Turning the Euthyphro Dilemma around on atheists

[Darkstar]

Or perhaps you lived in some society where it was the consensus that torturing people was morally good, would it be morally good to you?

Well, if it were the consensus that torturing was morally good, I can only assume that everyone was masochistic to come to that consensus. And if everyone was masochistic, they would thoroughly enjoy it, so yes, it would be good (assuming no serious injury was caused).

If they weren't masochistic, then I cannot see how this consensus would come about. It's like the golden rule: how would you feel if someone tortured you? Would you really vote that torture is okay if you hated being tortured, knowing that some well-being person might kick you in the groin one day as a random act of kindness? And if you were the masochist, and everyone else wasn't, then you would be outvoted.

Or, what if most were masochists but not all? Then: would I want to be tortured [if I weren't masochistic]? No. So the morality of torture differs to the non-masochists.

This is just a basic example for now.

Look up the word consensus. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

All that is needed for consensus is the general opinion. Individual dissenters can exist.

But for your sake we'll use another example: If the consensus was that animal torture is good, would you agree with the consensus of people or decide there must be some external standard of goodness by which animal torture is still evil despite consensus?
[/quote]
The part of my reply that is bolded more or less answers your question. I would elaborate, but it is 1 am where I live, and I really need to go to sleep.