Euthyphros dilemma...

[houseofcantor]

In reference to the OP is something good because the chemistry of the consensus wills it or does the chemistry of the consensus will it because it is good?

Your feeble explanations fail for the same reason pagan moral systems do.

Pagan moral systems lacked neuroscience. Neuroscience is part of Nature towards which god directed the attention of Job.

The answer is both. I'm a human being who simulates society from remembering being part of that society, and as time goes by, there is drift from my perception of good and my perception of society's perception of good. Thus, the dichotomy, to become a Moral Agent, or an Agent of Morality.

[MindForgedManacle]

Well, maybe I should unpack that a little bit. What I mean that value isn't an intrinsic property of anything, it's something that's imbued on things and actions by minds. So, unless you're talking about "intrinsic value" in a sort of deontological sense as being an end in itself, I can't make sense of that phrase. And even then, I think the same problem arises by treating value as an inherent property arises.

[MindForgedManacle]

Chad?

[Chas]

Zeitgeist? What a joke! That doesn't even count as a real answer.

And that doesn't even count as an intelligent objection.

[Esquilax]

In reference to the OP is something good because the chemistry of the consensus wills it or does the chemistry of the consensus will it because it is good?

Your feeble explanations fail for the same reason pagan moral systems do.

It depends on whether you have a definition of good that is in any way useful; if your definition of what's good relies solely on what your god thinks, then you're just indulging in an appeal to authority, and one you can't even demonstrate exists at that. We can't agree, in that case.

If, however, your idea of what's morally good concerns the welfare of thinking beings- and if it doesn't, what the hell would be moral?- then it is generally speaking within the best interest of the greatest number of people to do good and form social contracts which facilitate this. In essence, the answer to your question is neither; reality dictates what is and is not good, and we only learn what this is through experimentation and evidence.

Far less feeble than "this old book told me what to think," isn't it?

[GodsRevolt]

Good cannot be determined by consensus. Just because the majority of people think one way does not make that thought morally right. Has anyone ever read "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson.

It surprises me that atheists would take this "consensus as moral" stance. The major argument against religion and its contribution to humanity often entails some sort of reference to complete independent thought. The natural end here says that if the majority of the world's population was one particular religion it would make that one particular religion the sole reference to decide what was "good" and I can't see any atheist going for that.

So, "good" cannot be by consensus. Majority or not, certain things are just flat out wrong.

[MitchBenn]

Good cannot be determined by consensus. Just because the majority of people think one way does not make that thought morally right. Has anyone ever read "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson.

It surprises me that atheists would take this "consensus as moral" stance. The major argument against religion and its contribution to humanity often entails some sort of reference to complete independent thought. The natural end here says that if the majority of the world's population was one particular religion it would make that one particular religion the sole reference to decide what was "good" and I can't see any atheist going for that.

So, "good" cannot be by consensus. Majority or not, certain things are just flat out wrong.

I agree. Like slavery, racism, genocide, human sacrifice, infanticide and misogyny.

All of which the Bible heartily endorses.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

So, "good" cannot be by consensus. Majority or not, certain things are just flat out wrong.

What if everyone on the planet either disagreed or was oblivious to the moral dilemma?

A rather simplistic question but I think it holds ground. It's fairly self-evident that morality, however defined, has changed through the times. The morality of 1000 years ago on any given topic is most probably different to what it is today (eg, homosexuality?).

I think we need to be careful before we jump to the conclusion that morality by consensus is automatically wrong. After all, the consensus on, say, murder might always have been that we as a species find it inherently objectionable, but that doesn't thus equate to 'god' (whatever that is), or some moral arbiter guiding us with an invisible hand. There are perfectly good evolutionary explanations as well, all of which have been cited on numerous occasions on this forum already and to which I am reluctant to open a debate on again.

[Neo-Scholastic]

@ MFM
Thanks for clarifying. Value is comparative. Some things are more highly valued in comparison to other things. But only because they relate to something that has value in itself. Without something of inherent value the whole value structure collapses and an infinite regress stands between derived values and something capable of assigning value. In such a case the mind, as a physical thing, needs to be assigned value from another mind assigned a value from another mind with an assigned value ... etc. Physical systems, like chemical reactions, have no meaning or value in themselves. If the mind reduces to a physical system then you have no source from which meanings or values can come. Instead of this, the mind has inherent value because it has the essential attributes of life and love.

[Angrboda]

Instead of this, the mind has inherent value because it has the essential attributes of life and love.

I don't see how claiming this to be true by fiat has any value.