EVIL!!!!!!!!

[Dubious]

Nothing whatever to do with god and everything to do with human nature. Most often we question god on the subject rather than ourselves which is a way of debating it as something external to us. The real story of evil is far less grand being simply ensconced in a twisted piece of flesh that is the brain replete with its own debased and corruptible mental memes easier explained by psychology than philosophy.

A fine set of Christmas wishes, Dub!

Merry Christmas!

Merely responding to the title of the OP there Quirk. Nothing more.

...and a Merry Christmas to you as well!

[Immanuel Can]

But what makes evil "evil," dub?

Are you saying you haven't lived long enough to know??

If this were a reasonable answer, then you'd be implying that people "just know," by instinct. And maybe they do: but it would take a lot of elaborate explaining to explain how they do; or why we know that when they do, they're right.

Worse still for that simplistic answer, is that different people and cultures hold to different moral values. How does one go about explaining that, for example, homosexuality is fine in 'Frisco, but will get you killed in Syria? It looks very much as though these "intuition" people are having are rather different.

The Big Bang does not supply values. There is, then, no evil, and no good -- only what is.

Pray! What does the BB have to do with it?

The BB is an accident in space. If that's our origin point, then from where do morals come, and how are they to be shown legitimate?

In short, no evil, no good, the whole enchilada of existence signifying NOTHING!

Then your earlier claim that the brain is "twisted" or "debased" or "corruptible," and your claim that "evil" comes from there -- these are really things you do not believe -- or if you still believe them, then you believe them without good reason, and you cannot warrant them rationally.

Or can you? What's your warrant for calling anything "evil"? (or "twisted," or "debased," or whatever such word you wish to use in its place).

[Dubious]

What's your warrant for calling anything "evil"? (or "twisted," or "debased," or whatever such word you wish to use in its place).

Let's say because I'd notice a distinct difference in quality between someone who'd like to exterminate me for nothing more than being a Jew and someone who was trying to save me at the possible cost of his own life though that person may not be a Jew. This happened not so rarely in Germany where even Goebbels complained that there isn't a German who doesn't have a Jew to hide. I'm sure that in practice the distinction was evident for both Jew and Christian without requiring any intense analysis by philosophers.

[Immanuel Can]

What's your warrant for calling anything "evil"? (or "twisted," or "debased," or whatever such word you wish to use in its place).

Let's say because I'd notice a distinct difference in quality between someone who'd like to exterminate me for nothing more than being a Jew and someone who was trying to save me at the possible cost of his own life though that person may not be a Jew. This happened not so rarely in Germany where even Goebbels complained that there isn't a German who doesn't have a Jew to hide. I'm sure that in practice the distinction was evident for both Jew and Christian without requiring any intense analysis by philosophers.

A distinction? Yes. But not one of the same value, apparently.

The Nazis had a very different way of describing that situation: that the progress of the race was being impeded by people who had an unhealthy sympathy with "vermin," and thus did not yet grasp that the Master Race must be created for the good of humanity and the progress of history.

They believed it. You can see they believed it, because of what they were prepared to do in order to back that. If, then, it's just your intuition telling you things, by what line of reasoning do you prove that the Nazis and their many sympathizers were doing, or being "evil"?

Moreover, why shouldn't anybody be, or do what you call "evil," if they think it's in their strategic or practical advantage to do so -- as it so often is? After all, there's no master-code out there to prove that one action that looks strategic or practical is any morally "wronger" than any other.

[BardoXV]

But what makes evil "evil," dub?

Are you saying you haven't lived long enough to know?? You need philosophy to figure that out!

A person usually knows what is good or evil for themselves, but it takes a bit of learning to figure out what is good or not for others. Philosophy is one way to learn that.

[henry quirk]

"In short, no evil, no good, the whole enchilada of existence signifying NOTHING!"

Nah, Reality is just drippin' with meaning.

[henry quirk]

Nothing whatever to do with god and everything to do with human nature. Most often we question god on the subject rather than ourselves which is a way of debating it as something external to us. The real story of evil is far less grand being simply ensconced in a twisted piece of flesh that is the brain replete with its own debased and corruptible mental memes easier explained by psychology than philosophy.

A fine set of Christmas wishes, Dub!

Merry Christmas!

Merely responding to the title of the OP there Quirk. Nothing more.

...and a Merry Christmas to you as well!

To us all.

[BardoXV]

A distinction? Yes. But not one of the same value, apparently.

The Nazis had a very different way of describing that situation: that the progress of the race was being impeded by people who had an unhealthy sympathy with "vermin," and thus did not yet grasp that the Master Race must be created for the good of humanity and the progress of history.

They believed it. You can see they believed it, because of what they were prepared to do in order to back that. If, then, it's just your intuition telling you things, by what line of reasoning do you prove that the Nazis and their many sympathizers were doing, or being "evil"?

Moreover, why shouldn't anybody be, or do what you call "evil," if they think it's in their strategic or practical advantage to do so -- as it so often is? After all, there's no master-code out there to prove that one action that looks strategic or practical is any morally "wronger" than any other.

With any moral code there are differences and exceptions, you just need to find and justify them.

[Immanuel Can]

With any moral code there are differences and exceptions, you just need to find and justify them.

Right. And he made Nazism a paradigm case of evil. So he can go ahead.

How does he justify the claim that Nazism is evil? They think they're good.

[Dubious]

With any moral code there are differences and exceptions, you just need to find and justify them.

Right. And he made Nazism a paradigm case of evil. So he can go ahead.

How does he justify the claim that Nazism is evil? They think they're good.

...and also don't forget that every pathological liar has the right to feel insulted when others call him a liar.

Btw, the Nazis never considered themselves good, just good for some things based on their agendas.

My question to you would be if people aren't responsible for evil in this world (whether or not they think themselves as good) then who or what is?

[Dubious]

A distinction? Yes. But not one of the same value, apparently.

The Nazis had a very different way of describing that situation: that the progress of the race was being impeded by people who had an unhealthy sympathy with "vermin," and thus did not yet grasp that the Master Race must be created for the good of humanity and the progress of history.

They believed it. You can see they believed it, because of what they were prepared to do in order to back that. If, then, it's just your intuition telling you things, by what line of reasoning do you prove that the Nazis and their many sympathizers were doing, or being "evil"?

Moreover, why shouldn't anybody be, or do what you call "evil," if they think it's in their strategic or practical advantage to do so -- as it so often is? After all, there's no master-code out there to prove that one action that looks strategic or practical is any morally "wronger" than any other.

With any moral code there are differences and exceptions, you just need to find and justify them.

That's never been a problem for humans whether done on a secular or religious basis. Free Will, to the extent it's free, allows itself to plant any moral codes it likes wherever, whenever. There is really no mystery in any of this.

[Immanuel Can]

My question to you would be if people aren't responsible for evil in this world (whether or not they think themselves as good) then who or what is?

I didn't say people weren't responsible for evil in this world. I asked how you know that what some of the people do is evil -- especially when they regard it as good.

As a Theist, I can always refer to revealed morality. But if one is a secular person, that's not a legit move, since one then doesn't actually believe there's a God to reveal any moral truths.

So, then, how does a secular person know what is morally true? In particular, if he feels he knows what "evil" is, when he sees it, how does he justify that to himself so as to know he's right? Feelings are often deceptive, after all; and other people clearly have opposite moral intuitions.

[Immanuel Can]

There is really no mystery in any of this.

Then I fear you've misunderstood the question.

The question is not, "Can people have feelings about moral values?" because clearly they can have all kinds of feelings. The question is, "How can one prove to oneself that one's moral feelings and values are justified rather than merely arbitrary or contingent?"

[Dubious]

There is really no mystery in any of this.

Then I fear you've misunderstood the question.

The question is not, "Can people have feelings about moral values?" because clearly they can have all kinds of feelings. The question is, "How can one prove to oneself that one's moral feelings and values are justified rather than merely arbitrary or contingent?"

There is nothing to decide that except what a civilisation collectively or a person privately decides is moral. As I said there is no mystery to any of this. This is especially the case if, as you state, the Big Bang is simply an accident which presupposes that everything in it is also an accident including all of its gods.

But you still haven't said what in your mind constitutes evil as an independent entity and what power it was that proclaimed it! Your revealed version of morality isn't any more certain than any other of the more secular types simply because you cannot truly know what you accept as revealed must, because it's so claimed or written, be concluded as true. You have only anchored yourself to its so-called revealment which was your own arbitrary choice to make. In short, you're in the same boat as everyone else when it comes down to substantiating your morality as something above and beyond. In summary, morals remain relative even when they are chosen as revealed and inviolable since the proof of its inviolability can never be made manifest.

[Ansiktsburk]

With any moral code there are differences and exceptions, you just need to find and justify them.

Right. And he made Nazism a paradigm case of evil. So he can go ahead.

How does he justify the claim that Nazism is evil? They think they're good.

...and also don't forget that every pathological liar has the right to feel insulted when others call him a liar.

Btw, the Nazis never considered themselves good, just good for some things based on their agendas.

My question to you would be if people aren't responsible for evil in this world (whether or not they think themselves as good) then who or what is?

There are some written material left from eg.Goebbels and Hitler. To me it seems, having read parts of his diary, like Goebbels was evil. Cunning, intelligent and sly, Hitler was less evil but worse. He really believed he was right. His suicidal letter was written with no remorse, his hate of jews was unquenced. The kind of attitude that makes people even more dangerous. Evil is bad, bad conviction is worse.