for what it is, after that your blood is own your head. I can't save anyone, i can't even save myself. However, i can present the truth and people can choose to believe, it has nothing to do with convincing them.
You do realize that what is truth to you is absurd to me, right?

[RockAndRoll]

God would not decree that rape, murder and toture are morally good, because it goes against His character.
It's unimportant whether or not He would. What's important is that he could. The dillemma is not false.



The second problem is how do you define good? If good is God's nature and character, than Good=God, and thus God=God, results in a meaningless tautology. But God is not the same thing as goodness, it is a quality of God's character. It is an essential characteristic of God, so there is no tautology. God is not the same thing as good, good is a part of the immutable nature of God.
This paragraph is really unimportant. Because so far it's still meaningless to say god is good.

But what is good? Goodness is moral intuition that exists prior to divine command. It can be seen in the prophet's of the old testament, before the divine command was handed to them, that they instinctively knew what was moral (Gen 18:25). Abraham knew what was a moral decision before the divine law was given to him. How would Abraham know what was morally right before God had given the divine command? Moral knowledge is inbuilt in human beings.
You never actually said what it means for something to be good in this paragraph. You gave a quality of good, that we know it before divine command, but you never actually stated the meaning of good. What's that Euthyphro?

If God does not exist, than moral terms are incoherent and are nonsense.But this is not the case, because morality is objective, and an objective standard of morality does exist, which is evidenced in all societies and all human cultures. There is no culture that exists that considers cowardice a virtue, or that murder is right. There is no society that exists that condones the murder of innocent civilians of it's culture. It is an objective fact, not a subjective and arbitrary choice of nature or human whim. There is an objective standard that exists prior to divine command, as evidenced in humans preceding the giving of the command; and there is the reality that there exists objective truth whether or not someone knows why the choice is right or wrong.
Just because a lot of people share similiar feelings does not make something objective. Forgetting that fallacy though you completely ignore the fact that people actually have differing opinions about what right and wrong are and so, were that evidence of anything (which it's not) it would actuall;y imply subjectivity.


Therefore euthyphro's dilemma is a false micharacterization of the christian God.
No, sorry.

If God can't defy logic, then God isn't omnipotent.
Maybe so. I don't include the ability to do the illogical as part of my definition of omnipotence though, because the illogical isn't something to be done. Illogical things are not only 'impossible' they're entirely meaningless, they are 'non-things' if you will.

[italic zero]

Here's another meaningless statment: God can't do things He doesn't want to do.

[lunchforthesky]

All i'm called to do is present the truth

That you can look at the Bible and think objectively, "Hey every single word of this is 100% correct" is absolutely mindblowing, i cant help but think you were dropped on the head at a young age or brought up amongst a phenomenal level of Christian indoctrination.

[Petros]

It's unimportant whether or not He would. What's important is that he could. The dillemma is not false.

God's character is immutable, and God is perfectly good. Therefore morality is rooted in the nature of God himself. Since morality is the nature of God, his commands are not whims but because He is Holy.


This paragraph is really unimportant. Because so far it's still meaningless to say god is good.


Good is essential to God's character. Good is not anterior to God, and God is not the same thing as Good, it is a part of his character. See St. Thomas Aquinas, if you still insist that this does not refute the first horn of the dilemma. You apparently do not understand the dilemma.


Just because a lot of people share similiar feelings does not make something objective. Forgetting that fallacy though you completely ignore the fact that people actually have differing opinions about what right and wrong are and so, were that evidence of anything (which it's not) it would actuall;y imply subjectivity.


Objective truth exists whether someone knows why it is right or wrong or agrees to what is right or wrong. You can deny gravity but it doesn't invalidate it. The same thing with God's character. You can deny His character but it does not invalidate it. That is why euthyphro's dilemma is false.

[italic zero]

God's character is immutable, and God is perfectly good. Therefore morality is rooted in the nature of God himself. Since morality is the nature of God, his commands are not whims but because He is Holy.
From where does His nature derive?

[Petros]

From where does His nature derive?

Are you asking what the origins of the christian God are? This has nothing to do with euthyphro's dilemma. I have provided evidence that the dilemma is false, the burden of proof rests on the opposition to show logically that the dilemma is true. Subjective feelings do not make a logical argument. You must refute the character of God as demonstrated in the bible, and show that euthyphro's dilemma is not a mischaracterization of what is presented to us.

[LittlePound]

You do realize that what is truth to you is absurd to me, right?

yes because it is the same the other way around.
That you can look at the Bible and think objectively, "Hey every single word of this is 100% correct" is absolutely mindblowing, i cant help but think you were dropped on the head at a young age or brought up amongst a phenomenal level of Christian indoctrination.

That you can look at the Bible and think "Hey, this is all complete trash" is almost mindblowing to me. And just to let you know, it's not like i've been brainwashed and all of this was forced on me, i made the decision myself to accept Christ in the 7th grade, i was against it up until that point.

[Iskandar]

yes because it is the same the other way around.
Then why proclaim your viewpoint to be objective truth? I don't claim mine is.

[Mr. Ron]

Right=Doing what God asks you to do
Wrong=Doing something that God has asked you not to do.

What if god told you to burn your loved ones alive? Would that be right?

Seriously.

[Mr. Ron]

God's character is immutable, and God is perfectly good. Therefore morality is rooted in the nature of God himself. Since morality is the nature of God, his commands are not whims but because He is Holy.



Good is essential to God's character. Good is not anterior to God, and God is not the same thing as Good, it is a part of his character. See St. Thomas Aquinas, if you still insist that this does not refute the first horn of the dilemma. You apparently do not understand the dilemma.



Objective truth exists whether someone knows why it is right or wrong or agrees to what is right or wrong. You can deny gravity but it doesn't invalidate it. The same thing with God's character. You can deny His character but it does not invalidate it. That is why euthyphro's dilemma is false.
BS. If god is perfectly good, and it is not in his nature to do bad things, then explain his wrath in the Old testament please.

[BassRevelation]

Therefore morality is rooted in the nature of God himself.
in this statement, would you say that God and 'right' cannot be separated, therefore right exists within God?



If God does not exist, than moral terms are incoherent and are nonsense. But this is not the case, because morality is objective, and an objective standard of morality does exist, which is evidenced in all societies and all human cultures
though there is no such thing as no morals, there is a concept of bad morals. However, no one does evil for the sake of evil.

Therefore euthyphro's dilemma is a false micharacterization of the christian God.
it would seem so according to your well-put argument. However, like the dilemma, some parts do not follow.

[italic zero]

though there is no such thing as no morals, there is a concept of bad morals. However, no one does evil for the sake of evil.
St. Augustine did

[spitfirejunky]

Maybe so. I don't include the ability to do the illogical as part of my definition of omnipotence though, because the illogical isn't something to be done. Illogical things are not only 'impossible' they're entirely meaningless, they are 'non-things' if you will.

I assume this would be true if logic wasn't a human construct.

[Iskandar]

in this statement, would you say that God and 'right' cannot be separated, therefore right exists within God?
Why?

[Apollyon]

Right and wrong are human constructs.

Subjective human constructs. :p

This. Morality only exists as a means of 'intelligent' self-preservation. Humans, like any other animal, have always had a survival instinct. It's just changed with time and necessity.

[Petros]

in this statement, would you say that God and 'right' cannot be separated, therefore right exists within God?


Yes. An objective standard of morality exists. But it is not external to God, it is internal to Him. This avoids the first horn of the argument.

But the problem than is what is Good? I have argued that Good is a characteristic of the nature of God. God is not the same thing as good, but Good is essential to the immutable nature of God.


it would seem so according to your well-put argument. However, like the dilemma, some parts do not follow.

There are two horns to the dilemma: Either God chooses morality according to his whim, or that there exists a standard externally to God which God must adhere to. I have argued 1) that both horns are false and 2) that there exists an objective standard of morality that exists internal to God.

[lunchforthesky]

Or better yet God doesn't exist and 1up! pretty much called it.

Right and wrong are human constructs.

Subjective human constructs. :p

[BassRevelation]

Why?
did you really just ask 'why' to my question to clear up an idea?
Yes. An objective standard of morality exists. But it is not external to God, it is internal to Him. This avoids the first horn of the argument.

But the problem than is what is Good? I have argued that Good is a characteristic of the nature of God. God is not the same thing as good, but Good is essential to the immutable nature of God.
well when defining evil as perverted good, what then can we call good?

It would make sense to say that good is His nature, since His nature has always existed. Pretty interesting, just never seen it this way.



There are two horns to the dilemma: Either God chooses morality according to his whim, or that there exists a standard externally to God which God must adhere to. I have argued 1) that both horns are false and 2) that there exists an objective standard of morality that exists internal to God.
both parts are false? How so?

[Iskandar]

did you really just ask 'why' to my question to clear up an idea?
Is there something peculiar about that?

Let me try again: "Why should we assume 'right' exists in God?"

[BassRevelation]

Is there something peculiar about that?
yes. I was making sure I was understanding what he was saying with the way I see it. 'Why' is the oddest thing you can say in that situation, other than 'who'

Let me try again: "Why should we assume 'right' exists in God?"
you're throwing me in violent circles.

[Iskandar]

you're throwing me in violent circles.
I thought it was clear-cut: Why should we assume "right" exists in God?

Why should we presume to know anything about God? We haven't even determined whether God exists or not.

[RockAndRoll]

God's character is immutable, and God is perfectly good. Therefore morality is rooted in the nature of God himself. Since morality is the nature of God, his commands are not whims but because He is Holy.
Holy, as in 'god like' or is there some other definition of the word you're using? Does holiness precede God, or does god define holiness too?


Good is essential to God's character. Good is not anterior to God, and God is not the same thing as Good, it is a part of his character. See St. Thomas Aquinas, if you still insist that this does not refute the first horn of the dilemma. You apparently do not understand the dilemma.
I understand the dillema perfectly. If good is part of god's character you end up with the same dilemma, you haven't actually changed anything. You still haven't defined good, all you've done is give one of its qaulities. Socrates is still asking for its essence and you're still euthyphro, clueless as ever.


Objective truth exists whether someone knows why it is right or wrong or agrees to what is right or wrong. You can deny gravity but it doesn't invalidate it. The same thing with God's character. You can deny His character but it does not invalidate it. That is why euthyphro's dilemma is false.
Considering the argument I presented that response doesn't make any sense.

[RockAndRoll]

I assume this would be true if logic wasn't a human construct.

It's not a human construct.

[BassRevelation]

I thought it was clear-cut: Why should we assume "right" exists in God?

Why should we presume to know anything about God? We haven't even determined whether God exists or not.

I see.

God is perfect in nature. That is the Biblical perspective and it is one i hold to be true.

If you think im here to argue the existence of God, you're way behind. Obviously if we're arguing a philosophical argument of this type, the existence of God is already accounted for. Take anything else to the official thread, where you wont see me.
Holy, as in 'god like' or is there some other definition of the word you're using? Does holiness precede God, or does god define holiness too?
I believe what He's saying is holiness or goodness is God's nature, which has existed with Him. With this, good is not separate from God.

Please, take a while to look at that before proceeding to ask the same thing again.

[RockAndRoll]

I believe what He's saying is holiness or goodness is God's nature, which has existed with Him. With this, good is not separate from God.
Ya, I know, that's actually my point.

[Iskandar]

I see.

God is perfect in nature. That is the Biblical perspective and it is one i hold to be true.
I'm asking you why you hold that to be true.

[The Digital Pimp]

I'm asking you why you hold that to be true.

Because he believes it. Next!

Why should we presume to know anything about God? We haven't even determined whether God exists or not.

That's the trick, isn't it?

[PerpetualBurn]

There are two horns to the dilemma: Either God chooses morality according to his whim, or that there exists a standard externally to God which God must adhere to. I have argued 1) that both horns are false and 2) that there exists an objective standard of morality that exists internal to God.

Saying God's nature is good is just saying that whatever God chooses to do is good. That avoids nothing.

Either his actions are God's own free will ("because God says it's good") or maybe you've just taken away the free will of God. The latter is an interesting option, but not one that would be particularly wise for a Christian to take.

[BassRevelation]

I'm asking you why you hold that to be true.

God is perfect in nature. That is the Biblical perspective and it is one i hold to be true.
answer your question?

[Iskandar]

answer your question?
It brings up the question of why you assume the Biblical perspective is true.

[spitfirejunky]

It's not a human construct.

I didn't mean that logic is a human construct, but rather that if it was, that statement would be false since reality wouldn't have to act under the constraints of logic.

No arguments here, I'm actually agreeing with you more or less.

[RockAndRoll]

I didn't mean that logic is a human construct, but rather that if it was, that statement would be false since reality wouldn't have to act under the constraints of logic.

No arguments here, I'm actually agreeing with you more or less.

oh, okay, cool. :thumb:

[BassRevelation]

It brings up the question of why you assume the Biblical perspective is true.
which would be irrelevant in this thread.

[Iskandar]

which would be irrelevant in this thread.
This thread has several pages and dozens of posts. I think we can fairly say it's due for a slight de-railing, which happens to all longer threads.

Please do.

[Surgicalgod]

right is anything I do that won't result in me getting hurt (physically, emotionally, etc..)
wrong is the complete opposite.

[PerpetualBurn]

So sociopaths are the epitome of moral good?

[Surgicalgod]

No...

if a person shoots another person's dog for lols, there's a possibility that the owner of that dog would inflict some damage on the shooter ==> shooting other people's dog for lols is wrong.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yeah, but sociopaths don't get emotional problems and are usually experts at hiding what they do. So they must be the most moral people.

[Surgicalgod]

It doesn't matter if they get punished or not, they still know that they'll be in trouble if they get caught.

[PerpetualBurn]

But if they don't get caught then it doesn't contradict your definition, does it?

[TheDMV]

right is anything I do that won't result in me getting hurt (physically, emotionally, etc..)
wrong is the complete opposite.

I'm really curious as to where you came up with this definition.

[Surgicalgod]

But if they don't get caught then it doesn't contradict your definition, does it?

It doesn't contradict my definition because sociopaths, for example, wouldn't certainly know if they can get away with it.

I'm really curious as to where you came up with this definition.

I thought about it for a few minutes then typed it in. It probably contains a lot of flaws.

[PerpetualBurn]

Of course people know when they can get away with stuff. You're being ridiculous.

If I know I'm not going to get caught, then everything I do is morally correct by your definition.

If I was ruler of the world, I could slaughter as many people as I wanted because there would be no one to punish me.

It's a crap effort.

[Surgicalgod]

Of course people know when they can get away with stuff. You're being ridiculous.

orly? so that's why people rob banks, they love to be imprisoned.


If I know I'm not going to get caught, then everything I do is morally correct by your definition.

No. I can't be sure that I would never get caught because there's always a possibility that I will.

If I was ruler of the world, I could slaughter as many people as I wanted because there would be no one to punish me.

Again, no. In theory, there's always a possibility that someone will rise up and punish you.

[PerpetualBurn]

So because people make mistakes in judgement, it rules out the people that get it right. That's not a breach of logic.

There's a risk that anything I do could turn out to be harmful to me, so does that make it immoral? Is it immoral to smoke because I might get cancer or moral to smoke because I might not?

Answer the hypothetical and stop dodging the point: If I know that I can do something without being punished, does that mean it's always moral?

[BassRevelation]

right is anything I do that won't result in me getting hurt (physically, emotionally, etc..)
wrong is the complete opposite.

would you consider martyrdom right or wrong?

[RockAndRoll]

No...

if a person shoots another person's dog for lols, there's a possibility that the owner of that dog would inflict some damage on the shooter ==> shooting other people's dog for lols is wrong.
If you cross the street there's a possibility that you'll get hit by a car. Is that wrong?

[lfantwister]

How about being moral is something that minimizes pain/suffering to yourself and the people around you?

[HaVIC5]

How about being moral is something that minimizes pain/suffering to yourself and the people around you?
So pleasure = greatest good?

[lfantwister]

as long as its not inordinately harmful to those around you

[PerpetualBurn]

Why do I have to care about other people?

[lfantwister]

So they don't think the same thing and harm you
It's the golden rule man!
Also, you dont have to by any stretch of the imagination. But it's probably best not to go on killing rampages for reasons similar to that.

[PerpetualBurn]

That's for self-preservation, not because it's morally right.

So I can hurt people if they can't hurt me back then?

[lfantwister]

morals are based on self-preservation though aren't they? why else would we have them?

you probably shouldnt becasue that would cause inordinate pain for the person you're hurting with no real advantage to yourself. Like kicking your little brother in the balls would not be moral whereas kicking someone who's trying to rob you would be.

[PerpetualBurn]

Why is self-preservation universally good?

If kicking someone in the balls gives me pleasure and they can't harm me back, why the hell not?

[lfantwister]

self-preservation is what keeps us alive. So unless you're advocating some type of self-inflicted genocide (that doesn't make sense but you know what I mean) self-preservation is kind of important

kicking someone in the balls more or less contradicts that other defn of morals (agnst causing someone else inordinate pain). However, most people (myself included) probably would go against those archaic moral standards because it's fun.

[RockAndRoll]

Just to clear up Ifant is good what causes pleasure or what allows self preservation?

[PerpetualBurn]

It's important for the propagation of the species. But I'm asking why it's morally good.

Just as I'm asking why causing inordinate pain is morally bad.

You just seem to be saying "because I said so". Which is quite illogical.

[lfantwister]

but i like it!

that may be the case since im resting it on a defn of morals which i made up. it's up there a few posts; maximizing your own pleasure while minimizing pain of both yourself and others. If that's wrong ignore this entire conversation

[RockAndRoll]

but i like it!

that may be the case since im resting it on a defn of morals which i made up. it's up there a few posts; maximizing your own pleasure while minimizing pain of both yourself and others. If that's wrong ignore this entire conversation

Okay, so then morality has nothing to do with propogation of the species, unless that happens to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering?

[lfantwister]

Which the propogation of the species inherently includes. Self-preservation is based on similar tenets; morality as such only includes a mention of other people and the responses they should draw from the individual because morality in effect allows others to better preserve themselves while simultaneously allowing the individual to preserve himself.

[PerpetualBurn]

What I'm asking is why you think that that definition is actually good.

What makes that definition of morality objectively true and not just your preference?

[RockAndRoll]

Which the propogation of the species inherently includes. Self-preservation is based on similar tenets; morality as such only includes a mention of other people and the responses they should draw from the individual because morality in effect allows others to better preserve themselves while simultaneously allowing the individual to preserve himself.

I don't see how propogation of the species inherently includes maximization of pleasure. It is possible that life from now in is going to suck, in which case from the principles of maximizing pleasure it would be good to just end it, instead of people living on in suffering.

[BassRevelation]

morals are based on self-preservation though aren't they? why else would we have them?

you probably shouldnt becasue that would cause inordinate pain for the person you're hurting with no real advantage to yourself. Like kicking your little brother in the balls would not be moral whereas kicking someone who's trying to rob you would be.
what causes more pain: accidentally kicking a person or trying to kick a person and missing?

[lfantwister]

What I'm asking is why you think that that definition is actually good.

What makes that definition of morality objectively true and not just your preference?
No, it is my preference. There's no dictionary behind it or even any type of objectivity. I'm arguing for the subjective here
I don't see how propogation of the species inherently includes maximization of pleasure. It is possible that life from now in is going to suck, in which case from the principles of maximizing pleasure it would be good to just end it, instead of people living on in suffering.
By maximization of pleasure I mean minimization of pain; they're essentially the same thing. And yes if life did suck it might be right to end it--good thing it doesnt (mostly).

what causes more pain: accidentally kicking a person or trying to kick a person and missing? sorry i dont see how thats relevant at all. Whose pain are we talking about?

[italic zero]

He's saying your system cares only about outcome and doesn't take intent into consideration.

[PerpetualBurn]

No, it is my preference. There's no dictionary behind it or even any type of objectivity. I'm arguing for the subjective here


So it has absolutely no basis.

I'll never understand how people can think like that.

[Petros]

No, it is my preference. There's no dictionary behind it or even any type of objectivity. I'm arguing for the subjective here

By maximization of pleasure I mean minimization of pain; they're essentially the same thing. And yes if life did suck it might be right to end it--good thing it doesnt (mostly).


Your position was similar to rational self-interest and than you blew it. Too bad.

[RockAndRoll]

By maximization of pleasure I mean minimization of pain; they're essentially the same thing. And yes if life did suck it might be right to end it--good thing it doesnt (mostly).

So then it doesn't have anything to do with propogation of the species nessecarily.

[BassRevelation]

sorry i dont see how thats relevant at all. Whose pain are we talking about?
In regards to both people. Trust me, its relevant.

I think Italic already caught on.

[lfantwister]

Apparently I have not been very clear with what I mean with regards to ethics. Let me try to rephrase: Actions ought to be made with the rights of others and your own personal duties in mind. So the end=the means.

So then it doesn't have anything to do with propogation of the species nessecarily. Not directly but clearly it does play a role; respecting others might get you laid.
So it has absolutely no basis. Ethics in general is a rather subjective area; I'm more or less paraphrasing Kant

[BassRevelation]

according to your earlier post, I can conclude that you would see kicking someone on accident as immoral, yet kicking at someone and missing would be moral. However, the situation where you didn't inflict pain is more likely to cause the inordinate pain to yourself as you were speaking of, not the one where you accidentally inflicted pain.

[PerpetualBurn]

Ethics in general is a rather subjective area; I'm more or less paraphrasing Kant

Paraphrasing Kant doesn't really help you.

There's no objective reasoning to think that causing inordinate pain is bad and not doing so is good.

[Petros]

that may be the case since im resting it on a defn of morals which i made up.

You didn't make it up, it's known as Hedonism.

If pleasure is what is best to pursue, than wouldn't you eventually be unable to pursue pleasure (you can't do something continuosly) and would be miserable? You can't always be pleasurable, and you will experience pain. So the pursuit of pleasure is apparently futile.

[lfantwister]

There's no objective reasoning to think that causing inordinate pain is bad and not doing so is good.
So then why even bother having an argument if you demand something have a basis in fact when it's clearly a subjective area..?
If pleasure is what is best to pursue, than wouldn't you eventually be unable to pursue pleasure (you can't do something continuosly) and would be miserable? You can't always be pleasurable, and you will experience pain. So the pursuit of pleasure is apparently futile. Right--you will never reach an all-pleasure all-the-time state. But it's the pursuit that's important when dealing with ethical questions; the end=the means

[RockAndRoll]

So then why even bother having an argument if you demand something have a basis in fact when it's clearly a subjective area..?


I don't understand the subjective stance on morality.

I understand complete rejection of morality as perpetual burn demonstrates. I understand a belief in objective morals. I don't understand the subjective take on morality.


What are morals if they are subjective? If right and wrong are subjective what do they actually mean? What is their importance? What does it matter if something is right or wrong given that it's entirely subjective?

[Petros]

So then why even bother having an argument if you demand something have a basis in fact when it's clearly a subjective area..?
Right--you will never reach an all-pleasure all-the-time state. But it's the pursuit that's important when dealing with ethical questions; the end=the means

But if the ultimate realization is you will be miserable because it is impossible to continously pursue pleasure, than the pursuit isn't worthwhile at all, and the ends would be pointless no?

[PerpetualBurn]

So then why even bother having an argument if you demand something have a basis in fact

I would like you to repeat this aloud 10 times and then come back to me.

[PerpetualBurn]

But if the ultimate realization is you will be miserable because it is impossible to continously pursue pleasure, than the pursuit isn't worthwhile at all, and the ends would be pointless no?

Are you saying that because you have to unhappy some of the time that you should give up on happiness and be unhappy all of the time?

[Petros]

Are you saying that because you have to unhappy some of the time that you should give up on happiness and be unhappy all of the time?

I'm saying that the realization that pleasure isn't attainable leads ultimately to misery. It's the realization that pleasure is temporal and not unattainable.

It's a miserable person believing if they can just change their lives they will be happy.

[Mr. Ron]

I'm saying that the realization that pleasure isn't attainable leads ultimately to misery. It's the realization that pleasure is temporal and not unattainable.

It's a miserable person believing if they can just change their lives they will be happy.

So....if a person that is unhappy with their life, and strives to better their predicament, their actions are all in vain?

[lfantwister]

I understand complete rejection of morality as perpetual burn demonstrates. I understand a belief in objective morals. I don't understand the subjective take on morality. Belief in morals can't be objective since morals are by nature subjective

What are morals if they are subjective? If right and wrong are subjective what do they actually mean? What is their importance? What does it matter if something is right or wrong given that it's entirely subjective? In the larger scheme of things it keeps us alive. In the smaller scheme of things it keeps us happy.
But if the ultimate realization is you will be miserable because it is impossible to continously pursue pleasure, than the pursuit isn't worthwhile at all, and the ends would be pointless no?It's not impossible to continuously pursue pleasure, it's impossible to continuously obtain it.I would like you to repeat this aloud 10 times and then come back to me. hahaha sorry I'm literally red in the face that I wrote that. And meant it.

[Petros]

So....if a person that is unhappy with their life, and strives to better their predicament, their actions are all in vain?

No you are right I missed paraphrased that. It's the miserable person who sits around doing nothing and believes their life will just become happy.

It's the hedonistic paradox. I may have not approached it in the best way.

[Mr. Ron]

No you are right I missed paraphrased that. It's the miserable person who sits around doing nothing and believes their life will just become happy.

It's the hedonistic paradox. I may have not approached it in the best way.

I see.

[PerpetualBurn]

I'm saying that the realization that pleasure isn't attainable leads ultimately to misery. It's the realization that pleasure is temporal and not unattainable.

It's a miserable person believing if they can just change their lives they will be happy.

Pleasure is attainable. It's just not indefinitely sustainable.

[PerpetualBurn]

Belief in morals can't be objective since morals are by nature subjective

I just don't see why people are so obstinate about accepting the only logical conclusion that this brings - no action is more or less moral than any other, so morals should be rejected from notions of how to live our life.

Why do persist with the concept of morality when you've already admitted that its subjectivity forces you to accept that taking a crap on your mother's chest is as morally right as saving a dying child?

[RockAndRoll]

Belief in morals can't be objective since morals are by nature subjective
People can believe that right and wrong are objective truths....


In the larger scheme of things it keeps us alive. In the smaller scheme of things it keeps us happy.
You missed alot of questions.

How do they keep us alive/happy?

[PerpetualBurn]

(being alive and happy isn't a good thing since "good" is subjective so it's also good for us to be dead and depressed)

[RockAndRoll]

(being alive and happy isn't a good thing since "good" is subjective so it's also good for us to be dead and depressed)
I'm going for the 'since morals are subjective, and apparently have no definition, since they can really be anything we decide to say they are it is absurd to say they keep us happy or alive.' route, instead.

[PerpetualBurn]

I know, I'm just trying to keep focus on the fact that everything he says is good is bad.

[RockAndRoll]

yup yup, I'm pretty sure she's a girl though actually.

[PerpetualBurn]

Definitely unaware of that. PerpetualBurn's legendary Yorkshire charm may have to be used.

[Petros]

Pleasure is attainable. It's just not indefinitely sustainable.

Yeah... indefinite pleasure is not attainable....

If pleasure makes you happy, and one's sole aim is pleasure, since it can not be indefinitely attained, they will be miserable. It will be frustrating if the only goal is to pursue pleasure.

[PerpetualBurn]

But the pleasure you have may well outweigh the misery you experience.

[Petros]

But the pleasure you have may well outweigh the misery you experience.

Yeah but if pleasure is the goal and the ends, what is the point of pursuing it? You won't be happy. I'm not saying pleasure is bad or wrong, if pleasure is your only goal to be happy you will not be happy.

[PerpetualBurn]

I just don't see the point. No one's going to be happy all the time, but it may be possible to be happy some/most of the time. And it may well be that this outweighs the inevitable misery.

[innerdark]

Yeah... indefinite pleasure is not attainable....

If pleasure makes you happy, and one's sole aim is pleasure, since it can not be indefinitely attained, they will be miserable. It will be frustrating if the only goal is to pursue pleasure.

That depends on how you look at it, you have to make the assumption that the person who puts their all into attaining pleasure attains it, and then finds it to be something lacklustre (grass is always greener kind of thing). However, if the person in question pursues pleasure in a number of different ways e.g. sexually, musically, artisticly (sp?) amongst other avenues and keeps constantly rotating to a point that they have enough time between a specific pursuit to immerse themselves in another, to the point that the pleasurful pursuits are so varied that the person in question does not get bored and miserable of said pursuits, surely that is indefinite pleasure? Highly unlikely, but not impossible by any means

I've maybe not put it across perfectly, and feel free to tear that to shreds,

anyway, about "Right" and "wrong". by saying being alive is good, surely that would render suicide's principles useless, since they would not be doing good and instead, doing "bad" (I'm aware I've kind of paraphrased PB here)

N.B. what if you decided to pursue pleasure in your dying days, and died through sexual pleasure and stimulation?

[Petros]

I just don't see the point. No one's going to be happy all the time, but it may be possible to be happy some/most of the time. And it may well be that this outweighs the inevitable misery.

If happiness is just the pursuit of pleasure, you will become unhappy because you can't attain pleasure all the time and will be unhappy. As a moral end it seems worthless to pursue pleasure for happiness. Why is pleasure intrinsically good? If the miserable man sits around and does nothing all day, and expects he will become happy, he won't experience pleasure.

[PerpetualBurn]

If happiness is just the pursuit of pleasure, you will become unhappy because you can't attain pleasure all the time and will be unhappy.

Okay, I'm being charitable by accepting that you can't attain pleasure all the time, but there's just a massive step missing to get to this:
As a moral end it seems worthless to pursue pleasure for happiness.

Moral end? I've made my stance on morals clear enough. And moreover, it just doesn't sense to say you shouldn't pursue something because you can't have it ALL the time. It's worth having just some of the time.

Why is pleasure intrinsically good? If the miserable man sits around and does nothing all day, and expects he will become happy, he won't experience pleasure.

Pleasure's not intrinsically good, but that's hardly relevant because neither is happiness. And you don't really get to decide what gives people pleasure.

[Petros]

Okay, I'm being charitable by accepting that you can't attain pleasure all the time, but there's just a massive step missing to get to this:


Moral end? I've made my stance on morals clear enough. And moreover, it just doesn't sense to say you shouldn't pursue something because you can't have it ALL the time. It's worth having just some of the time.



A paradox or apparent inconsistency in hedonistic theory arising from (1) the doctrine that since pleasure is the only good, one ought always to seek pleasure, and (2) the fact that whenever pleasure itself is the object sought it cannot be found. Human nature is such that pleasure normally arises as an accompaniment of satisfaction of desire for any end except when that end is pleasure itself. The way to attain pleasure is not to seek for it, but for something else which when found will have yielded pleasure through the finding. Likewise, one should not seek to avoid pain, but only actions which produce pain.



Pleasure's not intrinsically good, but that's hardly relevant because neither is happiness. And you don't really get to decide what gives people pleasure.

Hedonist's believe it is. No I don't decide what gives pleasure, people decide what gives them pleasure. And people change their minds about what pleasures bring the most happiness.

And what is your moral stance? I can't find where you stated it.

[PerpetualBurn]

Human nature is such that pleasure normally arises as an accompaniment of satisfaction of desire for any end except when that end is pleasure itself.

Justify this. I don't see why you can't perform an act just because it gives pleasure.

And as an atheist, I discard the notion of morality.

[Petros]

You can't experience the sensation of pleasure without an action. IF the only goal is pleasure, it will elude you because pleasure can not be the only end to happiness. You fail to see the common sense to this? An act can bring pleasure. If you are doing nothing, and hope to experience pleasure, you won't. Hence it requires an action. Without an action, you can not experience pleasure, and you will be miserable, because you can not attain it. Since you can not continuously act on pleasure, therefore it must be futile to pursue pleasure for the sole purpose of being happy.


And as an atheist, I discard the notion of morality.

Are you saying atheists are immoral? Or that you, a particular instance of an atheist, just happened to discard all notions of morality?

[PerpetualBurn]

I've been over this a lot lately, in this thread and in others. I am an atheist. It doesn't make sense for anything to be moral or immoral if there's no God.

As to your other point, it just seems that you continue to assert that you must make "action" to find pleasure, and that to me seems astonishingly vague. If people can take pleasure from all sorts of different things. If sitting on your arse wondering about nothing gives you pleasure, then pleasure is fairly easily gained.

[Petros]

I've been over this a lot lately, in this thread and in others. I am an atheist. It doesn't make sense for anything to be moral or immoral if there's no God.


But there are many atheists who don't discard the notion of morality just because they don't believe in a God(s). What is so special about there not being a God that makes you conclude that moral standards don't make sense?

[lfantwister]

I just don't see why people are so obstinate about accepting the only logical conclusion that this brings - no action is more or less moral than any other, so morals should be rejected from notions of how to live our life.

Why do persist with the concept of morality when you've already admitted that its subjectivity forces you to accept that taking a crap on your mother's chest is as morally right as saving a dying child?
Its subjectivity forces a given individual like you to take a crap on your mothers chest; it also forces other individuals to get on mighty high horses aobut morals. I guess you could argue that it is by defn inconclusive

People can believe that right and wrong are objective truths....

You missed alot of questions.

How do they keep us alive/happy? Yeah sorry about that. People can beleive that right and wrong are objective but that's a subjective perspective. I don't know if that made sense. I mean in any area as vague as morality people will try to turn the subjective into objective.
You know when you help an old lady across the street or something you get that inner glow, if you will? You may be happy that you did it and you may be happy that that girl you like saw you being such a gentleman and this may lead to future happiness (:naughty: )

As to your other point, it just seems that you continue to assert that you must make "action" to find pleasure, and that to me seems astonishingly vague. If people can take pleasure from all sorts of different things. If sitting on your arse wondering about nothing gives you pleasure, then pleasure is fairly easily gained. although to be fair if that was all that gave you pleasure it would very quickly run out with nothing miserable to measure it by; if that's all you did you would have no standard to determine just how pleasurable it is, so it wouldnt be quite as pleasurable.Definitely unaware of that. PerpetualBurn's legendary Yorkshire charm may have to be used. yeah good luck buddy

[lfantwister]

I've been over this a lot lately, in this thread and in others. I am an atheist. It doesn't make sense for anything to be moral or immoral if there's no God.

And yet even without a God social contracts exist; governments exist; people can communicate and live together in relative harmony. Clearly there is no divine interference forcing them to do so; it's a belief in society as a whole and in individual people which would prevent you from having such extreme moral relativism (it's like a disease!) that would shatter it.

But, if you dont beleive in God or in people, then feel free to be as morally loose as you want

[lunchforthesky]

But there are many atheists who don't discard the notion of morality just because they don't believe in a God(s). What is so special about there not being a God that makes you conclude that moral standards don't make sense?

There is a difference between morality and actions. I dont kill people but i dont think there are a set of laws laid down making killing wrong. I just dont choose to do it because i prefer not to harm other people unecessarily.

of course i dont speak for perpetual burn.

[RockAndRoll]

Yeah sorry about that. People can beleive that right and wrong are objective but that's a subjective perspective. I don't know if that made sense. I mean in any area as vague as morality people will try to turn the subjective into objective.
That really didn't make sense. :p

Why do you believe morals are subjective?

You know when you help an old lady across the street or something you get that inner glow, if you will? You may be happy that you did it and you may be happy that that girl you like saw you being such a gentleman and this may lead to future happiness (:naughty: )
:lol:Yes, but that only works for that example. Morals can just as easily kill you or make you unhappy. If I think that killing people is good and then I go around killing people then morals haven't brought happiness (well possibly a little bit to me if I were twisted like that) or propogation of the species.

[PerpetualBurn]

Its subjectivity forces a given individual like you to take a crap on your mothers chest; it also forces other individuals to get on mighty high horses aobut morals. I guess you could argue that it is by defn inconclusive

Well, it doesn't force me to do that. I'm really not into that. I promise.

As for people getting on their high horse, you have to admit that anyone who does that has no real rationale for doing that, so are you suggesting that the lie that morals exist is better than the truth?


You know when you help an old lady across the street or something you get that inner glow, if you will? You may be happy that you did it and you may be happy that that girl you like saw you being such a gentleman and this may lead to future happiness (:naughty: )

I'm sorry, but I really dislike the notion that because I take this seemingly extreme stance on morality that I don't do things that most people would perceive as moral and that I do do things that most people would perceive as immoral. Just because I don't think it's "morally right" to help an old lady cross the street, doesn't mean I wouldn't do it.

People shouldn't assume that I go against the fundamentals of what society perceives to be good. I'm not implying that atheists should abandon all become sociopaths.

although to be fair if that was all that gave you pleasure it would very quickly run out with nothing miserable to measure it by; if that's all you did you would have no standard to determine just how pleasurable it is, so it wouldnt be quite as pleasurable.

Well we don't have to assume that our hypothetical hedonist has never been miserable, just that he has potential to pleasure himself in mundane ways.

yeah good luck buddy

Haha. You love me really. I know you go weak at the knees when you see my posts. :)

[PerpetualBurn]

And yet even without a God social contracts exist; governments exist; people can communicate and live together in relative harmony. Clearly there is no divine interference forcing them to do so; it's a belief in society as a whole and in individual people which would prevent you from having such extreme moral relativism (it's like a disease!) that would shatter it.

But, if you dont beleive in God or in people, then feel free to be as morally loose as you want

Society works to protect our freedoms. I believe that the best way to protect my own freedom and the freedom of those I hold dear is not to eradicate those who oppose me, but to protect rights and freedoms universally.

And again, are you suggesting that the lie of morality is better than my view of the world? If so, why?

But there are many atheists who don't discard the notion of morality just because they don't believe in a God(s).

There are many atheists taking an impossible stance on morality then. If they were being logical, they would discard the notion. What is so special about there not being a God that makes you conclude that moral standards don't make sense?

Without an omnipotent deity there is simply nothing to make one action more moral than any other.

[lfantwister]

That really didn't make sense.

Why do you believe morals are subjective? in many situations the right thing to do is ambiguous at best. Also, just take a look at perpetualburn. His morals are completely different from most peoples', and yet he still maintains some semblance of them (if only through semantics)

Yes, but that only works for that example. Morals can just as easily kill you or make you unhappy. If I think that killing people is good and then I go around killing people then morals haven't brought happiness (well possibly a little bit to me if I were twisted like that) or propogation of the species. Right but I think there's an innate set of morals most people are endowed with, your killer being the exception. It's because of this biological response that you feel proud/happy after helping the old lady and it's the same response that's responsible for controlling your actions. Naturally this is very easily overcome by other emotions (power-lust comes to mind) but on a basic level I think this exists.

Well, it doesn't force me to do that. I'm really not into that. I promise.

As for people getting on their high horse, you have to admit that anyone who does that has no real rationale for doing that, so are you suggesting that the lie that morals exist is better than the truth? I'm sorry I dont understand what you're saying. I'm still under the impression that morals exist, and so I don't see how the existence of morals is mutually exclusive with the existence of truth. Explain?

I'm sorry, but I really dislike the notion that because I take this seemingly extreme stance on morality that I don't do things that most people would perceive as moral and that I do do things that most people would perceive as immoral. Just because I don't think it's "morally right" to help an old lady cross the street, doesn't mean I wouldn't do it.

People shouldn't assume that I go against the fundamentals of what society perceives to be good. I'm not implying that atheists should abandon all become sociopaths. But we're not arguing morals from a religious standpoint. Or if we are, I better back out. I hate religion.

Well we don't have to assume that our hypothetical hedonist has never been miserable, just that he has potential to pleasure himself in mundane ways. But if everything he does is in pursuit of pleasure, and he receives pleasure by sitting his *** on the couch, then he'd never get up, and therefore his pleasure would be greatly diminished only because he has nothing to compare it to.

Haha. You love me really. I know you go weak at the knees when you see my posts. only because I'm sitting Society works to protect our freedoms. I believe that the best way to protect my own freedom and the freedom of those I hold dear is not to eradicate those who oppose me, but to protect rights and freedoms universally.

And again, are you suggesting that the lie of morality is better than my view of the world? If so, why?
Again, I'm lost. Maybe I don't speak English anymore (had a good time with my old pal Jack an hour or so ago). Your view of the world seems to embrace morality but under a different auspice--to protect or ensure society's well-being. Which is essentially the goal of morality; I don't see how theyre contradictory. Maybe I'm missing something?

[PerpetualBurn]

Well I haven't mentioned religion.

You've already said there's no rational basis for morality, but now you say you think they exist. Does not compute!

And society exists because we want it to exist, and as such I think there is a best way of getting what I want out of society, and that happens to get what other people want from society as well.

I'm just going to ask: what reason do you have to believe in morality?

[lfantwister]

And society exists because we want it to exist, and as such I think there is a best way of getting what I want out of society, and that happens to get what other people want from society as well.

I'm just going to ask: what reason do you have to believe in morality? I could be very off, but I'm under the impression morality is another word for the maintainance of a civil society, a quality that supplements and is effectively the basis for laws. Morality, the actions undertaken because of it, and the actions avoided becauase of its dictates, are crucial for a functioning civilization. So I guess I believe in morality because I want to preserve order and it seems like a rather palatable way to do it?

[PerpetualBurn]

No, the idea of morality is that certain acts are better simply by nature.

That it's morally right not to murder means that it is universally better to not murder. That it's objectively good. Now the only conceivable way of this occurring is if there is a higher force (god) that decides which of our actions are good and which are bad and judges them accordingly.

Without a god, what is there to make any action objectively better than any other? And so why should you believe in morality?

[lfantwister]

Ok but better with regards to what standard? Even if there is no god to measure your morality against or divine laws to determine your virtues some acts can be better for society or better for the individual or better for the community. (I'm assuming ehre that you meant acts are better for god... If not, better in what respect?)

That's not the only conceivable way. The higher force is by no means limited to God; it could be common sense. That it's morally right not to murder could be not a doctrine of God but an issue sanctified in laws and such based on the principle that killing each other off isn't really productive. Does that make sesne?

Without a god, the only way to determine if an action is better than another is to determine the effects of that action on society as a whole. Morals and ethics are there I think to preserve civil society, so to determine if any action is within the restraints of morality without a God it's most important to determine the repercussions--in the long run, not necessarily the immediate, individual ones. And you should believe in morality because it keeps order,.

[PerpetualBurn]

Except God is all-powerful, so can ordain universal laws like right and wrong.

Society can't provide any such objective basis.

[lfantwister]

So no society can create objective laws that should be respected?
No society will create laws based on anything other than God's divine wishes?

[PerpetualBurn]

None of the laws they make will have any basis in morality.

[lfantwister]

How can you exclude that possiblity?

[PerpetualBurn]

Because I just explained why morals don't exist.

[Petros]

Without an omnipotent deity there is simply nothing to make one action more moral than any other.

Why do you assume that if a deity existed that one action is more moral than another? Why do you assume some actions would be moral than another. If an action is immoral, it must not be moral, so why do you assume there is a magnitude to moral actions? And why do you assume that if an deity existed that that deity would assume that some moral actions are more moral than others?

You must think justice is worthless than.

As far as I understand your argument it goes like this:

1) there is no omnipotent deity
2) thus there is no way to determine the difference between moral actions
3) Therefore there is no morality

[PerpetualBurn]

Why do you ask questions I've answered 10 times?

Nothing other than a god would have the power to ordain morality.

[lfantwister]

Common sense> God
Common sense can ordain morality because common sense is what maintains civil society

[PerpetualBurn]

Without a god, there's nothing inherently good about society. Or anything.

[lfantwister]

Even people ahve to be endowed with some sense of the divine to be good?

[PerpetualBurn]

Well good doesn't have any objective existence, so yeah.

[lfantwister]

there's no secular definition of good or evil or right or wrong? Religion has the entire monopoly?

What is it then that keeps you in line, and doesnt set you destroying everything in your path for the hell of it?

[PerpetualBurn]

No secular definition of good can be objective, and so can never be any more "good" than its exact opposite.

And as for why I don't rape and pillage, there's a multitude of reasons. For one, most of us have mental capabilities of empathy. We understand what it is to inflict pain, and have an emotional response that deters us. I just don't like being mean to people. This is most probably evolutionary as we are social creatures by nature.

Secondly, I enjoy the freedoms and privileges that society gives me. I believe that best way to ensure I keep my own freedoms is to defend them universally. If we stop the abuse of human rights, then there is no one to abuse my rights.

[RockAndRoll]

in many situations the right thing to do is ambiguous at best. Also, just take a look at perpetualburn. His morals are completely different from most peoples', and yet he still maintains some semblance of them (if only through semantics)

Right but I think there's an innate set of morals most people are endowed with, your killer being the exception. It's because of this biological response that you feel proud/happy after helping the old lady and it's the same response that's responsible for controlling your actions. Naturally this is very easily overcome by other emotions (power-lust comes to mind) but on a basic level I think this exists.


I really don't think any of this discussion makes sense without a working definition of morals, right and wrong. So it'd be much more profitable if you'd do that. I can't make arguments about right and wrong unless we actually define them, which I'll leave up to you since I'm trying to understand your point of view.

[lfantwister]

Ok. Good start. Right is abiding by cultural or customary rules; wrong is breaking them. This is said though with the assumption that these rules don't infringe on any other person's rights. Hopefully this makes sense with what I've been saying--how morals are grounded in common sense and essentially ensure civil society and order.

[PerpetualBurn]

That would imply that culture had to remain static and any change is bad.

Back to the gladiator pits please. And please send me my young boy lover, like the Greeks had.

[lfantwister]

Change is not bad at all. But people usually act within the bounds of cultural rules because change is slow. Also, I think the gladiator pits would infringe on peoples' rights a little. As for your young boy lover.. well, uh, enjoy (as long as it's consensual!)

[PerpetualBurn]

Change goes against culture and tradition, so it goes against your definition of "right".

And the Greeks were paedophiles, but you said I'm doing the right thing by preserving their culture and customary rules.

[lfantwister]

No. Doing the right thing depends on the society you're in. Clearly we don'nt live in ancient Greece so following the rules of ancient greece would be mildly stupid.

When change is embraced into a culture the rights and wrongs are altered accordingly.

[PerpetualBurn]

So if my society molests children, then it's right to molest children?

[italic zero]

that's a disgusting view of morality

[PerpetualBurn]

It's not my view of morality. It's hers.

[italic zero]

yeah i know you snuck in there

[lfantwister]

No that kind of infringes on kids' rights, just a little.
So according to my defn it's not right at all

[PerpetualBurn]

No, it's fine. Well kids can consent from 3 years old in my hypothetical society, so their rights aren't infringed upon.

And I'm not sure if we've offered kids the right to not be raped yet, so don't worry about it. It's right inline with your guidelines.

[lfantwister]

What prevents this then, if not morals?

[PerpetualBurn]

Hey, I am being moral. It's all inline with what you said.

[lfantwister]

nono. What prevents you as a lovely human being from doing these things if not morals?

[PerpetualBurn]

Well morals clearly don't prevent people from doing these things, because you've said that they are morally right. People that don't molest children in my society are being quite sexually immoral and they should probably be punished.

And I've already answered that question previously.

[lfantwister]

you said: Society works to protect our freedoms. I believe that the best way to protect my own freedom and the freedom of those I hold dear is not to eradicate those who oppose me, but to protect rights and freedoms universally.

That's basically what I'm saying. I have the feeling we're mostly arguing semantics; morality and common sense here are synonymous. If you're operating under a certain society's rules when they protect freedom then you are being moral. Let me remind you my defn doesn't include any sort of thing that infringes on others' rights. It's pretty damn similar for such a long argument

[PerpetualBurn]

Common sense is a ridiculous term to apply to an argument. It's essentially meaningless.

And now I ask, why is it good to protect freedoms?

[Mr. Ron]

To preserve democracy?

[PerpetualBurn]

I'll warn you now, I'm just going to keep asking "why is it good to ..." until people realise that these things don't actually have any basis.

Why is it good to preserve democracy?

[Mr. Ron]

I'll warn you now, I'm just going to keep asking "why is it good to ..." until people realise that these things don't actually have any basis.

Why is it good to preserve democracy?

How doesn't it have a basis?

[PerpetualBurn]

Oh sweet merciful God...

I've answered that no less than three hundred times in this thread alone.

[Mr. Ron]

Oh sweet merciful God...

I've answered that no less than three hundred times in this thread alone.

I know I'm just messing with you. ;)

[PerpetualBurn]

Praise Heimdall!

I nearly had a seizure.

[Reaganista]

wrong is what's not in the common interest

[RockAndRoll]

Ok. Good start. Right is abiding by cultural or customary rules; wrong is breaking them. This is said though with the assumption that these rules don't infringe on any other person's rights.
Could you give me an example of cultural rules which should be followed, dependent solely on the culture? (eg: in ancient greece it would be right to do _______ but in Canada it would be wrong)

[PerpetualBurn]

wrong is what's not in the common interest

Bah.

[Reaganista]

buh