The Euthyphro dilemma

[Chips Rafferty]

I'm tryin' to stimulate some REAL, INTELLECTUAL DEBATE here...C'mon already!

I couldn't agree more, BP.

Unfortunately, most normal (spit!) people are awfully biddable. They are quite satisfied to unquestioningly fall in and goosestep behind any demagogue or God that some equally biddable Bubba tells them is THE terrestrial/celestial authority figure. This fuck-witted “moral majority” is universally referred to as “decent family values folk.”

But without them how would Hitler have condemned them at Dachau? Without them Caesar would have stood alone. They’re the ones who give their bodies as a weapon of the war. And without them all this killing can't go on.

So, if you ever spot one of these naïve nonetheless venomous, vicious brutes, let me know and then keep an eye on it ‘til I find a big stick!

 

[liberalogic]

That would be a nonbelievers argument. As a Christian, my values are a product of God's/Christ's conception.

When you relegate "claims of divine inspiration" to the ash heap, you run yourself out of intellectual opposition real fast since IMO, it is the religious who are going to take exception to your claim. Those that are not religious more than likely agree with you.

IMO, it is the supreme arrogance of Man from where your agument comes. In it, Man is supreme, beholden to none.

But your values, those that you derive from God, have shifted with time. True, the 10 commandments are fundamental to all forms of christianity, but why do the different sects disagree with each other on various issues? It's because the values of God have been perceived or interpreted in different ways. Many of them are, essentially, man-made and placed in the name of God.

 

[Bullypulpit]

That would be a nonbelievers argument. As a Christian, my values are a product of God's/Christ's conception.

When you relegate "claims of divine inspiration" to the ash heap, you run yourself out of intellectual opposition real fast since IMO, it is the religious who are going to take exception to your claim. Those that are not religious more than likely agree with you.

IMO, it is the supreme arrogance of Man from where your agument comes. In it, Man is supreme, beholden to none.

Not arrogance, objective reality. What could be more subjective than the pronouncements of some religious "authority" giving "their" interpretation of the moral and ethical lessons supposedly "revealed" in whatever religious scripture they cleave to. Such moral relativism is the ultimate result of ANY revealed religion which, ultimately, become cults of personality dedicated to whatever charismatic charlatan happens to be leading the flock. The moral consequences of such religious structures lie,not in this life or this world, but in some mythical metaphysical after-life.

For our morals and values to have any real meaning, they must be rooted in their consequences to this life in this world, they must be rooted in the objective, not the subjective. The former gives us human and humane, value systems, the latter gives us the horrors of the Inquisition, or the sniveling mediocrities of Fred Phelps and his inbred clan.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I couldn't agree more, BP.

Unfortunately, most normal (spit!) people are awfully biddable. They are quite satisfied to unquestioningly fall in and goosestep behind any demagogue or God that some equally biddable Bubba tells them is THE terrestrial/celestial authority figure. This fuck-witted “moral majority” is universally referred to as “decent family values folk.”

But without them how would Hitler have condemned them at Dachau? Without them Caesar would have stood alone. They’re the ones who give their bodies as a weapon of the war. And without them all this killing can't go on.

So, if you ever spot one of these naïve nonetheless venomous, vicious brutes, let me know and then keep an eye on it ‘til I find a big stick!

I don't know if you've read William James' "<i>The Varieties of Religious Experience: a Study in Human Nature</i>", but he makes the point that claims for the general garment of a given religion being a proper fit for all are motivated by little more than the ego and hubris of those making such claims.

As for the followers of such charlatans, they need some means of giving meaning to their lives as they find little on their own. As such, they will easily fall sway to the first charismatic snake-oil salesman that comes along. Others need need such inspiration to a greater or lesser degree, and some none at all.

As for getting a stick, not needed. Just pour salt on it.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Not arrogance, objective reality. What could be more subjective than the pronouncements of some religious "authority" giving "their" interpretation of the moral and ethical lessons supposedly "revealed" in whatever religious scripture they cleave to. Such moral relativism is the ultimate result of ANY revealed religion which, ultimately, become cults of personality dedicated to whatever charismatic charlatan happens to be leading the flock. The moral consequences of such religious structures lie,not in this life or this world, but in some mythical metaphysical after-life.

For our morals and values to have any real meaning, they must be rooted in their consequences to this life in this world, they must be rooted in the objective, not the subjective. The former gives us human and humane, value systems, the latter gives us the horrors of the Inquisition, or the sniveling mediocrities of Fred Phelps and his inbred clan.

What could be more subjective than your interpretation of a public objective reality based off of your private sense-data? All of your matters of fact are based on inherently irrational perception and inductive reasoning

 

[Care4all]

The word Good- comes from God
The word Evil- comes from Devil

Was I the only one taught this, God IS good?

 

[Truthmatters]

but what is god?

 

[Care4all]

but what is god?

Good...

All the good done in this world is god...

God = good....

lol I know you don't believe in this stuff but it is that simple to me!

When I see someone doing something good, I see or "feel" God in the spiritual realm, in that good being done....and I see God in that person doing the good.

It's hard to explain Truthmatters and know I am not trying to "convince you" of nothin'!

Care

 

[Truthmatters]

actually that would be the closest to how I would define it if I used the word.

I just dont believe there is something seperate from the good.

Good= god to me.

The good I do is adding to the idea that good has strength.

I do good and am good to other beings because I choose to do so.
Not because I might go to hell, not live forever or not be loved by a superior being, I do good because love is productive and creates more love.

Hate is desructive and I dont wish to add to the destruction by living in it.

I wont live forever but a shred of a good deed does live on.

 

[Mr.Conley]

The word Good- comes from God
The word Evil- comes from Devil

Was I the only one taught this, God IS good?

So, in your mind, morals come from God. God decides morals. Whatever God says is good is good, right?

What happens when God commands murder, rape, theft, pillage and destruction?

 

[Care4all]

So, in your mind, morals come from God. God decides morals. Whatever God says is good is good, right?

What happens when God commands murder, rape, theft, pillage and destruction?

Unless there is "just cause" that would be evil disguised as good....the Master of Deceit...

 

[Bullypulpit]

What could be more subjective than your interpretation of a public objective reality based off of your private sense-data? All of your matters of fact are based on inherently irrational perception and inductive reasoning

There is a subjective element to the perceptions delivered us by our senses, but to discount these perceptions as being wholly subjective phenomena is, in my estimation, wrong.

Perception doesn't occur in a vacuum. It requires the interaction of sense object and sense organ. This interaction, gives rise to the awareness...the consciousness...of an object impinging on the field of our sensory awareness. We can define the scope and limitations of our sense organs, we can quantify and describe the sense object, we can detect the neural activity of the awareness of the sense object that arises from the interaction between the sense organ and its object. These form the objective, empirical bases of our perceptions, the feelings and emotions that arise from the interaction of sense organ, object and consciousness are the subjective element. And it is this element that has led so many to accept the assertion that human perception is a wholly subjective phenomena.

Once we understand that perception is a dependent phenomena requiring both objective and subjective elements, we can be aware of the limitations (<i>limited, not useless or irrelevant</i>) of human perception.

As for your criticism of inductive reasoning, it is valid, but only within the context of essentialist philosophies which recognize discrete entities as objects of experience. Any relationships between them, then, are mere mental fabrications. Inductive reasoning involves the observation of relations between events over time and leads us to the inference of general principles from specific events. By rejecting rational distinctions imposed by essentialist philosophies, we come to realize that the relationships between events are often revealed through experience allowing these experienced relationships to serve as guides to future experiences.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Unless there is "just cause" that would be evil disguised as good....the Master of Deceit...

Who determines what that "just cause" is? Just who interprets the will of an entity, which by its very definition, is unavailable to human senses?

 

[Care4all]

Who determines what that "just cause" is? Just who interprets the will of an entity, which by its very definition, is unavailable to human senses?

Man, who else? lol

There are some writings of scholars in ethics, some famous religious, and others on what makes something "just".... not that there is actual directionm but different circumstances are given and the "appropriate way" to handle the situation...

One of those gathered doctrines of behavior for war, is called "Just War Theory"...do a google, it is easy to find. Well, after reading it, I realized it was just logic and the golden rule combined...

Also, reading the old testament helped me a great deal too...

Like the part about a hungry man stealing from another man's farm to feed himself is not considered stealing, but taking from that farm more than you can eat and going in to town and selling the rest of what you took for profit is considered stealing...

When I read things like this, I just don't take them for granted, they make me think.... about what makes them just and fair in my own mind...

And, as a believer in God and the Bible, but in no way a scholar of it, I remember reading that everyone whether a believer or not, would have right from wrong "seared" in to their heart.... of course that is a phrase or symbolism of some sort, but it could mean that we all just inheriently "know'" the gist of right from wrong. It never said we would follow that which was "seared" in to our fabric, but just that we would know it.

Care

 

[Hamiltonian]

There is a subjective element to the perceptions delivered us by our senses, but to discount these perceptions as being wholly subjective phenomena is, in my estimation, wrong.

Perception doesn't occur in a vacuum. It requires the interaction of sense object and sense organ. This interaction, gives rise to the awareness...the consciousness...of an object impinging on the field of our sensory awareness. We can define the scope and limitations of our sense organs, we can quantify and describe the sense object, we can detect the neural activity of the awareness of the sense object that arises from the interaction between the sense organ and its object. These form the objective, empirical bases of our perceptions, the feelings and emotions that arise from the interaction of sense organ, object and consciousness are the subjective element. And it is this element that has led so many to accept the assertion that human perception is a wholly subjective phenomena.

Once we understand that perception is a dependent phenomena requiring both objective and subjective elements, we can be aware of the limitations (<i>limited, not useless or irrelevant</i>) of human perception.

As for your criticism of inductive reasoning, it is valid, but only within the context of essentialist philosophies which recognize discrete entities as objects of experience. Any relationships between them, then, are mere mental fabrications. Inductive reasoning involves the observation of relations between events over time and leads us to the inference of general principles from specific events. By rejecting rational distinctions imposed by essentialist philosophies, we come to realize that the relationships between events are often revealed through experience allowing these experienced relationships to serve as guides to future experiences.

Your statement was within the context of essential philosophies. You speak of the value of moral action being rooted in the consequences. Yet we use inductive reasoning to find the necessary connection between cause and effect, between action and consequence. There is no rational way in which we can develop this necessary connection, and thus it is applicable to your comments. Yes, we do use habit as a guide for developing this connection, but we use habit as a substitute for valid logic.

Also, as you mention above, human perception does require subjective elements. The limitation on human perception is that it is not rational. Why do you insist that religion based morality must be logically valid if you proposed alternative is not?

Who determines what that "just cause" is? Just who interprets the will of an entity, which by its very definition, is unavailable to human senses?

Certainly some people do claim to feel God. To continue to play devil's advocate against you, what if I told you that a perception of God was part of my private sense-data. Descartes certainly seemed to have God in his sense-data. You have to use your interpretation of your sense data to have morality based on your perceived reality, just as I would have to use my interpretation of my sense-data of God's will as the source of morality. Each interpretation carries with it the same limitations.

 

[Gunny]

But your values, those that you derive from God, have shifted with time. True, the 10 commandments are fundamental to all forms of christianity, but why do the different sects disagree with each other on various issues? It's because the values of God have been perceived or interpreted in different ways. Many of them are, essentially, man-made and placed in the name of God.

The interpretations are man-made ... the values are not.

 

[Gunny]

Not arrogance, objective reality. What could be more subjective than the pronouncements of some religious "authority" giving "their" interpretation of the moral and ethical lessons supposedly "revealed" in whatever religious scripture they cleave to. Such moral relativism is the ultimate result of ANY revealed religion which, ultimately, become cults of personality dedicated to whatever charismatic charlatan happens to be leading the flock. The moral consequences of such religious structures lie,not in this life or this world, but in some mythical metaphysical after-life.

For our morals and values to have any real meaning, they must be rooted in their consequences to this life in this world, they must be rooted in the objective, not the subjective. The former gives us human and humane, value systems, the latter gives us the horrors of the Inquisition, or the sniveling mediocrities of Fred Phelps and his inbred clan.

Moral have no meaning and value without consequence. Our culture/society's morals are based on Judeo-Christian ethic, just as your sense of right and wrong is. You are a perfect example of my initial post in this thread. You believe in the right and wrong becuase it is right and wrong relative to what you have taught from Day One. Yet you choose to toss the reason behind the right and wrong out.

There is no universal right and wrong, and never has been; therefore, no set in stone human and humane value systems.

Using what some extremists have done in the name of Christianity while CLEARLY not adhering to Christian values in carrying out their nefarious deeds isn't exactly cricket.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Your statement was within the context of essential philosophies. You speak of the value of moral action being rooted in the consequences. Yet we use inductive reasoning to find the necessary connection between cause and effect, between action and consequence. There is no rational way in which we can develop this necessary connection, and thus it is applicable to your comments. Yes, we do use habit as a guide for developing this connection, but we use habit as a substitute for valid logic.

Also, as you mention above, human perception does require subjective elements. The limitation on human perception is that it is not rational. Why do you insist that religion based morality must be logically valid if you proposed alternative is not?

A statement may be logically correct, yet still be...wrong. And this is the flaw of deductive, or <i>a priori</i>, reasoning. We can start from a stated premise and reach a formally valid conclusion which can be either true or false , giving us no genuinely useful conclusions.

Inductive (<i>a posteriori</i>) reasoning, as I mentioned previously, allows us to infer general principles from observation of relationships between specific events. It is an active process, and as new knowledge and experience of the relationships between events allows us to draw new inferences. The caveat here being that these relationships are not separate from the events. Such a forced separation would give rise to seemingly causeless events and lead to unnecessary and unwarranted epistemological confusion.

The complaint arises that , even given the experience thousands of similar events and the relationships between them, it isn't possible to assume that the next event will be similar, and inductive reasoning is circular. And this would be the case based on essentialist philosophies, which seem to be trying to establish some absolute certainty within the realm of human experience. Given the nature of the dependent mechanisms of human experience, I simply don't see where such certainty is possible.

Certainly some people do claim to feel God. To continue to play devil's advocate against you, what if I told you that a perception of God was part of my private sense-data. Descartes certainly seemed to have God in his sense-data. You have to use your interpretation of your sense data to have morality based on your perceived reality, just as I would have to use my interpretation of my sense-data of God's will as the source of morality. Each interpretation carries with it the same limitations.

Actually, they don't. Human perception relies on the empirical data provided by the senses. This data is available to all who witness a given phenomena or event. It is this empirical data which allows us to agree on the broad general details of the experience of a given event or phenomena. Where the disagreement arises is in the details provided by the feelings, memories of similar past experiences, prejudices, etc. It is these subjective, internal elements which militate against any two of us having an exactly identical perception of the same event or phenomena. It is also what can lead one to assume causal links and relationships between events and phenomena which have no empirical basis.

Now, it's past my bedtime...I get up at insane o'clock for work every morning, and Gunny, I'll address your post when I get home from work. Thank you all for the discussion!

 

[Hamiltonian]

A statement may be logically correct, yet still be...wrong. And this is the flaw of deductive, or <i>a priori</i>, reasoning. We can start from a stated premise and reach a formally valid conclusion which can be either true or false , giving us no genuinely useful conclusions.

It is not a flaw of the deductive reasoning, it is a flaw of the premise. The deductive reasoning is the process by which we reach the conclusion from the premise, and it is perfectly valid. This criticism is of the premises, the soundness of the argument, not the validity. Therefore this criticism is equally applicable to all forms of reasoning.

Inductive (<i>a posteriori</i>) reasoning, as I mentioned previously, allows us to infer general principles from observation of relationships between specific events. It is an active process, and as new knowledge and experience of the relationships between events allows us to draw new inferences. The caveat here being that these relationships are not separate from the events. Such a forced separation would give rise to seemingly causeless events and lead to unnecessary and unwarranted epistemological confusion.

The complaint arises that , even given the experience thousands of similar events and the relationships between them, it isn't possible to assume that the next event will be similar, and inductive reasoning is circular. And this would be the case based on essentialist philosophies, which seem to be trying to establish some absolute certainty within the realm of human experience. Given the nature of the dependent mechanisms of human experience, I simply don't see where such certainty is possible.

Right, I'm quite familiar with your enquiry concerning Humean understanding (hehe, couldn't resist). Yes there is not certainty either way. Neither an argument for morality from religion nor humanity is logically valid or certain. In the eyes of a logical system, both arguments are equal. You can't disparage a morality based in religion on logic unless you can provide a logically sound argument that contradicts it.

Actually, they don't. Human perception relies on the empirical data provided by the senses. This data is available to all who witness a given phenomena or event. It is this empirical data which allows us to agree on the broad general details of the experience of a given event or phenomena. Where the disagreement arises is in the details provided by the feelings, memories of similar past experiences, prejudices, etc. It is these subjective, internal elements which militate against any two of us having an exactly identical perception of the same event or phenomena. It is also what can lead one to assume causal links and relationships between events and phenomena which have no empirical basis.

Now, it's past my bedtime...I get up at insane o'clock for work every morning, and Gunny, I'll address your post when I get home from work. Thank you all for the discussion!

You're presupposing the existence of an actual public space. It is only through my private sense data that I have a perception of a public space, or other people. God could have given me morality and for all I know I am applying it to but a dream.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The interpretations are man-made ... the values are not.

Values are indeed the products of human perception and conception.