The problem of evil

[nemos]

Does evil exist in Heaven?

I'm not entirely sure what "heaven" is, but I am sure that evil and its opposite are purely human qualities, thanks to which only man has the ability to do it. Killing happens all the time in nature, but it is not seen as evil. And only a person is able to turn the most innocent things into evil, for example: show kindness 99 times to deceive to gain benefit yourself for the 100th time. How do you like to judge kindness as evil?

[Dontaskme]

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

[iambiguous]

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

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.

[bahman]

Does evil exist in Heaven?

I'm not entirely sure what "heaven" is, but I am sure that evil and its opposite are purely human qualities, thanks to which only man has the ability to do it. Killing happens all the time in nature, but it is not seen as evil. And only a person is able to turn the most innocent things into evil, for example: show kindness 99 times to deceive to gain benefit yourself for the 100th time. How do you like to judge kindness as evil?

Ahan, I thought you are Cristian but it seems not. Kindness in this case is evil because of evil intent.

[bahman]

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? 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 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.

[iambiguous]

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?

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?

[bahman]

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...?

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

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?

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.

[nemos]

... 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.

[nemos]

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, 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, 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".

[bahman]

... 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.

[bahman]

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, 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, 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".

Do you believe that human has free will?

[Sculptor]

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

Good and evil are adjectival.

[bahman]

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.

[Sculptor]

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.

[Sculptor]

... 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.

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