(November 29, 2013 at 3:13 am)genkaus Wrote:(November 29, 2013 at 2:33 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Or you're wrong and people can reason further. I'm leaning towards that hypothesis, because your response sounds like a taxicab fallacy.
For instance, if people cannot ground ethics in themselves or others, or rocks, or trees or carpets or horseflies or even the universe, and no material causal relationship can be demonstrated between ethics and behavior, one could very well reason that it's unlikely that metaphysical naturalism is true.
I don't see why that's an unreasonable conclusion, unless you want to go the other way and appeal to moral nihilism.
You are one of the dumber trolls, aren't you?
The scope of your question was limited to turning the Euthyphro's dilemma against atheists, which means the only relevant facts were about whether or not an atheist regards morality to be dependent on him and why.
Plato wasn't an atheist, so this question doesn't apply to him.
Going any further and asking what else morality does or doesn't depend on would be going beyond the scope of the question.
Once your answer came in, there was nothing more to discuss about the Euthyphro.
Did you think you were not allowed to talk about anything else? Everyone else is doing quite fine. Most people here don't even stick to the scope of rational answers.
