EVIL!!!!!!!!

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2113
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: f12

Post by Greatest I am » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:12 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:13 am
We can waste a whole of time debatin' the source of evil: I prefer to just deal with what is -- on a practical level -- 'evil'.

In a nutshell: willingly, knowingly, deprivin' another of his life, liberty, or property is evil, yeah? Evil, then is not thinkin', but action (acts).
Yet if you saw a bank robber about to kill an innocent by-stander, and you could and did not kill him and allowed him to kill, you would likely be jailed as well.

Depriving another of his life, can sometimes be the right thing to do. That is why most moral decisions are all subjective.

Regards
DL

Walker
Posts: 6816
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Walker » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:13 pm

f12hte wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:49 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:55 am
I think of "evil" as the other end of the spectrum from "divine". Both terms can be applied in many different ways -- so intent is made clear by the context they're used in.
So your reference point is 'the divine'. So you are saying the divine is the source of both good and evil, because setting out the 'good' automatically completes the dichotomy, by showing that what is not good is evil? Or are there certain things that can resist being classified as good or evil? And if one thing can be classified that way, why not all things?
You must realize, she excludes God from "divine."

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2113
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Greatest I am » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:19 pm

f12hte wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:06 pm

But, nowhere, is absolute morality to be found.
Only if you ignore what nature teaches us.

Humans default to doing good via cooperation and some might call that absolute morality as if fosters life instead of death.

Regards
DL

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4765
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

GIA

Post by henry quirk » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:00 pm

"Yet if you saw a bank robber about to kill an innocent by-stander, and you could and did not kill him and allowed him to kill, you would likely be jailed as well."

No, that's not the way American law works. If I were I cop, I'd have a legal obligation to intervene, but I'm not a cop. That's not to say I wouldn't have a moral obligation to intervene if I had the means to stop the bad guy (cuz I would have such an obligation if, and only if, I had the means). But, to risk myself against an armed man when I'm unarmed is just stupid (and immoral...if I die playin' unarmed hero how is that fair for my 13 year old who depends on me for everything?).

#

"Depriving another of his life, can sometimes be the right thing to do. That is why most moral decisions are all subjective."

Sure: as I say elsewhere in forum, 'your right to your life, liberty, and property is only forfeit, in part or in whole, when you willingly, knowingly deprive another of his life, liberty, or property'. Your bank robber, should he willingly, knowingly, threaten an innocent bystander needs to be stopped (though not necessarily killed). and if he kills the innocent his life is forfeit.

There's a distinction to be made here...

There is natural law (the self-ownership and right to life, liberty, and property I mention up-thread) which is constant and fixed and plain; then there's the countless subjective choices each person makes as it relates to the natural law.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 608
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Sculptor » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:28 pm

f12hte wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:19 pm
Evil. What is it's source? Is it just a subjective idea in each person's mind? If God made all things, then is he the ultimate source of evil? Or is 'evil' even a thing? Or is it just a subjective idea? Or is it a human or even universal idea, in some respect? And if it is a universal idea, in what mind or matter does it exist? If evil exists, how did it come to be?

I hold a unique view of the world borne of my unique set of life experiences.

My unique worldview gives me a unique perspective on what is good and what is bad.

When I do a good thing, i think that the good reverberates down through the ages, since good actions engender knock-on good actions.

Ditto for when I do something that I consider bad.

So, the bad that I do is borne of my environment, filled with the knock-on effects of others' deeds, going back an eternity.

So evil, or at least culpability, has no origin? And if it has no origin, then how can it be said to exist?
Are you seriously suggesting that "evil" is some sort of primal force of nature like gravity. I suppose that "good" is likewise a force of nature?
How would you account that the simple observed fact that what is one person's good is another person's evil and Vice Versa?
Hobbes had it when he said that which is good is that which pleases man; Evil is that which pleases him not.

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2113
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: GIA

Post by Greatest I am » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:49 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:00 pm
"Yet if you saw a bank robber about to kill an innocent by-stander, and you could and did not kill him and allowed him to kill, you would likely be jailed as well."

No, that's not the way American law works. If I were I cop, I'd have a legal obligation to intervene, but I'm not a cop. That's not to say I wouldn't have a moral obligation to intervene if I had the means to stop the bad guy (cuz I would have such an obligation if, and only if, I had the means). But, to risk myself against an armed man when I'm unarmed is just stupid (and immoral...if I die playin' unarmed hero how is that fair for my 13 year old who depends on me for everything?).

#

"Depriving another of his life, can sometimes be the right thing to do. That is why most moral decisions are all subjective."

Sure: as I say elsewhere in forum, 'your right to your life, liberty, and property is only forfeit, in part or in whole, when you willingly, knowingly deprive another of his life, liberty, or property'. Your bank robber, should he willingly, knowingly, threaten an innocent bystander needs to be stopped (though not necessarily killed). and if he kills the innocent his life is forfeit.

There's a distinction to be made here...

There is natural law (the self-ownership and right to life, liberty, and property I mention up-thread) which is constant and fixed and plain; then there's the countless subjective choices each person makes as it relates to the natural law.
The only right anyone has is what he can claim and fight for on his own.

What natural law gives you the right to life?
Liberty is a legal term and your right to liberty can be taken from you by the law whenever it wants.
You likely meant freedom which is a stupid word that cannot really be applied to humans as we are the most insecure and weak animal on the planet and we can never be free.
As to property. buy a piece of land anywhere and see how long you can keep it if the governments want to expropriate it.

Regards
DL

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2113
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Greatest I am » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:56 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:28 pm

Are you seriously suggesting that "evil" is some sort of primal force of nature like gravity. I suppose that "good" is likewise a force of nature?
How would you account that the simple observed fact that what is one person's good is another person's evil and Vice Versa?
Hobbes had it when he said that which is good is that which pleases man; Evil is that which pleases him not.
I would like to comment on this and did in that rather longish post on page one.

Yes, human against human evil is natural and so is good.
We default to good to a point where science is having a hard time explaining why we are so good.
We default to evil as a last resort.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADgh3yCSdM

Regards
DL

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4765
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:13 pm

"The only right anyone has is what he can claim and fight for on his own."

No, your self-ownership, your right to your life, liberty, and property, is intrinsic to you. Whether you can successfully defend yourself or not doesn't negate that self-ownership or right to life, liberty, and property, no, it only means someone one else is wrong in depriving you of yourself (life, liberty, or property).

#

"What natural law gives you the right to life?"

Natural law describes what it 'is (the individual self-owns)'. It doesn't stop fire from singein' my keister or thieves from takin' my wallet. No my keister and wallet have to be defended by me.

#

"Liberty is a legal term and your right to liberty can be taken from you by the law whenever it wants."

Locke would disagree; I do disagree. Liberty is not merely a legal term, and -- yeah -- bad law, by bad law makers, can be exercised against me but that doesn't make it right.

#

"As to property. buy a piece of land anywhere and see how long you can keep it if the governments want to expropriate it."

So, as you reckon it, here is no moral dimension to Reality, no right or wrong. So: should government take you, force you to labor, this is A-OK, yeah? If not: why?

You say: "Depriving another of his life, can sometimes be the right thing to do."

If Reality is amoral: how can it be the right thing or the wrong thing? If it's all subjective: why is it wrong for the fella to rob the bank? Why is it right that I should stop him from killin' a bystander?

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2113
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re:

Post by Greatest I am » Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:57 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:13 pm
"The only right anyone has is what he can claim and fight for on his own."

No, your self-ownership, your right to your life, liberty, and property, is intrinsic to you. Whether you can successfully defend yourself or not doesn't negate that self-ownership or right to life, liberty, and property, no, it only means someone one else is wrong in depriving you of yourself (life, liberty, or property).

#

"What natural law gives you the right to life?"

Natural law describes what it 'is (the individual self-owns)'. It doesn't stop fire from singein' my keister or thieves from takin' my wallet. No my keister and wallet have to be defended by me.

#

"Liberty is a legal term and your right to liberty can be taken from you by the law whenever it wants."

Locke would disagree; I do disagree. Liberty is not merely a legal term, and -- yeah -- bad law, by bad law makers, can be exercised against me but that doesn't make it right.

#

"As to property. buy a piece of land anywhere and see how long you can keep it if the governments want to expropriate it."

So, as you reckon it, here is no moral dimension to Reality, no right or wrong. So: should government take you, force you to labor, this is A-OK, yeah? If not: why?

You say: "Depriving another of his life, can sometimes be the right thing to do."

If Reality is amoral: how can it be the right thing or the wrong thing? If it's all subjective: why is it wrong for the fella to rob the bank? Why is it right that I should stop him from killin' a bystander?
You are all over the map.

"it 'is (the individual self-owns)'."

At what age does one become self-owned?
Not a baby, not a toddler not anyone who has not reached the age of reason.

If you see someone about to murder and do not kill him if you can, then not killing him is immoral.

Regards
DL

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 608
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Sculptor » Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:21 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:28 pm

Are you seriously suggesting that "evil" is some sort of primal force of nature like gravity. I suppose that "good" is likewise a force of nature?
How would you account that the simple observed fact that what is one person's good is another person's evil and Vice Versa?
Hobbes had it when he said that which is good is that which pleases man; Evil is that which pleases him not.
I would like to comment on this and did in that rather longish post on page one.

Yes, human against human evil is natural and so is good.
We default to good to a point where science is having a hard time explaining why we are so good.
We default to evil as a last resort.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADgh3yCSdM

Regards
DL
No I do not think you have answered the point at all.
We know people do good and bad things. But there being good or bad is generally dependant on POV.
As for the video..
Dawkins struggling with Altruism is just an embarrassment to many people who find goodness near to their own way of life. Natural Selection results in a variety of strategies, that are not determined by eventual outcomes, but given by the results of survival. Evolution is not expected to get everything perfectly right. Darwin's theory does not have to result in every single act only working to promote the genes doing the act.
So, in general an altruistic attitude tends to result in good co-operative acts which promote the wider family. But since there is no DIRECT feedback mechanism, altruism of a dog bitch in suckling kittens; or a lioness adopting a baboon baby does not fly against natural selection in any sense, because traits are generalising, they cannot hope to always be specific. Cross species acts of altruism, or altruism for one's own species for people a thousand miles away simply underlines the fact of Natural Selection, without doing anything to argue against it.
Cases of psychopathy where individuals were wholly self centred are rare, but are able to thrive on the backs of those that are more generally well disposed to help others. One has to imagine what a world would be like if everyone were psychopathic. It would not be very successful at all.

I was arguing against the absurd notion that "evil" or "good" are forces of nature. They are simply not. Even a psycho can do good things - that is to say act according to another's benefit, though the psycho might have ulterior motives, the act can result in good.
Let us imagine that a psycho wishing to lure another person into their will, continues to provide nice things to that person; food, lifts, job offers, outings. Now let us imagine that his target is also a psycho and feels no obligation but is using the association for their own benefit. The acts are still good for the target. We could easily enough re-arrange the combination; two psychos; two non psychos; and one of each vice versa. The acts would be good acts, but the outcomes would be different.

An act to save a person's life might be well intentioned yet do evil. Whereas killing intended as evil might do good. It would not take much imagination to find such examples. But where is "evil" as a force?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4765
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:52 pm

"At what age does one become self-owned? Not a baby, not a toddler not anyone who has not reached the age of reason."

Yeah, if you really have an interest in my view (I don't think you do), go to the two recent abortion threads ('person or meat?' and 'BOLLOCKS'). Having wasted a whole buncha time and energy in those threads layin' out my positions I'm not inclined to do it all over again here.

#

"If you see someone about to murder and do not kill him if you can, then not killing him is immoral."

Why? If there is no moral dimension to Reality (no natural law), if morality is wholly subjective, then why is it immoral for me to not stop the killing? Why is it immoral for your bank robber to kill the innocent bystander?

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Lacewing » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:29 am

f12hte wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:49 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:55 am
I think of "evil" as the other end of the spectrum from "divine". Both terms can be applied in many different ways -- so intent is made clear by the context they're used in.
So your reference point is 'the divine'. So you are saying the divine is the source of both good and evil, because setting out the 'good' automatically completes the dichotomy, by showing that what is not good is evil? Or are there certain things that can resist being classified as good or evil? And if one thing can be classified that way, why not all things?
I'll try to clarify. I'm using the word divine to mean sacred, heavenly, celestial (love, light, and expansion) -- as opposed to (say) hate-filled and vile destructiveness and terror (dense darkness). I see "Divine" and "Evil" as manmade labels (with these opposite meanings) assigned in varying ways to all SORTS of CREATIONS. It depends on the situation, perspective, and context. The Universe has a vast range of creative potential (and energies) which can be identified by man as divine or evil. Ultimately, however, it's ALL creativity. There is no reference point, and there are no rules. For man, living on this stage, the creations that come across it seem/are "real" enough for the sensation/experience, and he will label them as he sees fit. But it's like being engrossed in a movie, until the lights in the theater come on and remind you that there's actually MUCH MORE to Universal potential than ONE SET OF temporary flashes/flickers across a screen, no matter how engrossing and serious (and all-encompassing) they may seem for a moment. I think creative potential is being played out on a grand scale. We do our best to understand and navigate through it, but it is so much greater than our human definitions and judgments.

Walker
Posts: 6816
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Walker » Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:51 am

Lacewing wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:29 am
I'll try to clarify. I'm using the word divine to mean sacred, heavenly, celestial (love, light, and expansion) ...
Does your truth also remove God from "heavenly," just as it does for "divine?"

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Lacewing » Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:03 am

Walker wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:51 am
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:29 am
I'll try to clarify. I'm using the word divine to mean sacred, heavenly, celestial (love, light, and expansion) ...
Does your truth also remove God from "heavenly," just as it does for "divine?"
Why does a concept of heaven require a god? Heaven is in your mind. You need to expand beyond your small ideas, Walker. You're trying to limit communication and understanding by defining words very narrowly based on archaic concepts. Let go...and see how much more there is. :lol:

Dachshund
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Dachshund » Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:18 am

Lacewing wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:29 am
f12hte wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:49 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:55 am
I think of "evil" as the other end of the spectrum from "divine". Both terms can be applied in many different ways -- so intent is made clear by the context they're used in.
So your reference point is 'the divine'. So you are saying the divine is the source of both good and evil, because setting out the 'good' automatically completes the dichotomy, by showing that what is not good is evil? Or are there certain things that can resist being classified as good or evil? And if one thing can be classified that way, why not all things?
I'll try to clarify. I'm using the word divine to mean sacred, heavenly, celestial (love, light, and expansion) -- as opposed to (say) hate-filled and vile destructiveness and terror (dense darkness). I see "Divine" and "Evil" as manmade labels (with these opposite meanings) assigned in varying ways to all SORTS of CREATIONS. It depends on the situation, perspective, and context. The Universe has a vast range of creative potential (and energies) which can be identified by man as divine or evil. Ultimately, however, it's ALL creativity. There is no reference point, and there are no rules. For man, living on this stage, the creations that come across it seem/are "real" enough for the sensation/experience, and he will label them as he sees fit. But it's like being engrossed in a movie, until the lights in the theater come on and remind you that there's actually MUCH MORE to Universal potential than ONE SET OF temporary flashes/flickers across a screen, no matter how engrossing and serious (and all-encompassing) they may seem for a moment. I think creative potential is being played out on a grand scale. We do our best to understand and navigate through it, but it is so much greater than our human definitions and judgments.
This paragraph of prose is nothing more than utterly meaningless jibberish. There is nothing more tedious than reading pop mysticism.

Dachshund

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests