Turning the Euthyphro Dilemma around on atheists

[Esquilax]

We're just asking a question: If evolution had taken a different path, for instance, making the torturing of children morally good, would you consider it morally good and torture children, or still consider it wrong? This is a realistic question because we are still evolving and morality might evolve in the future. So how do you answer?

I would answer that, regardless of what I might think, it would be wrong, because pleasure responses aren't the determining factor, for morality. As I said last time.

You say harm is bad because it objectively causes damage in the real world by invalidating the well-being of others. This makes the well-being of others (or "conscious creatures", as Sam Harris' version purports) the arbiter of morality. But what makes well-being so special? If someone decides that "unwell-being" should be the arbiter of what is morally good, could you prove them wrong?

I absolutely could prove that strange person wrong; I just have to show them, in one way or another, what "unwell-being" feels like, and in a broader sense, how it would affect the social structure.

At this point, I can't imagine that the problems with your own example haven't occurred to you, and so the only conclusion that I can come to is that you're being intransigent. That's fine, but I'll point out that I've said multiple times that what people decide singularly or in groups aren't the sole factor involved here; there are objective facts about reality that surpass individual opinion. So asking me what I think of individual opinions, as you have three times in a row, now, isn't actually asking a question that's a problem for my position.

Damaging people is bad. There is no sense in which damage allows one to better perform useful, helpful, or even enjoyable acts. Being damaged is a less than preferable state, objectively speaking. I shouldn't have to explain why indiscriminate killing and harm would be damaging to us as individuals and social groups.

You couldn't- there's nothing special about well-being, it's just something one species desires. Does morality boil down to whatever a set of species desires? Or whatever makes you feel good?

Don't just listen to me, deconstruct it yourself. Ask yourself why "human well-being" but not "termite well-being"? Discrimination against species, you dirty speciesist.

That's part of the problem: you're asking to boil down a complex concept to a single element, when there isn't a single element involved. There's a series of checks, balances and contextual issues to be applied to a number of different concepts that make up morality, of which well being- and not just human well being- is one.