Turning the Euthyphro Dilemma around on atheists

[Esquilax]

Okay, so things are complex, and well-being and social structure are but one component of the complex, multifaceted issue. Granted.

But is this complex, multifaceted mutable or immutable (ie changable or unchangable). If it's mutable, and it changes to, say, considering some abhorrent act like spousal abuse to be ethical, would it be ethical or not?

Cards on the table: If it's ethical, then your complex machination is the source of morality, but you're forced to concede the morality of sick and disgusting behavior like child abuse. If not there must be something that transcends it.

It's mutable to a degree allowable by circumstance, context, consequences and intent; the answer is a third option, here. Again, the way to determine whether or not your example could be ethical would involve consideration of the facts surrounding it, and not just the act itself. From my current position the only thing that I can really say is that I can't envision a realistic scenario in which spousal abuse could be an ethical action to take. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist, just that our current reality doesn't seem to support it.

That being said, though I haven't selected an option that places me in either of your two categories, I still have to take issue with the consequences you're ascribed to both; if there is a scenario in which spousal abuse is the ethical pathway, it doesn't necessarily entail that every immoral act suddenly become moral. Mutability doesn't equate to a free for all, because I've been saying from the beginning that any action must be weighed against the factors of reality to determine if it's justifiably moral or not. We don't have to discard that justification when we accept that things can change.

For example, I've mentioned elsewhere- possibly here- that while murder is an immoral act by most standards, we do have caveats where it becomes the most moral option available, like in self defense or defense of others. In those situations, murder may be the most moral option present, though notably it still isn't the preferred option; we're looking at a situation where the most moral thing, and the best moral option, aren't the same. We live in a universe where we are constrained by what's possible, and given the facts of that, the situation helps in determining what's moral, without meaning that everything becomes moral.

I guess what transcends moral relativism, if you want to put it that way, is reality; in some alternate timeline where I kill a baby and call that moral, the determination can still be made by the facts outside my control that no, in fact it was immoral. It's the same with every other moral dilemma one can pose.