Interesting. I don't find that "obvious" at all. But perhaps you have reasons for finding it obvious, so I'm ready to hear them, if you have such.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 1:55 pmIs there an "objective" definition of evil that we can refer to? The answer seems to be no, there is not.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 11:21 pmIt's not my word. It's the general-use one, of course. But there isn't general agreement on what it means -- not that general agreement would keep that agreement from being a delusion. When we use the term, we could, of course, all be just imagining properties that simply are not real. So even if we all believed that, say abortion is evil, that would not tell us whether or not abortion IS evil.
It's certainly not the case that if people have different definitions of something then there can be no true definition. All that implies is that large numbers of people can be wrong, and that sometimes smaller numbers of people can be right...but we know that, of course. I would hesitate to attribute any error so transparent to your argument, so I will forbear to think it.
Instead, I'll await your better argument, if I may.
I don't see why we'd accept that. Why not argue, instead, that "evil" (when accurately and objectively understood) is a universal reality? For if we fail to identify anything universal as "evil," then we fall prey to social relativism -- which implies again that there is objectively no such thing as "evil," and again we're back to having no leg for any theodicy problem to stand on.It will simplify things for us if we accept that the word evil is uniquely bound up with Christian concepts. So, properly speaking, it is a Christian notion.
I don't think you want to "give away the game" so quickly, and simply to surrender to the suggestion that "evil" is a specifically Christian concept ONLY, do you? That would imply that, say, Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. are simply out of luck for any hope of an objective conception of "evil," and hence that the theodicy problem would be one that only Christians could even entertain. But I don't think that's at all obvious: Muslims do talk about "evil," as do many other people groups; and there is both difference and overlaps between them. So it makes sense to focus on finding whatever common ground can be justified as "evil," doesn't it? And if "evil" has any objective reality as a concept, then it would be the only possible strategy -- relegating it, as an objective concept, to Christians alone would position Christians the only genuinely morally aware people.
Not at all, actually. We're already at a deeper level than the merely sociological and particular. We're asking a question about universal intelligibility of a fundamental concept necessary for a skeptical allegation.Here, you are operating within your evangelists project.More importantly than that, nobody seems to know exactly what the word "evil" refers to as a property, or what justifies our feeling that we *ought*, or are owed, to have less of it around.
The question is rather: what justification has the skeptic for contending that "god" or "the universe" is somehow culpable of allowing "evil," if we think no such concept as "evil" has reference to objective reality?