Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 59
Thanks Tree48Thanks

Thread: The "problem of evil" debunked

  1. #31
    Anarquistador StanStill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    9,217
    Thanks
    9124

    From
    Home
    Quote Originally Posted by Otto Throttle View Post
    So Jeffrey Dahmer is not evil. Because there is no evil. Got it.
    Apparently, you don’t got it. There is no evil other than the opinions of people. I’m not claiming that evil is not a synonym for terrible or sinister or whatever. But there is no tangible or supernatural thing “evil”. It’s an adjective, not a noun.

    Got it?
    Last edited by StanStill; 3rd November 2017 at 07:28 AM.

  2. #32
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    42,222
    Thanks
    26899

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Just like there's positive and negative, life and death, there is good and evil. ...
    Good and evil are often subjective. While most of us (presumably) would consider killing a stranger in cold blood as evil, there are plenty of gray areas. For example, some people believe that being gay and sexually active is evil. Others do not. Some consider pornography as evil. It's not a perfect dichotomy.
    Last edited by Djinn; 3rd November 2017 at 11:05 AM.
    Thanks from NightSwimmer, StanStill and bmanmcfly

  3. #33
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    13,817
    Thanks
    2294

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    Good and evil are often subjective. While most of us (presumably) would consider killing a stranger in cold blood as evil, there are plenty of gray areas. For example, some people believe that being gay and sexually active is evil. Others do not. Some consider pornography as evil. It's not a perfect dichotomy.
    But, if we are looking at good and evil as concrete and definable terms within human activity, then we need to be able to define them in ways that can be accepted across the board.

    Things like sexual hang ups, people might think of as evil or good, but opinions aren't so important if the question is trying to determine what can be considered as objectively good or objectively evil.

  4. #34
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,821
    Thanks
    38817

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    But, if we are looking at good and evil as concrete and definable terms within human activity, then we need to be able to define them in ways that can be accepted across the board.

    Things like sexual hang ups, people might think of as evil or good, but opinions aren't so important if the question is trying to determine what can be considered as objectively good or objectively evil.
    If you had ever studied social anthropology you would understand that "good" and "evil" are subject to the interpretation of the culture you are in. There are cultures where head hunting is considered perfectly normal and good, cannibalism with some as well. In fact, just about any behavior imaginable has been embraced as "normal" by one culture or another over the millennia. Take off the European Western Civilization glasses...they are blinding you to the truth.

  5. #35
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,241
    Thanks
    33101

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    But, if we are looking at good and evil as concrete and definable terms within human activity, then we need to be able to define them in ways that can be accepted across the board.

    Things like sexual hang ups, people might think of as evil or good, but opinions aren't so important if the question is trying to determine what can be considered as objectively good or objectively evil.
    So it would be your contention that there isn't an area of intersection where all (or at least the vast majority of) people would agree on the set of actions we would call good or evil? It seems to me that human society would be impossible without at least some agreement in this area. Remember that we are far more social animals than most, and our sociability is a key to our thriving.

    I do think that there are other concepts that mixed in to these definitions. For example, Smith's notions of propinquity in Theory of Moral Sentiments: the relative importance of humans to us is determined by their proximity--nuclear family, extended family, institutions we are a part of, local community, state, nation. etc.

    But this question of "evil" and "good" could also be thought of as a false dichotomy. Isn't it really a continuum of moral definition?

  6. #36
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    13,817
    Thanks
    2294

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    So it would be your contention that there isn't an area of intersection where all (or at least the vast majority of) people would agree on the set of actions we would call good or evil? It seems to me that human society would be impossible without at least some agreement in this area. Remember that we are far more social animals than most, and our sociability is a key to our thriving.

    I do think that there are other concepts that mixed in to these definitions. For example, Smith's notions of propinquity in Theory of Moral Sentiments: the relative importance of humans to us is determined by their proximity--nuclear family, extended family, institutions we are a part of, local community, state, nation. etc.

    But this question of "evil" and "good" could also be thought of as a false dichotomy. Isn't it really a continuum of moral definition?
    No no, that's what I was arguing that there would be an objective set of behaviours that we could say are good or evil.

    And yes, there's a spectrum, and grey areas...

  7. #37
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    42,222
    Thanks
    26899

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    But, if we are looking at good and evil as concrete and definable terms within human activity, then we need to be able to define them in ways that can be accepted across the board.

    Things like sexual hang ups, people might think of as evil or good, but opinions aren't so important if the question is trying to determine what can be considered as objectively good or objectively evil.
    That's what I'm saying; there is no objective good or evil. The concepts have no existence outside of a society, therefore they can only be considered subjectively.

  8. #38
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    13,817
    Thanks
    2294

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    That's what I'm saying; there is no objective good or evil. The concepts have no existence outside of a society, therefore they can only be considered subjectively.
    That's the lazy answer...

    Moral relativism is easy... Just be less evil than the next person or the worst person and you don't have to feel as shitty for the things you do.

  9. #39
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    42,222
    Thanks
    26899

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    That's the lazy answer...

    Moral relativism is easy... Just be less evil than the next person or the worst person and you don't have to feel as shitty for the things you do.
    Quite the contrary; there's nothing lazy about it. Moral relativism requires ongoing thought.

    Moral absolutism doesn't require thought; just slavish adherence to an unchanging set of rules.
    Thanks from NightSwimmer, Rasselas and RNG

  10. #40
    Anarquistador StanStill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    9,217
    Thanks
    9124

    From
    Home
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    That's what I'm saying; there is no objective good or evil. The concepts have no existence outside of a society, therefore they can only be considered subjectively.
    That said, I think there is a pretty good argument that at least some of the behaviors we typically think of as "good" or "evil" aren't simply things society has agreed on, but actually are things that are hardwired into our DNA and are part of human nature. Most animals have a sort of ethos that allows their society to exist, and so far as we can tell, they all are able to maintain those animal societies without language that they would use to record their philosophies of good and evil behavior. They innately know how to behave.

    I think it's kind of unlikely that humans don't also have this.

    Wonder why @Reality disappeared. It's a pretty good thread. I'm interested to know more about the "problem of evil" argument and what the hell he meant by it.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18th July 2017, 07:59 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 13th February 2014, 01:59 PM
  3. Bush's So Called "War Against Evil"
    By MeMyselfnI in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 2nd May 2007, 10:24 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed