Evil is subjective by nature and therefore unless you agree to a common standard with your interlocutor the conversation will break down at "is x really evil though?"
My latest tthoughts concerning the "problem of evil" argument.
Posts
Total:
123
If you have to ask that about certain things then you're evil.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Who decides which things if not a subject?
-->
@secularmerlin
If you have to question whether or not rape or child molesting may or may not be evil you have a problem with evil in your own self. If you think murdering someone for any reason other than self-defense is okay in some situations then you have a problem with evil in your own self. I don't care what a society it might agree to as a whole that's never right slavery, owning another human being is never right. If you question well maybe these things could be in certain situations there's something wrong with you and that thing is evil I'm sorry but it is. And I'm not even someone that believes in hell or capital punishment.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
My moral intuition agrees with yours poly but that only makes it an opinion we agree upon and incidentally (or not so incidentally) one which aligns with the good of the species.
Moral arguments are ought statements.
Personally, something that bothers me now and then,
Is the idea of creating fiction,
Though of 'course the characters and world are imaginary, fiction,
I like at times the idea of characters being as 'real as one can,
Characters are often 'supposed to invoke feeling, immersion, 'feel 'real,
But, authors 'are The 'Creators of their characters, of the world they live in,
And 'conflict drives a story,
Though it's awful in a way, one can't have good overcoming evil, if said evil does not exist, be they character or experience.
I suppose one could argue that some fiction exists in which good always triumphs, and there is no evil,
Kids shows for example,
But such stretches my credulity a bit,
How can guns, wars exist in which no one has died,
And 'even such kid shows often have such history, spoken aside, though not 'shown,
It still 'is.
-->
@Lemming
Each fictional universe comes with its author's assumptions but this is not apparently fiction and there is no apparent author.
-->
@secularmerlin
I forget if it's a fictional belief or a real one,
But I've also heard some people argue that god (None in particular)
Broke themself into all of existence and people,
That they could experience everything,
Or maybe I meant to reference the Elder Scrolls,
Where existence is all but a dream of god.
People 'also speak of the material world as being 'less real, then after, or what we 'truly are (I speak vaguely).
What is it that makes a fiction?
-->
@Lemming
I said apparently fiction and apparently real. It is possible to blur the distinction but it is far more utilitous to make a sharp distinction between the two.
-->
@secularmerlin
Well, I'm an Atheist, a Materialist, myself.
But if you mention the Problem of Evil, it implies a creator and 'usually something 'beyond the material/known, I think.
Us living in a simulation is common thought for many people,
Though the difference between a computer of wires,
And a computer of X, escapes me.
If it 'were a simulation, no reason we just wouldn't 'remember or 'know what X is.
-->
@Lemming
I don't understand why you think evil needs to involve a creator. Evil something that you do to another person.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well, if I create some fiction, I 'would be the creator of the evil in that world.
If god existed and created this world, then he'd be the creator of the evil in existence, I'd suppose.
Though maybe one can argue evil is unintended byproduct, intentional or not.
But if unintentional, some would argue such a god not all powerful,
If intentional, some would argue such a god is not good.
Though the theist response would be that such evil 'was necessary, I think.
That those who argue evil's existence being unnecessary, deny the world, and even their very selves existence.
Though, not all theists deities are the same.
Some being of and expression of the world, rather than creating it.
-->
@Lemming
If this were a simulation it would not effect my experience or give me adequate reason to change my behavior, especially if I cannot test this hypothesis. Solipsism is either a nonissue or everything is a nonissue and we may as well not bother. Take your pick.
-->
@secularmerlin
Righto,
Also, I am reminded of your other thread,
How are you 'not a moral nihilist intellectually, if you acknowledge subjective morality?
-->
@Lemming
Nihilism dislike solipsism in that whether or not it is true my experience and behavior are unaltered. I don't give a fig about nihilism any more than I give a fig about morality.
-->
@secularmerlin
It can rain outside, and I might have been planning to stay in all day anyway, schedule unchanged,
But that doesn't change the fact that I acknowledged the truth that it is raining outside.
I'm pretty sure that how one perceives the world, often effects their actions, or other related beliefs, though.
I don't know how people with a straight face can say to someone I don't believe in any gods but I think there's some sort of giant program running a simulation it it just doesn't make any sense to me.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
That does seem like a strange leap.
-->
@secularmerlin
Evil is subjective by nature and therefore unless you agree to a common standard with your interlocutor the conversation will break down at "is x really evil though?"
Is it though?
In a post modern world - most likely it seems to be prevalent view. Consistently, we can't be too dogmatic about it.
Evil used to be considered objective in a modernist world. Like Poly's view - and your own moral intuitions - evil was quite clear.
Yet, in a world where right and wrong have blurred. We have seen a supreme court nominee declare she cannot even define female. It certainly seems to be in accord - with your assertion that evil is subjective.
I think evil is an adjective or a verb. I don't think it is a noun. I am theist and I believe in the devil. Yet I would not call the devil the personification of evil. He does evil things and the things he does can be described as evil. Similar to Hitler. Hence to say someone creates evil - must be understood as an action - a nation destroyed - might be described as an evil act. But evil per se as a thing is in my view not a thing, or a place or a person.
So the question really might be put - can an action or a description be objective? Rape is an action. It is an act. I would say yes - it is objectively evil. But why? Why is desecrating consent objectively evil? Or is it just in relation to sexual activity? After all, consent is often desecrated in legal manners, such as a criminal being locked up against his will. We would not call this latter action evil. In fact we might call it evil if we did not put the criminal in prison.
Consent is a right, apparently. In some cases, most probably. But it can be trumped by other rights? Killing innocent people seems to be an action most might suggest is evil. What is the evil? Is it killing people? Or is it because the victim is innocent? Let's not get into abortion because despite the fact that such people have been renamed as "not people" to get around the evil, it seems that such an action has divided views on its levels of evil. But what about the situation like Hiroshima? Was killing innocent people evil? Or did it lose its evil hardness because it allegedly saved millions more? Was it justified on a somehow alleged measure of utilitarian basis - the greater good? Was killing Saddam Hussain evil or not evil? Would getting rid of Putin be in the greater good of the world or Ukraine?
Rights, priorities, the greater good. Evil is a difficult thing to determine objectively, because rights and priorities and the greater good seem to change in the situation depending upon - someone else's rights, priorities and greater good.
Hence, I tend to agree that evil has become subjective in a world where everyone wants to determine what right and wrong is for themselves personally. Hence, it is a bigger issue in the West than it is in the East. We are all individualists in the West. The East - are not. Although many of them are becoming more so. Yet China does not have an issue with subjective views on evil. The Communist Party determines objectively what is evil. As does Putin in Russia.
In the West, evil used to be understood objectively in terms of its religious background. Once religion started to go into the background, subjectivity came to the fore. Yet many religious people - like me - still hold to an objective understanding of evil - since we accept it is subjectively evil based upon our religion. Hence why we see culture wars continuing.
Religious people actually prefer science since it is relatively objective. The modern individualist sees science as a tool sometimes, so far as it agrees with their own individual views. Yet the SCOTUS latest nominee - reflected that in her view science is only valid is if it agrees with her political point of view.
This I think demonstrates that the trajectory of our Western World is heading into a situation of even more nonsense.
And a place where any decent sort of debate will be gone - since everyone will have to agree with the major political views or be cancelled. That I personally think can be described as evil.
-->
@Tradesecret
Without moral actors no morality could exist.
True or false?
-->
@secularmerlin
Without moral actors no morality could exist.True or false?
A great question.
And probably true. I use the word probably because - it is impossible to rid everything of a moral actor.
Indeed I would go further than you, I would say without moral actors nothing would exist.
-->
@Tradesecret
Then your argument is that EVERYTHING is subjective (dependent upon a subject) and no objective thing can exist ever.
There's a difference between evil and sin. Evil would be something that anybody could do that would be wrong sin is a crime against God, if you're not a worshiper of that God sin doesn't mean anything.
-->
@secularmerlin
Then your argument is that EVERYTHING is subjective (dependent upon a subject) and no objective thing can exist ever.
No. that is not my argument.
I take the view that everything in this existence - is dependent upon God. Without God, nothing else can exist.
Is God subjective? No. and nor is existence subjective. the existence is real. It therefore is an objective thing.
Morality (which is notion of right and wrong) on an individual basis is subjective where individuals believe they have the right to determine morality.
that was Adam and Eve's position in the first place. God said - this is morality. Adam said no I will decide what is right for myself. God said - this is why you will be objectively kicked out of the garden.
Yet this does not make morality per se - subjective. In the religious perspective - God determines what is right and wrong. It is subjective to himself - yet - given his consistent character and holiness, his subjectivity is unable to change and therefore is a perfect measure of right and wrong. For us then - god's morality is objective. Since it is the determiner of right and wrong - and remains consistent and perfect, and since everyone else is able to know what God's morality is - then it is objective.
for us on the other hand - without God as that objective measure, we need to formulate other ways of determining right and wrong. Some would use the majority of the many, democracy. Whatever the majority thinks is right - is right and whatever the majority thinks is wrong is wrong. Some would base it on what their family culture taught them was right and wrong. If daddy says this is wrong - then this is wrong. And if daddy says it is right, then it is right. Others might use philosophy or logic to determine what is right and wrong. Utilitarians as we mentioned above, think - if the outcome is good, then it is must be right. Or if the greater good is better then that determines right. Others take the view that science is that measure of right and wrong - until science disagrees with a particular political point. Others have suggested that - morality - is a thing that just exists in the ether - people know this is right intuitively or not.
How do you determine what is right and or wrong? Do you take the view that such a thing is right or wrong absolutely or dependent upon the circumstances? and why do you think that is the most appropriate way of understanding right and wrong?
-->
@Tradesecret
Well I have no reason to believe in any god(s) but if any exists they would clearly be a subject and those things which are subject dependent are subjective by definition. Unless you are prepared to put forward an alternative definition the logical conclusion of your argument is that nothing objective can exist.
-->
@secularmerlin
Psychological and neuroscience research both tell us that morality, our mental ability to tell right from wrong in our behaviors and the behaviors of others, is a product of evolution. Morality has been passed on through the course of evolution because it helps us to live in large social groups by enhancing our ability to get along and interact with others. “Building blocks” of morality, such as sensing fairness, experiencing empathy, and judging others’ harmful and helpful actions, can be observed in infancy, before a child’s social environment would be able to have a strong influence. Specific parts of the human brain are involved in moral reasoning – both the kind that happens very quickly and the kind that is thought out. Damage to certain parts of the brain can dramatically alter moral judgment and behavior. Although human morality has been passed down through evolution, it is also dependent on the culture in which we grow up. What humans consider to be moral behavior varies from culture to culture and also varies across time.
Why does Premeditated murder cost the most.?
Brings us tooooo
Can one have " evil " thougts ?
Sooo are you saying
A mere thought can be classified as " evil " ?
Is a thought " evil. "
It is just a thought..
Is it illegal to have "evil " thoughts .
A "evil" thought can't hurt no one.
So something can be "evil" even if it doesn't effect anyone.
So in the lisr of things that are considered "evil"
(A thought ) will be on there.
And a non evil thought will be on the not " evil "
So " evil " thougts
And
" evil " acts
Is there any other evil things.
Is there a difference?
I dont know where to go now.
Tis a good game but.
Is something only illegal if you get caught ?
Whats The difference between (a evil thought and a evil act)
A evil action must involve some " type " of thought.
A evil thought does not have to involve a evil action
Then there is robbing from the rich to give to the poor.
Evil spirits ?
-->
@FLRW
Psychological and neuroscience research both tell us that morality, our mental ability to tell right from wrong in our behaviors and the behaviors of others, is a product of evolution. Morality has been passed on through the course of evolution because it helps us to live in large social groups by enhancing our ability to get along and interact with others. “Building blocks” of morality, such as sensing fairness, experiencing empathy, and judging others’ harmful and helpful actions, can be observed in infancy, before a child’s social environment would be able to have a strong influence. Specific parts of the human brain are involved in moral reasoning – both the kind that happens very quickly and the kind that is thought out. Damage to certain parts of the brain can dramatically alter moral judgment and behavior. Although human morality has been passed down through evolution, it is also dependent on the culture in which we grow up. What humans consider to be moral behavior varies from culture to culture and also varies across time.
All very true.