seeds wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:27 pm
seeds wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 3:38 am
What the heck does
“absolutely good” even mean?
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:03 pm
Absolutely good means without any evil, badness, etc.
That which is absolutely good for the lion’s survival (claws, fangs, stealth), is bad/evil for the zebra.
That which was bad/evil for the dinosaurs (an asteroid hit on the planet), was absolutely good for the development of mammals (humans).
That which is bad/evil for humans (a devastating flood, for example), is absolutely good for replenishing the ground water and soil nutrients.
The list goes on and on.
So what exactly would the universe (as in life on earth) look like under your simplistic interpretation of what absolutely good means?
_______
devans99 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:43 pm
I think there are absolute and universal standards of good and evil. To address your examples:
1. Lions are evil; all carnivores are evil including humans.
It may be evil from the prey’s perspective, but not from the carnivore’s perspective.
(Btw, calling lions and carnivores “evil” is a misnomer. But we’ll go with it anyway.)
devans99 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:43 pm
2. Asteroid strikes are evil. Intelligent dinosaurs would have evolved instead which would have been better than humans.
Okay, so an asteroid not striking the earth would have been absolutely good for the dinosaurs, but on the other hand it would have been bad/evil for mammals (humans). You need to stop ignoring the fact that there are contrasting perspectives implicit in your examples.
And furthermore, why in the world would you assume that dinosaurs would have evolved into something “better” than humans? ?
?
devans99 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:43 pm
In general, anything that causes pain is evil and anything that causes pleasure is good.
A sadist derives pleasure from inflicting pain on others. Is that good?
The investors in the stocks of
Lockheed Martin derive pleasure from the dividends they receive from the manufacturing and selling of military drones that aid in the slaughter of innocent civilians. Is that good?
A nation of greedy and aggressive humans derive pleasure from the spoils they collect (oil and other resources) after vanquishing other nations. Is that good?
(There are too many examples to enumerate.)
devans99 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:43 pm
This is applied to a group rather than individuals (so the lion eating the Zebra is evil because the Zebra's pain outweighs the Lion's pleasure).
It’s not the lion’s pleasure being considered here, it is the lion’s survival – a survival based on evolution not equipping it with the necessary digestive system to be a herbivore.
Therefore, by extrapolation, you must ultimately blame Mother Nature (evolution) or God (the designer) for what you are designating as being the evil aspects of the universe.
Are you thus prepared to say that God is evil?
devans99 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:43 pm
When you apply this approach to the planet as a whole, all animals would be vegetarians. Humans would care for each other and the animals. We would build technology to harness and control nature so as to eliminate the evil aspects for ourselves and the animals.
Ah yes, the illusive dream of an earthly utopia (with John Lennon’s song “IMAGINE” softly playing in the background).
What you are describing reminds me of one of those scenes on the cover of a
Watchtower/Awake magazine (published by the Jehovah's Witnesses) where vacuous, Stepford Wifey-ish humans are busily gathering fruits and berries in an idyllic setting, while a child, a lion, and a lamb are frolicking together in the foreground of the image.
I personally believe that the universe would be sadly diminished in its excitement and vibrancy if majestic lions and tigers and wolves were somehow stripped of their fierceness.
I have blathered-on long enough for now.
_______
PhilX