Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can you now? Does this mean that you have abandoned something so seemingly simple as "torturing children for fun is objectively wrong" in favor of some other argument? Why? I don't know about you, but I'd expect something that was objectively wrong would be fairly easy to demonstrate, what with it being objective and all. On the other hand, just because I think it would be doesn't mean that it -actually- would be.....food for thought.

[Mystic]

Can you now? Does this mean that you have abandoned something so seemingly simple as "torturing children for fun is objectively wrong" in favor of some other argument? Why?

I'm confused as to what you are trying to convey. I haven't gone back on my statement that it's objectively wrong. I think you stating it's likely to be wrong assumes objective morality exists as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

I stated that it's likely to be wrong -in so far as the set of people who agree with me- are concerned. That assumes that people agree with me, not that any part of this statement (or morality) is objective. Try again.

[Jackalope]

Unless they happen to agree that your axioms are self-evident and need no justification, you will be unable to do so.

This is one of those I was really hoping would be the case.

But I think I can argue the "likely to be wrong" position, assumes objective morality as well.

Unfortunately, no. Even if there were universal agreement that such an act was morally wrong, you'd still be left with the task of demonstrating that it was so independent of opinion.

Thousands of years of debate haven't settled that particular issue, I'm afraid.

[Mystic]

I stated that it's likely to be wrong -in so far as the set of people who agree with me- are concerned. That assumes that people agree with me, not that any part of this statement (or morality) is objective. Try again.

When you say people agree with you, you imply you are of the opinion it is likely to be wrong and others agree with you, are you not?

---

Unfortunately, no. Even if there were universal agreement that such an act was morally wrong, you'd still be left with the task of demonstrating that it was so independent of opinion.

Well I disagree that objective morality is such that it is right irrespective of all opinions. I think it needs one opinion that is correct. If all humans are wrong, there is still opinion of God which is correct. Without one opinion that is correct, you would not have objective morality either.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, that you are likely to agree with me that it is wrong. That we have a shared opinion Mystic. Shared opinions do not constitute objective facts (moral or otherwise). "A Lincoln is better than a Cadillac".

[Mystic]

No, that you are likely to agree with me that it is wrong. That we have a shared opinion Mystic. Shared opinions do not constitute objective facts (moral or otherwise). "A Lincoln is better than a Cadillac".

I am asking you why you believe it is likely to be wrong. It's a simple question bro.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have no reason to state that it is wrong, it just feels that way to me. Any number of things could have led me to that conclusion. The important bit here is that I am upfront about it.

It's a simple answer bro.

I like chocolate too, want to ask me about that?

(are you going to get around to making either argument you alluded to?)

[Mystic]

I have no reason to state that it is wrong, it just feels that way to me.

So you believe it is likely that it's wrong, but that there is no reason at all, to believe in that? Are you being honest here? So you just feel it's wrong and there is no reason to your feeling at all?

No I don't want to ask about chocolate.

[The Grand Nudger]

You native speaker?

It is likely to be wrong- between you and I- (I assumed this because you led in with the question in the first place). FULL STOP

That's twice now I've had to explain the same post to you. Try to help me here, what is it that you don't (or refuse to) understand about that post?

Again, I did mention that there was most likely a whole host of "reasons" behind why I feel the way I do about it, but again..none of that has anything to do with whether or not torturing children is objectively wrong. You are asking me about chocolate, replace "torturing children" with "eating vanilla" and you wont notice a single speedbump in our conversation. I don't require much in the way of "reasons" to feel things Mystic. I would require "reasons" to attempt to convince others that what I felt was factually accurate, that my feelings where a measure of objectivity (or in agreement with some measure of objectivity). I don't have those reasons, so I don't blow smoke up other peoples asses as though I did...............