Re: The problem of evil
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2023 1:42 pm
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
But 'this' IS NOT 'common sense' AT ALL.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 9:38 pmIndeed, folks here -- https://www.procon.org/ -- do it all the time. Not to mention these folks:bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:31 amWe can distinguish between evil and good behavior.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:44 am The problem of evil that most plagues us [still] is this...that behaviors some call evil others call good. Then what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy
Then what?
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:44 am Also, different folks living different lives actually confronting how their own understanding of evil is rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein.To wit:
The role that ever evolving and changing historical and cultural and experiential/interpersonal interactions play in regard to our individual value judgments is just...common sense?If you were born and raised in a Chinese village in 500 BC, or in a 10th century Viking community or in a 19th century Yanomami village or in a 20th century city in the Soviet Union or in a 21st century American city, how might your value judgments be different?
The ANSWER TO 'this CLARIFYING QUESTION' IS A RESOUNDING, YES.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 9:38 pm Or have philosophers managed to come up with a genuine one-size-fits-all set of moral obligations...given any particular context?
VERY EASILY, and VERY SIMPLY, INDEED.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 9:38 pmiambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:44 am And, I suggest, given the psychology of objectivism, don't hold your breath expecting that to change.I mean that in regard to the moral, political and religious objectivists among us this trajectory -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296 -- will only vary more or less.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:44 am Centuries pass and neither scientists nor philosophers nor theologians have been able to link us deontologically to objective morality.Okay, in regard to issues like abortion and gun control and human sexuality, how do you construe the problem of evil?
BUT WHO is 'it' WHO IS CLAIMING that there IS NOT?
WHY do 'you' PRESUME TO ALREADY KNOW that:iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 9:38 pm How are you yourself not "fractured and fragmented" in regard to your own value judgments if human morality does basically revolve around an ever evolving and changing set of social, political and economic variables? In a No God world.
I was recently reading about apex predators being reintroduced in Colorado. Urban areas voted for it, ranchers in the sticks voted against it and lost.
Define 'natural evil' here?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:48 amYes, morality is subjective. So what?iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 9:38 pmIndeed, folks here -- https://www.procon.org/ -- do it all the time. Not to mention these folks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy
Then what?
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:44 am Also, different folks living different lives actually confronting how their own understanding of evil is rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein.To wit:
The role that ever evolving and changing historical and cultural and experiential/interpersonal interactions play in regard to our individual value judgments is just...common sense? Or have philosophers managed to come up with a genuine one-size-fits-all set of moral obligations...given any particular context?If you were born and raised in a Chinese village in 500 BC, or in a 10th century Viking community or in a 19th century Yanomami village or in a 20th century city in the Soviet Union or in a 21st century American city, how might your value judgments be different?
I am mainly talking about natural evil hereiambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:44 amiambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:44 am And, I suggest, given the psychology of objectivism, don't hold your breath expecting that to change.I mean that in regard to the moral, political and religious objectivists among us this trajectory -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296 -- will only vary more or less.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:44 am Centuries pass and neither scientists nor philosophers nor theologians have been able to link us deontologically to objective morality.Okay, in regard to issues like abortion and gun control and human sexuality, how do you construe the problem of evil? Given that there is no objective morality? How are you yourself not "fractured and fragmented" in regard to your own value judgments if human morality does basically revolve around an ever evolving and changing set of social, political and economic variables? In a No God world.
'This' here is ONE WAY of GETTING OUT OF one's OWN CONTRADICTIONS and/or INCONSISTENCIES here.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 9:38 pm since I don't want to enter into a discussion of whether morality is objective or subjective.
'This' here IS OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.
Talk ABOUT ANOTHER PRIME example OF CONFLATING and/or MISCONSTRUING 'things' SO MUCH that one has COMPLETELY and UTTERLY DELUDED "its" OWN 'self'.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 9:38 pm and that should not be the case in the creation of a God who is good.
EVERY 'thing'.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 7:22 pmRight.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:48 amYes, morality is subjective. So what?iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 9:38 pm
Indeed, folks here -- https://www.procon.org/ -- do it all the time. Not to mention these folks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy
Then what?
To wit:
The role that ever evolving and changing historical and cultural and experiential/interpersonal interactions play in regard to our individual value judgments is just...common sense? Or have philosophers managed to come up with a genuine one-size-fits-all set of moral obligations...given any particular context?
Value judgments are derived existentially given ever evolving and changing historical and cultural contexts intertwined in both dasein and in the Benjamin Button Syndrome. Thus, back to the problem of how some people construe one set of behaviors as good while others construe them as evil.
But, so what?
On the other hand, if there is a demonstrable God or philosophers and scientists are in fact able to construct a deontological moral philosophy and something in the way of an ideal Republic...?
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:44 amiambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:44 am And, I suggest, given the psychology of objectivism, don't hold your breath expecting that to change.I mean that in regard to the moral, political and religious objectivists among us this trajectory -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296 -- will only vary more or less.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:44 am Centuries pass and neither scientists nor philosophers nor theologians have been able to link us deontologically to objective morality.Okay, in regard to issues like abortion and gun control and human sexuality, how do you construe the problem of evil? Given that there is no objective morality? How are you yourself not "fractured and fragmented" in regard to your own value judgments if human morality does basically revolve around an ever evolving and changing set of social, political and economic variables? In a No God world.
Natural evil? Meaning what...a Sin against God? ...that somehow the universe itself [as pantheists suggest] encompasses good and evil?
But then again what does that mean for all practical purposes in regard to particular sets of circumstances?
And what can we mere mortals possibly know about Good and Evil from the perspective of God?
Here 'we' have ANOTHER VERY CLEAR example of HOW BELIEF itself, and/or BELIEFS themselves, can STOP one COMPLETELY FROM DISCOVERING, and/or LEARNING, and UNDERSTANDING, what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 8:55 pmYes, some people trying hard to prove that morality is objective. Such a vain.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 7:22 pmRight.
Value judgments are derived existentially given ever evolving and changing historical and cultural contexts intertwined in both dasein and in the Benjamin Button Syndrome. Thus, back to the problem of how some people construe one set of behaviors as good while others construe them as evil.
But, so what?
On the other hand, if there is a demonstrable God or philosophers and scientists are in fact able to construct a deontological moral philosophy and something in the way of an ideal Republic...?
GREAT.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 8:55 pmThe whole story of Adam is fake.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:44 amiambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:44 am
I mean that in regard to the moral, political and religious objectivists among us this trajectory -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296 -- will only vary more or less.
Okay, in regard to issues like abortion and gun control and human sexuality, how do you construe the problem of evil? Given that there is no objective morality? How are you yourself not "fractured and fragmented" in regard to your own value judgments if human morality does basically revolve around an ever evolving and changing set of social, political and economic variables? In a No God world.Natural evil? Meaning what...a Sin against God? ...that somehow the universe itself [as pantheists suggest] encompasses good and evil?
I don't understand what this question is referring to.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:44 am But then again what does that mean for all practical purposes in regard to particular sets of circumstances?
We can define good and evil and can agree on definitions.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:44 am And what can we mere mortals possibly know about Good and Evil from the perspective of God?
Are 'you' here suggesting that 'you', adult human beings, do NOT have 'evil intentions'?nemos wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 10:28 am Enlightenment came over me, and I realized with searing clarity that the banana was yellow.
I saw the root of evil. What we label as "evil intent" arises from non-compliance with the laws of nature, or if you prefer, the laws of the universe. "Animals" do not have evil intentions,
HOW, and WHEN, EXACTLY?
BUT there is NO such 'thing' as so-called 'natural evil', FROM what 'you' ARE IMAGINING, PRESUMING, and/or BELIEVING here.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:05 pmI am talking about natural evil rather than evils committed by humans.
GREAT CLARIFYING QUESTION. Now let 'us' SEE IF 'we' GET AN ANSWER/CLARITY, or NOT.
What does the 'that' word here REFER TO, EXACTLY?
Maybe. But I have NOT been MADE AWARE of 'this'.
Now, OBVIOUSLY the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS was NOT ANSWERED/CLARIFIED.
NEVER.
FROM the Fact of WHO and WHAT God IS, EXACTLY.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:54 pmWhere do you take the fact that God is good?Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:43 pmBUT those so-called 'natural evils', which are said to be caused by God are NOT 'evils' AT ALL.
And, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one SAYS or STATES that 'they' ARE, then 'they' CERTAINLY DO NOT KNOW what the 'evil' word MEANS NOR REFERS TO, which FITS IN PERFECTLY with OTHER WORDS, and 'their' DEFINED MEANINGS.ONCE AGAIN what 'we' HAVE here is ANOTHER PRIME example of HOW ASSUMING some 'thing', which could be (and ACTUALLY IS ABSOLUTELY) False and/or Wrong WAS PREVENTING and/or BLOCKING 'them' FROM LEARNING and SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING, what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.
BUT there IS NO ACTUAL 'problem' AT ALL here, FOR TWO REASONS.
1. The WORKING definition for the word 'problem' does NOT FIT IN here.
2. Even IF a WORKING definition for the 'problem' word DID FIT IN here, there is NO ACTUAL so-called 'problem of evil' in 'the way' that that term is being REFERRED TO here.BUT God, by the WORKING definition, could NOT be evil, as 'this' WOULD BE 'self-contradictory' and/or just 'self-refuting'.BUT ONLY IF God could be evil. Which, OBVIOUSLY, God, Itself IS NOT, AND could NOT.BUT there WAS NO 'problem', from the outset, and there NEVER IS A 'problem' here.
TO TEACH 'you', adult human beings, what IS, ACTUALLY, Wrong, IN Life.Walker wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 1:06 pm- Everything that exists has a purpose.
- Evil exists, therefore evil has a purpose.
- What is the purpose of evil?
So, the purpose of DOING 'evil' 'things', TO "walker", like RAPING and/or KILLING "each other" FOR GREEDY and SELFISH purposes, is to, SUPPOSEDLY, keep 'you', so-called, 'on your toes', to survive the so-called 'predators'. Just out of CURIOSITY "sculptor" was 'your' CLAIM here MEANT TO MAKE ANY SENSE, AT ALL?
Walker wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 1:06 pm - The purpose of evil is to keep open the door to The Big What If that activates strategy.
- The method of using the strategy was for the caveman to say to himself, "Ug, what if bad happens? What if worst bad happens? What if Ug don’t do this or that?" Such questions obviously enhance survival quality and duration, and also indicate a dawning sense of self-consciousness.
- Living so close to death honed Ug’s natural capacity to practice, What If.
- Since Ug’s salad days, What If has spurred humanity’s progress, although that evil's purpose in this progress even exists has been forgotten in comforts fashioned in increments.
As can be CLEARLY SEEN here, ONCE MORE and ONCE AGAIN, some of 'these people' BACK in those 'OLDEN DAYS', when this was being written, WERE SO LOST and SO CONFUSED that 'they' ACTUALLY thought or BELIEVED that 'evil' could be RIGHT, or even GOOD, in so-called 'given circumstances'.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 1:15 pmI think I agree with you that evil could be right in given circumstances.Walker wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 1:06 pm- Everything that exists has a purpose.
- Evil exists, therefore evil has a purpose.
- What is the purpose of evil?
- Tracing the purpose of any human activity back to its source, with the tools of how and why, eventually leads to the Principle of Survival. Paleo-man.
- The purpose of evil is to keep folks on their toes, to survive the predators.
- The purpose of evil is to keep open the door to The Big What If that activates strategy.
- The method of using the strategy was for the caveman to say to himself, "Ug, what if bad happens? What if worst bad happens? What if Ug don’t do this or that?" Such questions obviously enhance survival quality and duration, and also indicate a dawning sense of self-consciousness.
- Living so close to death honed Ug’s natural capacity to practice, What If.
- Since Ug’s salad days, What If has spurred humanity’s progress, although that evil's purpose in this progress even exists has been forgotten in comforts fashioned in increments.