(September 17, 2012 at 6:30 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: It seems to me that murdering babies for fun is objectively evil.
Can you back that up with facts?
(September 17, 2012 at 6:30 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: It is subjective and depends on whether the reader/listener thinks that there really are objective morals in this life.
Actually, that's where you are wrong. Either there are objective morals in this life - known or unknown - or there aren't. What the reader/listener thinks about it is irrelevant. If there are objective moral values then the argument would stand (though not for long as there are problems with the rest of it as well). Declaring the argument to be subjective is simply another way of saying "I feel like it's true, but I can't prove it".
(September 17, 2012 at 6:30 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: If you do not believe that there are any, the argument is dust in the wind.
Actually, it's dust in the wind either way.
(September 17, 2012 at 6:30 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: I could be wrong but I believe the Euthyphro dilema is a false dilema. God would be the perfect moral good and his commands are a reflection/in-line with His own character. The answer would not be "a" or "b" but a hidden "c" option.
Actually, no. The hidden option "c" ultimately boils down to "a" or "b". If you say "God is the perfect moral good" then that implies the standard of morality exists independently which falls on the "god commands it because it's moral" horn. If you say that "morality is a character trait of god", the the question becomes, "what determines god's character?". If the answer is "god does", then you have the "it is moral because god commands" horn. If the answer is anything else, then you are back to the first one.
(September 17, 2012 at 6:30 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: Also you said, "people could likely be persuaded to follow those objective morals, whether or not they emanated from God."
I may be misunderstanding you comment or taking it out of context (please correct me if I am) but isn't this ignoring the first premise?
If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist?
That was the point being made. The first premise is wrong as well.
(September 17, 2012 at 6:30 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: And it seems to me that on the whole people do follow these "objective moral values." I believe that most people would agree that murdering babies for fun is objectively evil/wrong.
That is where you make your error. If it was, in fact, objectively wrong, then you wouldn't need to use the "most people would agree" argument.
