RE: Turning the Euthyphro Dilemma around on atheists
November 20, 2013 at 9:03 pm
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2013 at 9:14 pm by Simon Moon.)
(November 20, 2013 at 6:08 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Most people are familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma against a deity. Theists, particularly intellectually sophisticated theists have some interesting responses to the Euthyphro dilemma (Richard Swinburne's response is one of the most unusual), but we can get into that later.
What if we flip it against atheism?
"Do you do good things because they are good, or are things good simply because you do them?"
If you pick the first option, then the good exists independent of human existence or knowledge. If you pick the second, then people can deem anything they do as good.
This is not that difficult.
Quote:"Do you do good things because they are good, or are things good simply because you do them?"
This is a false dichotomy.
You are missing, "things are good because they have the best possible outcome for the well being of other people".
Actions can be rationally and logically evaluated.
Morality in practice concerns the well being of others.
We all have more or less the same brains and bodies, and we live in the same physical universe, subject to the same physical laws.
With some exceptions, it is easy to determine that: life is preferable to death, health is preferable to disease, comfort is preferable to discomfort, etc. I am easily able to extend the above knowledge to other sentient beings, and understand that if my actions cause harm to anyone else's well being, it is bad action. If my action improves someone's well being or is neutral, it is a good action.
I am able to evaluate each situation I encounter in order to determine the action to take that will cause the least possible harm, and/or the most possible benefit to others well being.
I try to do the most good things as possible, and the least bad things. They are not good because I do them, they are good if they have good outcomes.
Quote:For instance, if it were the consensus that rape were good
Women are 51% of the population. How would you get a consensus?
But even if they were less than 50%, rape harms the well being of others. So it would be a bad action, no matter how many people say it's good.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
