The problem of evil

[Age]

“And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” Corinthians 11:144

Which is JUST 'you', adult human beings, when 'you' ARE ACTING all 'high and mighty' and/or 'above' "others", as some might say.

[Age]

The problem of evil that most plagues us [still] is this...that behaviors some call evil others call good. Then what?

We can distinguish between evil and good behavior.

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?

Also, different folks living different lives actually confronting how their own understanding of evil is rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein.

Why it is so?

To wit:

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 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?

But 'this' IS NOT 'common sense' AT ALL.

In fact 'this' IS, literally, LOOKING AT 'things' FROM a VERY 'uncommon' 'sense'.

Or have philosophers managed to come up with a genuine one-size-fits-all set of moral obligations...given any particular context?

The ANSWER TO 'this CLARIFYING QUESTION' IS A RESOUNDING, YES.

And, I suggest, given the psychology of objectivism, don't hold your breath expecting that to change.

What do you mean?

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.

Centuries pass and neither scientists nor philosophers nor theologians have been able to link us deontologically to objective morality.

I am not talking about objective morality.

Okay, in regard to issues like abortion and gun control and human sexuality, how do you construe the problem of evil?

VERY EASILY, and VERY SIMPLY, INDEED.

Given that there is no objective morality?

BUT WHO is 'it' WHO IS CLAIMING that there IS NOT?

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.

WHY do 'you' PRESUME TO ALREADY KNOW that:

1. That so-called 'human morality' IS an EVER 'evolving and changing' 'thing'?

2. That there is NO God?

Do 'you' ALREADY HAVE ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF FOR BOTH OF 'these CLAIMS' OF 'yours' here?

[Walker]

I think I agree with you that evil could be right in given circumstances.

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.

One of the ranchers said it was tried ten years ago, and back then the very first night after release, the wolves killed a herd of forty sheep. They didn't eat them, they just slaughtered them.

There are probably natural reasons why such as, establishing their terrority, which is a biggie for wolves.

In this real-life situation, where is the evil? The evil is in the ignorance that put apex predators where they had not been, and for good reason.

The proof that something happened is proof that it had to happen, however, that does not mean that man has the God-like perspective to see the totality, and judge good or bad on that basis. Like a dog though, a human does have the capacity to perceive evil, and it's usually in terms of survival.

They say that Hitler liked dogs, but did his dog think he was evil, and simply licked his hand to survive?

[Age]

We can distinguish between evil and good behavior.

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?

Also, different folks living different lives actually confronting how their own understanding of evil is rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein.

Why it is so?

To wit:

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 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?

Yes, morality is subjective. So what?

And, I suggest, given the psychology of objectivism, don't hold your breath expecting that to change.

What do you mean?

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.

Centuries pass and neither scientists nor philosophers nor theologians have been able to link us deontologically to objective morality.

I am not talking about 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.

I am mainly talking about natural evil here

Define 'natural evil' here?

From what 'you' appear to be IMAGINING what is INVOLVED IN 'natural evil' IS NOT 'evil' AT ALL, in ANY way, shape, NOR form.

As has ALREADY BEEN INFORMED TO 'you', "bahman", above here.

since I don't want to enter into a discussion of whether morality is objective or subjective.

'This' here is ONE WAY of GETTING OUT OF one's OWN CONTRADICTIONS and/or INCONSISTENCIES here.

Simply people die and suffer for no specific reason

'This' here IS OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.

and that should not be the case in the creation of a God who is good.

Talk ABOUT ANOTHER PRIME example OF CONFLATING and/or MISCONSTRUING 'things' SO MUCH that one has COMPLETELY and UTTERLY DELUDED "its" OWN 'self'.

[Age]

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?

Yes, morality is subjective. So what?

Right.

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...?

And, I suggest, given the psychology of objectivism, don't hold your breath expecting that to change.

What do you mean?

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.

Centuries pass and neither scientists nor philosophers nor theologians have been able to link us deontologically to objective morality.

I am not talking about 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.

I am mainly talking about natural evil here since I don't want to enter into a discussion of whether morality is objective or subjective. Simply people die and suffer for no specific reason and that should not be the case in the creation of a God who is good.

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?

EVERY 'thing'.

[Age]

Yes, morality is subjective. So what?

Right.

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...?

Yes, some people trying hard to prove that morality is objective. Such a vain.

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.

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.

I am mainly talking about natural evil here since I don't want to enter into a discussion of whether morality is objective or subjective. Simply people die and suffer for no specific reason and that should not be the case in the creation of a God who is good.

Natural evil? Meaning what...a Sin against God? ...that somehow the universe itself [as pantheists suggest] encompasses good and evil?

The whole story of Adam is fake.

But then again what does that mean for all practical purposes in regard to particular sets of circumstances?

I don't understand what this question is referring to.

And what can we mere mortals possibly know about Good and Evil from the perspective of God?

We can define good and evil and can agree on definitions.

GREAT.

So, WHO OF 'us' IS GOING TO START HERE-NOW?

[Age]

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,

Are 'you' here suggesting that 'you', adult human beings, do NOT have 'evil intentions'?

Or, are 'you' here suggesting that 'you', adult human beings, are NOT 'animals'?

Or, are 'you' here suggesting some 'thing' ELSE?

they act according to the laws of nature, so their actions are not perceived as evil, unless it is directed against a person who sees evil intent in anything that harms him.
Not that people can violate the laws of nature,

HOW, and WHEN, EXACTLY?

but when we raise our ego above nature, we come into conflict with it and its laws, and this also leads to a result that is called "evil intent".

[Age]

... Kindness in this case is evil because of evil intent.

And without people, who else could have anything to do with evil intent? Evil intention is a purely human invention, and you should not blame god or the mirror for your ugly face.

I am talking about natural evil rather than evils committed by humans.

BUT there is NO such 'thing' as so-called 'natural evil', FROM what 'you' ARE IMAGINING, PRESUMING, and/or BELIEVING here.

[Age]

There is no "problem of Evil" since there is no such thing as evil.

Good and evil are adjectival.

Of course, there is a thing as evil and good.

No.
What is evil for one is good for the other and Vice versa.

Will 'you' PROVIDE ANY examples?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[Age]

And without people, who else could have anything to do with evil intent? Evil intention is a purely human invention, and you should not blame god or the mirror for your ugly face.

I am talking about natural evil rather than evils committed by humans.

Name one "natural evil"! And tell us what makes it problematic. For what?

GREAT CLARIFYING QUESTION. Now let 'us' SEE IF 'we' GET AN ANSWER/CLARITY, or NOT.

[Age]

Of course, there is a thing as evil and good.

No.
What is evil for one is good for the other and Vice versa.

It does not matter even if that is true.

What does the 'that' word here REFER TO, EXACTLY?

Have you ever seen a person who lost all his family members and properties to a flood?

Maybe. But I have NOT been MADE AWARE of 'this'.

Can such a person feel good?

Now, OBVIOUSLY the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS was NOT ANSWERED/CLARIFIED.

Anyway, YES such 'a person' can feel 'good'.

WHY do 'you' ASK? Were 'you' UNDER some sort of ILLUSION that 'a person' who has lost ALL of 'their' family members and properties TO 'a flood' could NEVER feel 'good' EVER AGAIN?

[Age]

I am talking about natural evil rather than evils committed by humans.

Name one "natural evil"! And tell us what makes it problematic. For what?

Earthquake. I think that would be a problem for you. Isn't it?

NEVER.

Now that 'you' HAVE SHOWN and REVEALED just HOW CONFUSED 'you' ARE ABOUT 'evil', itself, would 'you' now like to EXPLAIN HOW and WHY an earthquake could or would EVER be an ACTUAL 'problem', itself?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[Age]

The problem of evil refers to natural evils that are caused by God.

BUT 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.

God is assumed to be good though so there is a tension between the existence of a good God and natural evils.

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.

People use this problem as an argument against the existence of God.

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.

God however could be good and evil,

BUT God, by the WORKING definition, could NOT be evil, as 'this' WOULD BE 'self-contradictory' and/or just 'self-refuting'.

so His creation is as well good and evil.

BUT ONLY IF God could be evil. Which, OBVIOUSLY, God, Itself IS NOT, AND could NOT.

So the problem of evil is resolved.

BUT there WAS NO 'problem', from the outset, and there NEVER IS A 'problem' here.

Where do you take the fact that God is good?

FROM the Fact of WHO and WHAT God IS, EXACTLY.

[Age]

There is no "problem of Evil" since there is no such thing as evil.

Good and evil are adjectival.

Of course, there is the problem of evil. Not in the sense that evil or good are things but in the sense that they define the quality of an action, situation etc.

- Everything that exists has a purpose.
- Evil exists, therefore evil has a purpose.
- What is the purpose of evil?

TO TEACH 'you', adult human beings, what IS, ACTUALLY, Wrong, IN Life.

After all 'you', adult human beings, LEARN BEST BY and FROM 'your' MISTAKES, and/or Wrong DOINGS.

- 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.

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?

- 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.

[Age]

Of course, there is the problem of evil. Not in the sense that evil or good are things but in the sense that they define the quality of an action, situation etc.

- 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.

I think I agree with you that evil could be right in given circumstances.

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'.