Euthyphro's Dilemma

Good question, I always tell Theweakeredge There is no consensus around a single definition of well-being, yet he still uses it as a foundation for his arguments.

Um... contributing to net well-being? I mean, that's a fairly easy question - and it has more to do with mental well-being than physical - but let's keep it simple: If a person intends to do something good and then does that good thing, you have a good intention and then a good outcome, okay, that's cool - but you can also have someone who intends to do something bad, but then does a good thing. Some would argue that their is no distinction between the two - but I would argue that the distinction is the intention - if Hitler were to save a thousand puppies, for example, would that be different from like, some good dude saving those thousand puppies. 

Yes, but only for the individual - because you can be a "bad" person overall and still do good things (same thing vica versa) - so for someone who intends bad doing good can have negative outcome (it could make them more sure that what they were intending to do is the right thing to do, while in reality it was very possibly just a coincidence) or it can be a good thing (it could encourage that person to do more good things, and doing more good things will eventually affect your intetnsions.) 

SO, intention affects YOUR well-being, while that is small, it is indeed well-being as well.

And well-being is really easily defined, Tarik can larp all he wants, we have a definition we can use - and one I use specifically, the fact that medical professionals can't come up with a specific definition is fine, cause we're not using the definition medically, much more philosophically, and in general. 

Well-being it just to generally benefit your mental and physical state. 

Even if there were a distinction, where in my arguments did I ever say anything in regards to medicine? Please quote me otherwise spare me your dishonesty.

Because that's the only field that "well-being" doesn't have a consensus agreed-upon definition. It's a rather simple thing.Because if you look up well-being in any dictionary that isn't medical, ya know what you'll get? Agreed-upon definitions. 

I was doing this thing called adding nuance that you missed. 

No - because the "biblical definition of good" is just "do as god says, not as he does" which is equivalent to a jackass dad who never comes home saying the same thing. 

Well I was only going by the source you used, nice to know you abandoned that and moved the goal post to the dictionary so let’s take a look at that shall we

The only thing that dilemma has shown then is that your perception of God doesn't fit your subjective opinion about what is good. There's probably not much more reason to continue that discussion.

But a more important question is why are you such an angry and condescending person?

Well it depends on the situation lol. Mostly Utilitarianism will be a general framework. Regardless, an act is never good because God ordered it nor is God ordering because it's good.

God has many more motives and intelligent reasons to order us to do whatever, than simply it being good (even if the Abrahamic god were real, this is true). Conversely, the act isn't ever good due to God ordering it, that is logically incoherent. If that's what 'good' is then all acts god doesn't order are evil or neutral, none can be good.

I never really understood the dilemma in my introductory courses. I've scored extremely low in my exams because of that. I usually think of the dilemma in a different way. Like Hume, I think defining good without actual impressions is erroneous. Good is exemplified through acts of kindness. In my opinion, it's like a mechanical watch. If I was incapable of sense and reason, I like to think that I would be incapable of comprehending the idea of time. Hence, I would have to understand the exact manner in which time is exemplified. A mechanical watch is one such exemplar in which I could actually observe how time works. I think good should be defined in similar fashion. For example, I could volunteer at a local charity event and that would usually be considered as good. But without an actual impression of good, I don't believe philosophers could really qualify what it means to be good.

Even better.

(IFF) "god" = "good" (THEN)

How do we know what "god" believes is "good"?

Which "god" is the "real" one?

Which translation and which book do we trust?

Which priests do we turn to for answers that aren't perfectly clear in the text?

I think it's quite perplexing that almost all of your questions work as a starting impression. I think being virtuous is as vague as being good. I could cajole people into using unspecified elements of virtue and act as though virtue is interchangeable with good but that's about it. I want to understand the essence of virtue but I really can't unless I consider relevant impressions that are somewhat instances of virtue. I think the regularity in which I experience individual acts of kindness often led me to falsely think that virtue is reasonably ascertained. Clearly, virtue is not reasonably ascertained.

OF COURSE NOT.

THAT'S WHY I SPECIFIED,

(IFF) "GOD" = "GOOD" (THEN) ...

Yes, obviously. Simply say "That which is good is so because God says it is". Did you miss that option when reading the question?

Yeah, that's basically what is meant. "because God says this" is equivalent to "because God is this way". Read the original dialogue the question came from and you will get it, I linked it in post 59. Get some understanding of the context.

I do not see it as equivalent. One of the main reasons is that the dialogue is in the context of Greek polytheism. There is a world of difference between that and biblical monotheism that does not allow them to be interchangeable. As I see it, the context makes it even less applicable. But if you still believe the dilemma applies to the monotheistic, eternal, unchanging God of the Bible despite the context, I would be happy to hear your reason why.

It's like the chicken and the egg question. Does morality come from god's nature and actions or do god's nature and actions come from morality? You're making it out like someone is trying to trick you into saying something you don't mean when in reality it's just a question from a person desiring an answer.

Well I have already said morality is determined by God's eternal nature. I wouldn't include actions in that though.