Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution.

[Angrboda]

Well, that's fine, Tex, except that your definition falls apart just as easily,

How does it fall apart?

The word 'normatively' feeds into a loop just like the definition you're complaining about. And definition #1 isn't sufficiently tight to exclude non-moral codes, so it's wrong. That's both your citations.

and it still doesn't excuse the misleading way you used it,

How is it misleading?

You cited it as authoratative and inclusive when it was neither. No lexicographical body in the world recognizes the SEP as authoritative about English usage. It's not a dictionary.

nor that you were attempting to settle a philosophical question by appeal to usage, which is a thinly disguised appeal to popularity, which is a fallacy.

The definition of the world "morality" is not a philosophical question, it is a linguistic one. And use of language is one of the exceptions where appeal to popularity is not a fallacy.

You were discussing the meaning of morality and its substance, not the definition of the word, so it was an invalid appeal to authority. If I asked you what the meaning of guilt was, and you quoted me a dictionary, I'd laugh in your face.

Now if you want to have an in-depth discussion about the Munchhausen Trilemma, well, I say, "Bring it."

I'd never heard if the term before, but a cursory reading leads me to state that I'm one of those who commonly accepts the "axiomatic" horn.

And how is the "axiomatic" or basic concept horn defined? (watch for the loop there)

---

Do you really need me to tell you these things, or are you just unable to ever admit that you're wrong?