Subject to Rational Standards

[Selfish28]

I'm finishing my last year of school and in doing so I am taking Philosophy and Economics (a Howard Zinn Socialism fan, whoo).

Recently in the Philosophy course I noticed something that didn't seem right in a lecture regarding Euthyphro by Plato.

"The response is why must the gods have a good reason for loving certain acts? I like ice cream, but I don’t have a particular reason for liking it. The idea is that some things (such as likes and dislikes) are not always subject to rational standards of evaluation. There is no right or wrong with respect to liking certain things (like certain foods or finding something humorous, etc.)."

In Euthyphro basically Socrates is questioning Euthyphro about defining piety in order to help defend himself against Meletus. The Socratic method is applied and the definition comes full circle to which Euthyphro leaves after not stating a good definition. This text from the lecture is regarding some criticism the Professor applied to Socrates in one of the arguments. I'm wondering if something isn't subject to rational standards, then can that thing even be used in an argument (I.E. Gods loving certain acts is not subject to rational standards)?

Perhaps his analogy to ice cream is throwing me off, because I would think that liking ice cream could be subject to rational standards or I'm just confused.

Thanks

[Greebo]

There is a problem in the fundamental premise: "The gods must have a good reason for loving certain acts" presumes a conciousness behind those acts considered to have been caused by the Gods.

The subsequent explanation is, I think, completely irrelevant in this context because the premise is flawed - there are things that happen that simply happen as a result of natural cause and effect, not conscious choice.

[Dante]

I'm wondering if something isn't subject to rational standards, then can that thing even be used in an argument (I.E. Gods loving certain acts is not subject to rational standards)?

In what way exactly is this thing used in an argument? Do you mean an argument for or against the morality of an action? I'm somewhat confused here.

[Grames]

"The response is why must the gods have a good reason for loving certain acts? I like ice cream, but I don’t have a particular reason for liking it. The idea is that some things (such as likes and dislikes) are not always subject to rational standards of evaluation. There is no right or wrong with respect to liking certain things (like certain foods or finding something humorous, etc.)."

The broad version of the premise "that some things are not always subject to rational standards of evaluation" is obviously true. Ayn Rand teaches the distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made: the metaphysical is to simply accepted, the man-made is to be rigorous evaluated.

If there were gods, I'm not sure if they would be beyond my judgement even though not man-made. They (esp. Greek gods) seem to have reason and volition. Fortunately there are no gods so the riddle need not be solved.

Some sensory experiences are painful or pleasurable, but there are people that seek pain and others that avoid pleasure. The linguistic issue is whether "like or dislike" refers to the sensation or the judgement of the sensation. Sensation are not right or wrong, judgments can be right or wrong depending on the standard employed.