Euthyphro Dilemma Easily Solved

[2PhiloVoid]

I have never advocated forcing my moral system on anyone else. Christians have done this throughout history. The most recent time was outlawing gay marriage in the US. It was secular morality that corrected the injustice.

Yes, secular morality had a lot to do with it ... and the rectification that it made was in accordance with the local sense of justice in which it operated.

Well being is not this empty shell you claim it to be. There are many people talking, writing and improving and having conversations about what it is and how to use it. Give me a better moral goal and I will change mine.

You might look again at what I've said. I didn't say that 'well-being' is an empty shell. What I've been saying is that I don't think the term 'well-being' is robust enough all by itself to serve as either a moral goal or that, again conceptually by itself, provides any ethical system by which to evaluate other moral aspects of life.

But if we're going to talk about a moral goal? I suppose we could subscribe to Human Significance along with Human Well-Being. But, even then, adding this additional concept doesn't get us to any principle, let alone an ethical system, of prescriptive force.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Yes, secular morality had a lot to do with it ... and the rectification that it made was in accordance with the local sense of justice in which it operated.

You might look again at what I've said. I didn't say that 'well-being' is an empty shell. What I've been saying is that I don't think the term 'well-being' is robust enough all by itself to serve as either a moral goal or that, again conceptually by itself, provides any ethical system by which to evaluate other moral aspects of life.

But if we're going to talk about a moral goal? I suppose we could subscribe to Human Significance along with Human Well-Being. But, even then, adding this additional concept doesn't get us to any principle, let alone an ethical system, of prescriptive force.

Then give me a better one?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then give me a better one?

I just did. Human Significance is better than mere Well-being. And if they're coupled together, it gives us an impetus to begin searching for additional links that could provide justification. The only problem is that we then have to each choose an epistemological mode by which to address our axiological concerns, and that opens a whole new can of worms.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I just did. Human Significance is better than mere Well-being. And if they're coupled together, it gives us an impetus to begin searching for additional links that could provide justification. The only problem is that we then have to each choose an epistemological mode by which to address our axiological concerns, and that opens a whole new can of worms.

What does human significance mean? This is your chance to change my mind and for me to have a better moral goal. What is it and why is it better?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What does human significance mean? This is your chance to change my mind and for me to have a better moral goal. What is it and why is it better?

Nope. We're not sidetracking from the focus of this thread any more. Thanks for asking anyway!

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Nope. We're not sidetracking from the focus of this thread any more. Thanks for asking anyway!

Ok. This is the reason I abstained from engaging you for a couple of months. When I ask concrete specific questions you never answer them. I don't think you have a practical theology or morality at all or at least you have never articulated one.

Have a nice evening.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok. This is the reason I abstained from engaging you for a couple of months. When I ask concrete specific questions you never answer them. I don't think you have a practical theology or morality at all or at least you have never articulated one.

That's ok if you think this. You wouldn't be alone in it, but being that Pascal and Kierkegaard are two of my influences, I guess my helpfulness will be limited.

Have a nice evening.

You as well!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Well, @Tree of Life , thank you for this thread.

Do you still now maintain that the Euthyphro Dilemma can be easily solved?

And @2PhiloVoid , do you still maintain that you can easily disprove it? I am still eagerly awaiting an argument that I don't think you ever presented.

 

[Tree of Life]

Well, @Tree of Life , thank you for this thread.

Do you still now maintain that the Euthyphro Dilemma can be easily solved?

And @2PhiloVoid , do you still maintain that you can easily disprove it? I am still eagerly awaiting an argument that I don't think you ever presented.

I do. I don’t think the points that I raised in my OP were sufficiently undermined.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, @Tree of Life , thank you for this thread.

Do you still now maintain that the Euthyphro Dilemma can be easily solved?

And @2PhiloVoid , do you still maintain that you can easily disprove it? I am still eagerly awaiting an argument that I don't think you ever presented.

The train has already left the station, IA ...

... too bad you missed it!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I do. I don’t think the points that I raised in my OP were sufficiently undermined.

I'm afraid you're wrong. The argument you gave against Euthyphro's Dilemma was flawed, and that flaw was shown to be fatal.
In a nutshell, you never resolved Euthyphro's Dilemma. All you did was restate it, and remain stuck on it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The train has already left the station, IA ...

... too bad you missed it!

Not under it's own steam, I'm afraid. It left the station by being towed away for scrap.

Sorry, Philo. This is a debating forum. You don't get to say "I have a perfect answer that will completely defeat your position, but I'm not going to share it with you." That is an admission of defeat.

A shame, in a way, because I was looking forward to seeing your solution. You got me all excited. Still, Euthyphro's Dilemma has stood for centuries. Why should we expect it to be solved now?

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm afraid you're wrong. The argument you gave against Euthyphro's Dilemma was flawed, and that flaw was shown to be fatal.
In a nutshell, you never resolved Euthyphro's Dilemma. All you did was restate it, and remain stuck on it.

I’m actually right. There aren’t any flaws in the argument in my OP. People tried to expose flaws but they either demonstrated that they did not understand my argument or were otherwise unsuccessful. ED is solved.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I’m actually right.

No, you're not.

There aren’t any flaws in the argument in my OP.

Yes, there are; and they have been explained to you at some length.

People tried to expose flaws but they either demonstrated that they did not understand my argument or were otherwise unsuccessful.

Sure we understand your argument. And we understand what the problem with it is.
You're saying that it is God's intrinsic character that is the foundation of morality. We get it. It is, in fact, an argument that we've already seen, quite a number of times. The argument is understood, and the flaw in its logic is plain.
Put simply, it doesn't solve Euthyphro's Dilemma, it just restates it, because we can now pose exactly the same question again. What does it mean to say that God's character is the source of morality? Is it that God's character can be measured by some external standard to see that it is moral? Or is it that God's character is the standard by which you measure?
If you choose the second option, as it seems you have, your standard collapses. You are simply saying that God's character is the standard of morality because you can measure it against God's character. This is a tautology; it's circular reasoning; and it renders any statement about what morality is quite meaningless. And if you don't understand why this is so, I'm afraid your statement that:

ED is solved.

Is simply not credible.

It hasn't been solved.
It's been confirmed.

 

[Tree of Life]

Thanks @InterestedAtheist ! I disagree.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Thanks @InterestedAtheist ! I disagree.

Don't you think the honourable thing to do here might be to concede?
You don't always get to win arguments, you know. Sometimes you lose. nothing wrong with admitting it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would like to have received a response from you, Philo, but all I got was pre-emptive claims of victory.

My apologies, IA. In reviewing a few spots of this thread, I realize now that you were kind of late coming into the party.

I've already put some of my thoughts as "answer" to Eight Foot Manchild in posts #56 and #69. That's where you'll find the germs of my thinking on this whole Pseudo-Euthyphronic mis-application that atheists all too often make ...

 

[InterestedAtheist]

My apologies, IA. In reviewing a few spots of this thread, I realize now that you were kind of late coming into the party.

I've already put some of my thoughts as "answer" to Eight Foot Manchild in posts #56 and #69. That's where you'll find the germs of my thinking on this whole Pseudo-Euthyphronic mis-application that atheists all too often make ...

No, Philo. You implied that I am not here in good faith. May I suggest that you owe me an apology for that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, Philo. You implied that I am not here in good faith. May I suggest that you owe me an apology for that.

... I'll be honest with you, IA. As a philosopher and an Existentialist, I'm going to have a little different view as to what constitutes "good faith" than either what an atheist like yourself will mean from one semantic angle, or that even a Christian fundamentalist would mean from another angle.

So, please don't ask me to reconsider 'your good faith.' When I see what I consider to be 'good faith' in inquiry, I'll let you know.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

... I'll be honest with you, IA. As a philosopher and an Existentialist, I'm going to have a little different view as to what constitutes "good faith" than either what an atheist like yourself will mean from one semantic angle, or that even a Christian fundamentalist would mean from another angle.

So, please don't ask me to reconsider 'your good faith.' When I see what I consider to be 'good faith' in inquiry, I'll let you know.

I'm afraid that wasn't the answer you should have given. But that's between you and your conscience.
Goodnight.