The problem of evil

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:14 pm

I think the idea is that 'stealing' as a word means that it is not OK. By definitions if you are calling it stealing it is bad to the person labelling it that way. If I say I murdered someone I am judging it negatively. If I say I killed someone, then we don't know yet.

If I 'fairly redistribute devices' when I take what you think of as your lawnmower, then I would never refer to it as stealing. Like 'eminent domain' or 'repossessing your car' or 'manifest destiny' may or may not be what some people would think of as stealing, but the one doing the taking probably does not.
So you're saying that "stealing is wrong" is a truism rather than a moral judgment of conscience.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10724
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:16 pm

If morals and ethics are subjective, which I think they are, while you seem to think them objective, tell us where you get your objective moral tenets from.
Strange. I didn't say that I think that morals and ethics are objective. Where did you get that idea?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10724
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:38 pm

phyllo wrote:So you're saying that "stealing is wrong" is a truism rather than a moral judgment of conscience.
Yes. So if you are choosing that word, you are making that judgment, since it means taking immorally. Which is my take on Serendipity's position. Me personally, there might be situations where I might use the negative word for various reasons, while still feeling it was not wrong for me to do it. IOW I might want to make it clear I had broken the law or some moral rule, given the situation.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Greatest I am » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:43 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Let's say you happened to be where you heard two guys with a bomb plotting to kill someone.
They leave the bomb in their room to go to lunch.

Would you, if there was no other authority available before the possible detonation, break into their room and steal their bomb?

I sure would as stealing it would be the right thing to do. No?

Regards
DL

I would not, however, say to a police officer that I stole it. Not because I'd be afraid of being charged, but because I would not think of that as stealing. Just as if I were a surgeon who cut out some cancerous tissue from a leg, I would not say I maimed that guy.


Not the same type of scenario at all. The patient knew what the doctor was going to do and volunteered. The two who are stolen from did not volunteer to have their bomb stolen.

Taking that bomb by breaking into that room is break and enter and thief, in the legal definition.

I will let you argue with that definition. I will just accept it, admit I stole the bomb and let the courts, should the cops be fool enough to arrest me, decide if it was a justifiable thief or not.

If you would not call break and enter and taking someone else's property thief, what would you call it? The legal term would be nice.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:48 pm

I see nothing wrong with a general idea that steeling is wrong, but I do see a problem when it is thought to be a rule cast in stone.

Let's say you happened to be where you heard two guys with a bomb plotting to kill someone.
They leave the bomb in their room to go to lunch.

Would you, if there was no other authority available before the possible detonation, break into their room and steal their bomb?

I sure would as stealing it would be the right thing to do. No?
This example seems to be based on the idea that all moral rules have the same "weight".

That's not the case. Even if a person believes in objective morals, he can say that stealing a bomb, although morally wrong is the preferable action to allowing people to be blown up by the bomb which is also morally wrong. The lesser of two wrongs.

IOW, there is a hierarchy in moral rules.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10724
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Greatest I am » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:51 pm

phyllo wrote:
If morals and ethics are subjective, which I think they are, while you seem to think them objective, tell us where you get your objective moral tenets from.
Strange. I didn't say that I think that morals and ethics are objective. Where did you get that idea?


From what you wrote.

Perhaps I read you wrong.

I thought you were trying to take the judgements out of our consciousness. "Well, stealing is wrong, but what constitutes stealing is up to your conscience to decide. It's like that I think. I mean, absent laws n stuff."

Apologies.

I thought that your "Well, stealing is wrong", was being offered as an objective moral tenet.

Regards
DL
Last edited by Greatest I am on Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Greatest I am » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:57 pm

phyllo wrote:
I see nothing wrong with a general idea that steeling is wrong, but I do see a problem when it is thought to be a rule cast in stone.

Let's say you happened to be where you heard two guys with a bomb plotting to kill someone.
They leave the bomb in their room to go to lunch.

Would you, if there was no other authority available before the possible detonation, break into their room and steal their bomb?

I sure would as stealing it would be the right thing to do. No?
This example seems to be based on the idea that all moral rules have the same "weight".

That's not the case. Even if a person believes in objective morals, he can say that stealing a bomb, although morally wrong is the preferable action to allowing people to be blown up by the bomb which is also morally wrong. The lesser of two wrongs.

IOW, there is a hierarchy in moral rules.


Correct, in a sense, and that is why I think they are all subjective and not objective.

The hierarch can be adjusted by need.

===========

I, again, might be reading you wrong but this seems to disagree with what you put above.

"This example seems to be based on the idea that all moral rules have the same "weight".

That's not the case.

Regards
DL
Last edited by Greatest I am on Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:58 pm

Correct, in a sense, and that is why I think they are all subjective and not objective.

The hierarch can be adjusted by need.
Objective morality says that there is one correct evaluation of the morality of any particular situation.

Subjective morality says that there can be several different correct evaluations of the morality of a particular situation, depending on who is doing the evaluating.

"Need" is simply one factor within a particular situation. "Need" has nothing to do with whether morality is objective or subjective.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10724
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Greatest I am » Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:10 pm

phyllo wrote:
Correct, in a sense, and that is why I think they are all subjective and not objective.

The hierarch can be adjusted by need.
Objective morality says that there is one correct evaluation of the morality of any particular situation.

Subjective morality says that there can be several different correct evaluations of the morality of a particular situation, depending on who is doing the evaluating.

"Need" is simply one factor within a particular situation. "Need" has nothing to do with whether morality is objective or subjective.


True on your last, again while denying that morality is objective. You have yet to show an example of objective morality so do not clutter the discussion without an example. No one can know what the hell you are referring to.

As to need, it is certainly a factor in determining morality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa6c3OTr6yA

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:22 pm

True on your last, again while denying that morality is objective.
I'm not even arguing whether or not morality is objective or subjective.

I merely stated what makes a morality objective or subjective.
You have yet to show an example of objective morality so do not clutter the discussion without an example.
I think that I can participate in any way that I choose.

Consider it clutter if you want. I don't decide how you evaluate it.
No one can know what the hell you are referring to.
I spelled it out pretty clearly.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10724
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Greatest I am » Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:24 pm

Ok.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:29 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:If you don't know what determines good, then how do you know it's not the conscience?

I think I said there are problems with using conscience to determine the good and when someone should feel bad. NOt that it wasn't conscience. I also went on to say that one had to go deeply into oneself to be able to trust conscience. I may have contradicted myself as I explored, but I think as my argument developed I indicated that it could work, that one could find a voice in one's head to trust, once one went through the process of separating out culture, parenting, self-hate posing as conscience, and so on. And once one challenged ideas, like those from scripture, that can lead to guilt where it is not necessary. I don't think this is easy. I think we are taught now, by both secular and religious authorities, to feel guilty for things that are part and parcel of being social mammals, such as emotions - which I mentioned. To say that conscience determines the good and bad, to me makes it seem like that voice we call conscience is one we can take for granted is not utterly contaminated by sick cultural elements.

There are lots of ways to feel guilty that have nothing to do with religion. For instance, I feel guilty because I was mean to James and now he's gone. No one told me to feel guilty and there is no law saying I should, but it just is. I find most of the time that I get mad at someone online, I endup feeling bad about it later because I lacked understanding at the time. So I don't know... we need a general road map to follow and let our conscience guide the nuances. I can't think of a better way.

You can eat meat if you think eating meat is ok, but if you doubt, then it's not ok.
Aren't we then giving pyschopaths the right to rape out daughters and more?

If you think it's bad, it's bad; because nothing is bad of itself.
So conscience is the source of evil and it would be best not to have one. Psychopaths become not just fine when they harm others, but role models. If we were all psychopaths, there would be no bad acts.

That's a good observation. I suppose psychopaths have the advantage in society, but probably couldn't form a homogeneous one because it doesn't confer any societal benefit. If society is deemed good, then psychopaths are deemed bad.

The bible is all screwed up. For instance Jesus never said he was THE son of God, but A son of God (meaning you are too). The church wanted the guilt, not Jesus.
I have a hard time knowing what is Jesus, what is from the people who listened and told the stories and what is from translators and the church.

In the real bible, Jesus' words are in red, but that delineation is lost online.

But a number of the quotes of Jesus can lead to guilt. A quick search found....

32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Yeah, that's what's referred to as part of the beatitudes of the sermon on the mount.

To pressure people to love their enemies is too much - just imagine what child victims of violence will do with that kind of thing. Now, of course, he may have been misquoted. Translations may push certain words like 'love' here to far forward. But back in the days when I as an adult relooked at Jesus, the Biblical Jesus had a lot of ideas that put pressure on the emotional body in ways I consider unloving.

How does that engender guilt? The idea is that God is supposed to recompense in place of our vengeance, but that presupposes that God exists. If God did exist and did look after his flock, then it would be a good way to act, but what happens is we love our enemies who then shit all over us and God does nothing because he is not there (or doesn't care).

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.


Where is the guilt?

I like what he did there, but there is still guilt. Go and sin no more. Just because she slept with someone outside her marriage does not mean it was a sin.

It is sin if she promised forever on an altar. She should feel guilty in that case.

And you should agree if conscience is the judge.

I think conscience applies within the established framework and not everyone's conscience is functional:

1 Timothy 4 New International Version (NIV)
4 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.


The idea is that you're "born again" and receive a new spirit (new guiding conscience I suppose) and that separates the wheat from the weeds: one goes into the barn and the other into the oven.

The Parable of the Weeds
24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”


Perhaps her husband was a violent unloving man, and once in her life she wanted to make love where there was love present.

Then he should feel guilty.

Jesus just assumed it was wrong what she did, but that no one else could be violent towards here SINCE THEY WERE NOT PERFECT.

I'm not sure he assumed it was wrong. Apparently he had mind-reading abilities:

7 When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8 (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)
9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.[a])
10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”
11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”
13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”
16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
17 “I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband.
18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”


Matthew 5:27-28 New King James Version (NKJV)
Adultery in the Heart
27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old,[a] ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[b] 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Well it's true, ain't it?

You think that is not going to create a lot of guilt in people. Imagine poor teenagers listening to that, they are all having premarital sex, but Jesus' estimation.

Yep, I went through that.

Look, I love the guy for interfering with the violence of the old shitty Jewish laws. Kudos to him. He did some wonderful stuff, given the time and the culture, as far as I can tell. But he also set the seeds for a lot of guilt and shame.

Some of it is deserving of guilt imo.

Now it is not merely acts, but internal reactions - and quite human ones - that are sins. I think the Jesus shift to expecting harmony between the internal and the external has a positive side. I also want a harmony there and of course what is inside is important. But his way of doing this included making everyone a mortal sinners for natural attractions to the opposite sex.

That could be church perversion. Much of the sexual laws were beneficial to society at the time.

Exactly why Watts said "The bible should be ceremoniously and reverently burned every easter; we need it no more since the spirit is with us". It's a dangerous book. Idols of stone or wood are easy to spot, but those made of ideas are dangerous.
I think the spirit of the Bible - or spirits of the Bible - are a mixed bag. Some good stuff, some improvements on what went before, but also some really terrible stuff, including some of what jesus said (according to the Bible).

Most things are mixed bags, except Alan, whose error has eluded me for some time.

Bruce didn't have to hit back because no one could hit him first :p :lol:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/67108/ti ... real-fight
Bruce Lee and Jesus are very hard to follow both at the same time.

Interesting. I didn't know about that fight. Yes, why practice fighting if you intend to turn the other cheek? A fool who persists in his folly will become wise. The Buddhists beat the Samurai Brigands for the best land and temples. How? It's like Jesus kicked Bruce's ass somehow. How do people who don't fight, beat the warriors?



Yes even doing good to those who try to hurt you is still retaliatory since the idea is heaping hot coals upon their head by doing them good instead of evil.
Oh, I love the nasty kind gesture to an asshole. I think that can be a great response. But that's only for real assholes. And they have to be the right kind who will feel bad after you do that. Otherwise it is a want of some fine acting.

Yes and remember God is supposed to be on your side as well in the case of those assholes who do not feel bad afterward.

I remember I got into a bar fight and the next day my friend say "You should have just bought him a beer." The problem with fighting is having to watch your back for the revenge, unless you kill the guy then his brother or somebody comes.
Sure, I am not suggesting it is practical to slap back all the time. Nor am I saying that the opposite of turn the other cheek should be a rule. If some say X is true. If I disagree, it may because I think it is only sometimes true or rarely true. I may think it is never true. But there is no reason to assume I mean -X is true. Or one should always -X.

If that is true then there must be some way of determining when to hit back and when to not.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:32 pm

phyllo wrote:
Well, stealing is wrong, but what constitutes stealing is up to your conscience to decide. It's like that I think. I mean, absent laws n stuff.


OK
That's odd. One would expect that deciding if stealing is right or wrong is also "up to your conscience". Surely all questions of right or wrong are up to your conscience once you take the approach of centering ethics in yourself.

In the context of Christianity, stealing is always wrong, but the nuances are left to your conscience because the law cannot possibly describe every situation. Likewise, insults are always wrong, but what constitutes insult is too variable to describe in a rule.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:44 pm

Greatest I am wrote:You guys are way too long winded for me and my two little typing fingers.

Jump in however you can. This is fine.

"Reciprocity - an eye for an eye, right?"

Basically, yes. The penalty for a crime should be at about the same level as the crime.
I think a just judge will consider that the perpetrator, and his guilt, should be given some mercy from that due to the fact that the criminal was not born that way. He was made that way by all who interacted with him.

As a Universalist, I see that as the most just way to go.

A lot of folks see it that way which is why Jesus said:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


"Why not? That's dogmatic ain't it?"

I think it could be said that my adherence to the Golden Rule is dogmatic, but a Gnostic Christian is always ready to evolve his God to a higher form if something better, in terms of rules and laws to live by, comes along.

Our God evolves while most are stagnant thinking and not really the best thinking for these times of enlightenment.

That's true, but how can you be sure evolving is not devolving? Everyone *thinks* they are doing right.

"Yes but to fight evil, you have to know what it is."

Sure. Those issues are subjective. Most of us know what is good and evil. You do as you have judged Hitler evil. So why would you allow yourself to judge evil and want me not to do so?

I brought up Hitler because it's colloquially assumed he was evil, not that he actually was. He is just representative of the general cultural idea of evil. I'm not judging him. I'm just saying that if you, by chance, assume he was evil, then consider that he thought he was doing good.

"Judge not, that you be not judged."

Why do you fear judgement and tell us not to do it when you yourself judge others?

Because I'm a hypocrite like everyone else lol

If you are not living the best way, would you not like to be judged and corrected so that you might live a better way?

Yes I would like some good advice, but no one can answer my questions it seems :(
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:46 pm

In the context of Christianity, stealing is always wrong, but the nuances are left to your conscience because the law cannot possibly describe every situation. Likewise, insults are always wrong, but what constitutes insult is too variable to describe in a rule.
Sounds like a way to have your cake and eat it too.

In practice, it means that there will be a way to rationalize taking stuff if you want it. One is both a highly ethical person and a thief at once.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10724
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:51 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Let's say you happened to be where you heard two guys with a bomb plotting to kill someone.
They leave the bomb in their room to go to lunch.

Would you, if there was no other authority available before the possible detonation, break into their room and steal their bomb?

I sure would as stealing it would be the right thing to do. No?

Regards
DL

I would not, however, say to a police officer that I stole it. Not because I'd be afraid of being charged, but because I would not think of that as stealing. Just as if I were a surgeon who cut out some cancerous tissue from a leg, I would not say I maimed that guy.

I've read that if someone breaks into your home and hurts themselves, they can sue you lol, so I wouldn't be surprise if you were arrested for stealing the bomb.

What I would do would depend on who they intended to blow up ;)

This reminds me of some philosophical puzzles from college. Who is worse: the one who holds the person under water or the one who chooses not to save a drowning person? Who is better: the one who helps little old ladies across the street because he enjoys it or because it's his duty?
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:53 pm

phyllo wrote:
In the context of Christianity, stealing is always wrong, but the nuances are left to your conscience because the law cannot possibly describe every situation. Likewise, insults are always wrong, but what constitutes insult is too variable to describe in a rule.
Sounds like a way to have your cake and eat it too.

In practice, it means that there will be a way to rationalize taking stuff if you want it. One is both a highly ethical person and a thief at once.

Yes you can rationalize it, but can you quell your conscience? It's only not-wrong if you honestly and truly believe it is not wrong, not because you have a list of justifications.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:57 pm

Greatest I am wrote:I will let you argue with that definition. I will just accept it, admit I stole the bomb and let the courts, should the cops be fool enough to arrest me, decide if it was a justifiable thief or not.

I would not trust them. You'd be in jail by your own admission of guilt and the bombers would be free for lack of proof of intent or no crime committed. The justice system is not at all just, but a money-making racket mostly.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:06 pm

Yes you can rationalize it, but can you quell your conscience? It's only not-wrong if you honestly and truly believe it is not wrong, not because you have a list of justifications.
So any action is justified as long as you "honestly and truly believe" that it's not wrong.

Seems completely unworkable for a society to adopt such an idea.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10724
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Greatest I am » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:39 pm

Serendipper wrote:
I think it could be said that my adherence to the Golden Rule is dogmatic, but a Gnostic Christian is always ready to evolve his God to a higher form if something better, in terms of rules and laws to live by, comes along.

Our God evolves while most are stagnant thinking and not really the best thinking for these times of enlightenment.


That's true, but how can you be sure evolving is not devolving? Everyone *thinks* they are doing right.


True. Morals can change depending on the environment and are in a sense just like reality are just a collective hunch.

If you are not living the best way, would you not like to be judged and corrected so that you might live a better way?

Yes I would like some good advice, but no one can answer my questions it seems :([/quote][/quote]

What questions?

What area of life do you think your rules and laws are not the best?

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Greatest I am » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:55 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:I will let you argue with that definition. I will just accept it, admit I stole the bomb and let the courts, should the cops be fool enough to arrest me, decide if it was a justifiable thief or not.

I would not trust them. You'd be in jail by your own admission of guilt and the bombers would be free for lack of proof of intent or no crime committed. The justice system is not at all just, but a money-making racket mostly.


I disagree but that aside, my moral duty is to myself first and others later.

My duty is to act first in doing what I think is moral.
If the system I live under does not support my morality then so be it. I will spend some time in jail and some poor bunch of my fellow citizens will end in being bombed.

Better jail than dishonor.

I have a real life experience where I purposely fought the law and had 16 years of jail time hanging over my head because I put duty and my honor ahead of the possibility of jail. I am not bragging here. I am complaining as our laws should be well thought out enough that a citizen should not have to go to such extremes to fight the laws he thinks need amending.

I am more abstinent and headstrong than the average guy.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:56 pm

Greatest I am wrote:I would not, however, say to a police officer that I stole it. Not because I'd be afraid of being charged, but because I would not think of that as stealing. Just as if I were a surgeon who cut out some cancerous tissue from a leg, I would not say I maimed that guy.


Not the same type of scenario at all.
Well, golly gosh. It is not the same scenario in the sense you seem to want here. It is the same idea. The intention is not to get someone's stuff for oneself, it is to prevent great harm. The intention is not to harm someone, it is to minimize harm. Those two are very similar ideas oh, fussy one. We tend not to use negative words about things when the goal, in fact the act, is not about that negative word. There are gray areas but neither scenario is the same.

The patient knew what the doctor was going to do and volunteered.
Well, I can be fussy back.
Not always. Patients come into emergency rooms unconscious sometimes and they are operated on. Sometimes they even are upset about the doctor's choice. However he is still not maiming, even if he make the wrong medical choice. He is trying to help the greater good - in my example the greater good he is trying to help includes the patient, in your example it does not include those who had the object. But the person who removes the bomb is not a thief, nor are they stealing.

The two who are stolen from did not volunteer to have their bomb stolen.

Taking that bomb by breaking into that room is break and enter and thief, in the legal definition.

If you would not call break and enter and taking someone else's property thief, what would you call it? The legal term would be nice.
[/quote]It would be called preventing a terrorist act. If you are about to shoot a child, I can shoot you and no one will call it murder. There are all sorts of scenarios where what would otherwise be called a crime is not called that given the situation. If you drive your car into a lake and cannot get out of your car, no one, no court, not police officer, will label my breaking the car window property damage or criminal damage as it is called in parts of the UK. They will say I saved your life. No one will say it was criminal damage, but we will not prosecute because of the reason. The situation precludes the use of that term. Get it?

And that is why my example was perfectly fine: what would be considered a crime in other circumstances is not because of those circumstances. The terrorists are never, in that scenario, victims of a crime.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:07 pm

I disagree but that aside, my moral duty is to myself first and others later.

My duty is to act first in doing what I think is moral.
If the system I live under does not support my morality then so be it.
Isn't that the same reasoning that a psychopath, a serial killer, a thief, a murderer uses?

The morality that a society adopts has to be some sort of agreement about what is right and wrong conduct. And obviously some individuals will disagree for a variety of good and bad reasons.
Last edited by phyllo on Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10724
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:07 pm

phyllo wrote:This example seems to be based on the idea that all moral rules have the same "weight".

That's not the case. Even if a person believes in objective morals, he can say that stealing a bomb, although morally wrong is the preferable action to allowing people to be blown up by the bomb which is also morally wrong. The lesser of two wrongs.

IOW, there is a hierarchy in moral rules.
I agree with this argument, but I think it is unnecessary. There is no crime of stealing in the scenario. In many situations we can legally, and generally are considered to be able to morally, do something that in other circumstances would be considered a crime or immoral, but is never considered that in those situations. The terrorists lose any property rights related to their bomb once it is an object part of a terrorist process. It is not as if a crime is committed but then weighed against the crime it prevented. There never was a crime. If a plane is crashing on the highway and I drive my car off the road crashing into a military base through the fence, I have not trespassed, driven negligently, criminally damaged property. And the plane's insurance company will pick up thte tab if anyone's does.

There may be scenarios where more minor crimes/sins get outweighed, but that wasn't one of them.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:10 pm

phyllo wrote:
I disagree but that aside, my moral duty is to myself first and others later.

My duty is to act first in doing what I think is moral.
If the system I live under does not support my morality then so be it.
Isn't that the same reasoning that a psychopath, a serial killer, a thief, a murderer uses?

A psychopath would never say 'my duty is to act first in doing what i think is moral.' They don't think in morals, though they know others have them and this is just another property of other people to be aware of and utilized. The psychopath does not consider any duty to others regardless of how this is prioritized. I doubt serial killers would think this way, either.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron