Duff questions about Evil

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Imagining myself in the child's place, or in the child's parent's, I experience a sense of horror. Who can say why? Conditioning? A natural response? I only know for sure what I feel.

Good questions, and I submit that they are at the core of the whole issue.

Before humanity existed would it still have been wrong to murder? If so then the concept of good and evil would precede mankind, would it not?

I repeat: why do you have compassion? The child was not yours; for all you knew, it was a test tube baby.

The question really boils down to "Why do I feel compassion for the murdered and anger toward the murderer?" You can choose to reject the decisions of others. Why don't you? In our previous example, the murderer felt pleasure. Why? Madness? Perhaps, but if there is no objective moral law, you cannot challenge him in an obsolute sense.

But this is beside the point. We posit standards and call them good or evil. Or do we? We must ask the question. Also we could ask questions like "If there were no Jewish people, would anti-semitism still be objectively wrong?"

These are legitimate questions, questions which cannot be answered in a materialistic framework. Yet they must be answered or we will live a universe of complete chaos and cruelty.

Originally posted by Ristar
Before humanity existed would it still have been wrong to murder?

Who would there have been to murder? Seems a meaningless question.

Will respond to the rest later.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Who would there have been to murder? Seems a meaningless question.

Will respond to the rest later.

As you say, there would have been no humans. However, there might have been other sentient species (if you subscribe to certain theories). But, again, beside the point.

What about after the fact? Let us say the deed is done and all humans are exterminated to make way for a "hyperspace bypass" (to use a well-known humorous example). No survivors. Would murdering humans still be wrong if there is no Arthur Dent or Trillian to mourn their passing? What if all sentient being were murdered and the universe collapsed and destroyed itself soon afterwards. Now no one is left to speak for the dead (or is there? But that is another issue 🙂 ). Is what was done still wrong?

Pragmatic responses seem to be very practical as pragmatism is to "do whatever works." Unfortunately for pragmatism itself, it doesn't work. That is to say, to take only a short-term view of things is inadequate to address the affecting issues of life.

The truth is that feelings are inadequate to dictate standards of morality; as a certain apologist once said, "In some cultures they love their neighbours, in other cultures they eat their neighbours, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any personal preference?"

During the Nuremberg trials, many Nazis declared their innocence claiming they were only operating according to the law of their own land. One American lawyer said in response, "But Gentlemen, is there not a law above our laws?"

The answer of Nietzsche would be, simply, "No."

Please forgive me, for I don't mean to be offensive in my manner of presentation, but is that what you believe?

Originally posted by Ristar
If I presented to you a live baby human that you had never seen before and then chopped it to bits in front of you, would you say that I had done something evil?

Again, this example is perhaps a bit graphic, but I can think of no better way to drive it home.

Such example serves to prove that Evil or Good exist as constructs of our own conscience and not as absolute concepts.

We define something as evil by our own individual moral stance and how we 'feel' about the action you describe.

Originally posted by Palynka
Such example serves to prove that Evil or Good exist as constructs of our own conscience and not as absolute concepts.

We define something as evil by our own individual moral stance and how we 'feel' about the action you describe.

I disagree. It only serves to show that feelings about deeds exist. We must be careful about what we define as "real." On the one hand we say the the fear and pain of war are "real" and the heroism that takes place in war is only "subjective." The same person then goes on to say that the thrill of a sky-dive is "subjective" and the fear of hitting the ground is "real."

As Chesterton once said, "The modern man goes to a political meeting where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts. Then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting where he proves that they practically are beasts. ... The modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything, he has lost his right to rebell against anything."

The question, in the final analysis, is one of causation. Even if we were all willing to grant that good and evil were mere constructs, where did they come from? Ultimately, from a materialistic standpoint, all originated with the Big Bang. But where did that ultimate singularity originate? Scientists are forced to admit that the ultimate answer to that question lies beyond the reach of physical science. What (or who) shaped all else? Since the Law of Causality prohibits the existence of an infinite regression, we must posit something transcendant and uncaused. What is that something?

Just an addendum: I believe this thread has moved beyond the question of evil existing. Even if evil is a mere construct or conditioning, that still proves that evil exists (even if only in my mind). What is not addressed by the above is if there is an absolute judgement of evil, i.e. if there is someone who can see things exactly as they are and say rightly, "Such-and-such is wrong." Man is not in that position.

Once again the question of causality surfaces. Just wanted to add that before I forgot it. 😉

Originally posted by Ristar
I disagree. It only serves to show that feelings about deeds exist. We must be careful about what we define as "real." On the one hand we say the the fear and pain of war are "real" and the heroism that takes place in war is only "subjective." The same person then goes on to say that the thrill of a sky-dive is "subjective" and the fear of hitting the gro ...[text shortened]... ression, we must posit something transcendant and uncaused. What is that something?

We're not debating the origin of the universe.

Evil or good are characterizations of other acts, and these characterizations are intrinsic to each individual's moral standpoint. An individual may find an act evil, while another may not find it evil at all. Take abortion, for example. This means that such characterizations are relativistic and ultimately related with cultural phenomena allied with individual standpoints.

I can't continue now, I'll be back.

Originally posted by Palynka
Evil or good are characterizations of other acts, and these characterizations are intrinsic to each individual's moral standpoint. An individual may find an act evil, while another may not find it evil at all. Take abortion, for example. This means that such characterizations are relativistic and ultimately related with cultural phenomena allied with individual standpoints.

An alternate viewpoint would be that evil and good are characteristics of acts. Individuals may identify those characteristics rightly or wrongly. When two people disagree on the morality of a particular action, one or both of them would simply be wrong.

Originally posted by Palynka
We're not debating the origin of the universe.

Once again, I must disagree. The question of origin is of ultimate importance. This is so, because the question of good and evil is a question of meaning. One must ask where such things ultimately came from in order to classify them as true or false, subjective or objective. If there is no transcendant first cause and thus no ultimate standard then all things are permissible and our only yardstick is ourselves. But if there is a transcendant first cause, we must measure our standards by it and not ourselves.

We can say that evil is absolute or relative. But who says one way or another. Humanity? No, we are not in a position to make such declarations. Even talking about them becomes meaningless for the debate can go on and on.

The question of origin is of penultimate significance for it gives us the starting point for our discussion.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
An alternate viewpoint would be that evil and good are characteristics of acts. Individuals may identify those characteristics rightly or wrongly. When two people disagree on the morality of a particular action, one or both of them would simply be wrong.

Certainly. Just that the way he formulated his example, asking how Bosse would characterize that act, serves as an example for my view as it depends on the individual's characterization of that act. I don't see how Bosse's opinion would mean anything if you were right.

Originally posted by Ristar
Once again, I must disagree. The question of origin is of ultimate importance. This is so, because the question of good and evil is a question of meaning. One must ask where such things ultimately came from in order to classify them as true or false, subjective or objective. If there is no transcendant first cause and thus no ultimate standard then all th ...[text shortened]... of origin is of penultimate significance for it gives us the starting point for our discussion.

To classify them as true, false, subjective or objective all you need to do is to look at the evidence and make your own conclusions. So, yes, the yardstick is each one of us. If you claim otherwise, then you must claim for yourself Godly status. If you say 'God is my yardstick' then you are simply judging what God is more accordingly to your own yardstick.

I see no evidence for the existence of a creator, so therefore I'm not ready to commit to another axiom that I don't think it's needed to explain anything and that I believe doesn't explain anything.

If you believe that we must agree on the starting point to have a meaningful discussion, then you are the one denying yourself of many interesting discussions with atheists or people from other faiths. (I disagree that such discussions are meaningless.)

Originally posted by Palynka
To classify them as true, false, subjective or objective all you need to do is to look at the evidence and make your own conclusions. So, yes, the yardstick is each one of us. If you claim otherwise, then you must claim for yourself Godly status. If you say 'God is my yardstick' then you are simply judging what God is more accordingly to your own yardstick.
atheists or people from other faiths. (I disagree that such discussions are meaningless.)

Is not the key phrase here, "your own conclusions?" Unless there is an objective set of principles, there remains only opinion: the opinion of each man and woman, which may be true or false.

You are correct in asserting that discussions about morals can have meaning, but is that not only because they have the potential to discover an objective conclusion? If something is objective it is true whether or not a human says it is, thus humans cannot be the yardstick. The law of non-contradiction, for example, is not an invention of man, yet it is exists and can be discussed by man.
However, if the arguments for something merely consists of "I believe thus-and-so," is it not invalid because of the endless clash of opinion? Unless something is objectively true, it cannot be discussed because the conflicting opinions of those dicussing can stack the deck so that an item under debate becomes philosophically unarguable.

I'm not sure how declaring something to be objectively true puts us in the place of God; perhaps I'm just not understanding you. Could you please clarify? In any event, I don't think that claiming that God is my yardstick affects the objectivity of something. Again, a human can reject an absolute and say it is relative or vice versa. All it really means is that, in this case, God has been accepted as one's yardstick; in that sense, you are correct. Objectivity transcends mere opinion.

For my part, I see evidence that does point to God, namely the existence of an objective moral law, one that governs us and yet that we did not create. I may be wrong in my interpretation of the evidence, but that does not mean the evidence does not exist. Also, the idea of time plus matter plus chance creating my brain self-destructs when you consider the fact that such a framework cannot provide for absolute truth. Yet absolute truth exists. How are we going to explain it?

But to be fair to the original post, this is a question about the existence of evil. I trace back to origins merely because we must have an objective reference. We can debate the validity of an objective reference, but we must discuss it if for no other reason than we start with one already, namely the rules of language and discussion.

In the end, mere opinions of evil's existence are unsatisfying because they fail to provide certainty and comfort for those whom evil has been inflicted upon. I have a relation whom I shall leave unnamed who recently suffered a vicious campaign against her character. I daresay I would have had a battle on my hands if I had told her that evil did not exist and she just needed to get over it.

We all have our crutches. Autonomy is for the Atheist, personal relationship with a Heavenly Father for the Christian, self-evident moral uprightness for the Buddhist. The law of non-condradiction states that they cannot all be right. Dicussion ensues. 🙂

Originally posted by dj2becker
As this discussion has been somewhat side-tracked, I would like to get it back on track with a few thoughts about evil:

I would contend that Evil is not something that has an existence all it's own; rather, it is a corruption of that which already exists. Evil is the absence or privation of something good. Rot, for example, can exist only as long ...[text shortened]... n a world created by God.

These are just a few thoughts to keep the discussion on track. 😉

Sorry. Posted in the wrong thread.

Originally posted by dj2becker
It is an example of how evil is a corruption of something good.

This sounds like an attempt at deflationary definition. But evil isn't that easy to deflate. It's like you are trying to say it isn't bad because it's just less good than good.

It's like to saying to someone ugly that they aren't really ugly, just an imperfect version of gorgeous. It doesn't make them look any better.

Originally posted by Ristar
Is not the key phrase here, "your own conclusions?" Unless there is an objective set of principles, there remains only opinion: the opinion of each man and woman, which may be true or false.

You are correct in asserting that discussions about morals can have meaning, but is that not only because they have the potential to discover an objective conclusion? e law of non-condradiction states that they cannot all be right. Dicussion ensues. 🙂

I'm sorry to say, but you're not being consistent. You raise more questions than the ones you try to answer and leave little place for reasoned discussion. Please try to stay on topic, not for the sake of some forum etiquette, but because we run the risk of writing for ourselves and not really listen to what the other has to say.

My point was exactly your first paragraph. The opinion of each individual is what defines good and evil to him. This is exactly why I think anarchy doesn't work. Manking has a need to associate opinions (and create what we call society) in order to be able to give strength to those opinions. In the end, society serves to impose a morality upon others, but it is an essential need for coexistence.

Objective truth is to us indissociable of our nature. We are conditioned by our nature (senses and intellect) in our ability to discover truth. We are always the yardstick, because our nature conditions even how some of us regard God. For example, a Christian has a human perspective on the works and words of Christ, as told by the Bible. He cannot dissociate himslef of his human yardstick, and therefore it is ultimately by his 'yardstick' that he measures the teachings of the bible. He may think he is moral by God's standards, but he's only being moral by his perception of God's standards.

Ergo, if there is an objective moral law, we are conditioned by our subjective opinion of what that objective moral law is. This in turn, implies that on all practical purposes, morals are relativistic.

Edit - Despite my initial comments, I am enjoying this reasoned discussion with you. I hope you don't take them the 'wrong' way.