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 8:13 pm

I agree with this argument, but I think it is unnecessary. There is no crime of stealing in the scenario.
Since I would define 'stealing" as taking somebody's property without his/her permission, then it is stealing whatever the motives or intent.
:confusion-shrug:
Steal : 1. take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:18 pm

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.
Well that's just how GIA phrased it but it amounts to personal "conscience" determines correct conduct. A psychopath can say that his duty is to be true to himself.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:23 pm

phyllo wrote:[Since I would define 'stealing" as taking somebody's property without his/her permission, then it is stealing whatever the motives or intent.
:confusion-shrug:

That's just silly. You steal things to have them yourself or sell them. It wasn't stealing. It is not that act. It is another act.

If you are on fire and I knock you down and roll you smothering the flames, I did not assault you, even though if I did that to someone else, the exact same movements, someone who was not on fire, it would be considered an assault.

We're humans, and dumb as the law can be at times, it reflects the fact that the meaning and intent of an action can change what that actions means and is.

We are not billiard balls.

By the way, I hate that shrug smilie thing. It seems to imply that it is so obvious what you are saying is true and ridiculous you even need to point out the a priori point you are making. I may not have convinced you but jeez, that smilie emoticons can go cower in a hole.

Steal : 1. take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.
[/quote]You have a legal right to stop a terrorist act in that scenario by taking the terrorists bomb. Taking it. If you steal it and keep it for yourself or sell it after stealing it, that would be stealing it and not taking it.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 998
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:24 pm

phyllo wrote:
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.
Well that's just how GIA phrased it but it amounts to personal "conscience" determines correct conduct. A psychopath can say that his duty is to be true to himself.

He might say it to a normal, but 'duty' is a meaningless word to a psychopath.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 998
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:25 pm

phyllo wrote:
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.

It works for all other animals. Male lions kill the kittens from the defeated male. If a human busted into someone's home, killed the man and all his children, then impregnated his wife and forced her to raise his children, he'd be burnt at the stake even today. Animals function on instinct while humans flatter themselves for possessing some divine attribute for the asserting of an objective right and wrong.

What is good for society? Is a good society one that grows larger and larger forever? Is it a function of genetics, morals? What? If we can't define a good society, assuming that a good society is good, then how can we determine what is good for society?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:29 pm

Greatest I am wrote:What questions?

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

I have a lot of issues with family and no idea how to fix them. It's a long story. Mom is a professional guilt-tripper.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:58 pm

It works for all other animals.
Depends on what "works" means. A female praying mantis eating her mate works for her I guess. Should we structure human society along the same lines? Who knows.
What is good for society? Is a good society one that grows larger and larger forever? Is it a function of genetics, morals? What? If we can't define a good society, assuming that a good society is good, then how can we determine what is good for society?
Apparently you know that trusting your conscience is good but you can't figure out what is good for society.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:00 pm

He might say it to a normal, but 'duty' is a meaningless word to a psychopath.
If you say so.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:09 pm

That's just silly. You steal things to have them yourself or sell them. It wasn't stealing. It is not that act. It is another act.
One has to consider the obvious definition of the word "steal". Later, one can move on to other considerations.
You have a legal right to stop a terrorist act in that scenario by taking the terrorists bomb. Taking it. If you steal it and keep it for yourself or sell it after stealing it, that would be stealing it and not taking it.
You know what they say ... one person's 'terrorist' is another person's 'freedom fighter'.

"Legal right" is itself problematic ... what if a law is enacted which allows you to search any person's wallet and take out any currency which exceeds the amount in your own wallet, thus equalizing the amount in both your wallets. Is that "legal right" ethical? I'm sure lots of people would say "yes".
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:11 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
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

You have a lot of integrity and I am the same way, so I know the downside of it. Isn't it strange that I've grown to hate people because I'm considerate of them (since that's the only reason to have integrity)? The bad part of holding yourself to high standards is being in judgement of those who don't. I'd like to think of myself as easy-going because it really doesn't matter what we have for dinner or what we watch on tv (to an extent) and I see myself as pliable and varied in interests, but can't tolerate when people can't keep their word and they never can. Never. It's a grand fluke if someone accidentally did what they said they were going to do. So if there is a bomb, screw it, it's not my business because it's likely a lot of people who would piss me off anyway with their lack of consideration: pull in front of me then turn left, drive slow without giving others an opportunity to pass, raise hell and make noise with no regard for neighbors, promise to arrive at a time and then not show, etc, etc, etc. People are animals with an extra helping of pride and I've no obligation to protect the haughty. I'd sooner protect a real animal and if I ever caught anyone torturing an animal, one of us is going to die.

I've done a lot of soul searching lately and I don't know why I keep my word. Why do I bother? No one else can. It's as if I'm playing a game and I want my character to be a certain way for no reason whatsoever, other than to see how it plays out. Has anyone noticed how I diligently reply to everyone and every point? No one returns the favor however as all have left me hanging. So why do I bother? Why do I do for others what they won't do for me? Why do I hold myself to such a standard? Idk, I'm still in the process of figuring things out.

"Those who know, don't speak; those who speak, don't know."

"The act of writing is the act of discovering what you believe."

So here we are... the blind leading the blind, muddling along and trying to figure it out.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:12 pm

By the way, I hate that shrug smilie thing. It seems to imply that it is so obvious what you are saying is true and ridiculous you even need to point out the a priori point you are making. I may not have convinced you but jeez, that smilie emoticons can go cower in a hole.
:confusion-shrug:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:12 pm

phyllo wrote:
What is good for society? Is a good society one that grows larger and larger forever? Is it a function of genetics, morals? What? If we can't define a good society, assuming that a good society is good, then how can we determine what is good for society?
Apparently you know that trusting your conscience is good but you can't figure out what is good for society.

Can you?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:13 pm

phyllo wrote:
By the way, I hate that shrug smilie thing. It seems to imply that it is so obvious what you are saying is true and ridiculous you even need to point out the a priori point you are making. I may not have convinced you but jeez, that smilie emoticons can go cower in a hole.
:confusion-shrug:

That's my favorite emoticon 8)
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:19 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
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.

Psychopaths lack empathy, consideration, which incidentally seems consistent with most of the population (lack of consideration). Hitherto I thought psychopaths were rare, but now I'm thinking they may be the norm. How many people genuinely consider how their actions affect others? Or maybe they aren't smart enough to give it consideration. Something is lacking!
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:24 pm

Serendipper wrote:
phyllo wrote:
What is good for society? Is a good society one that grows larger and larger forever? Is it a function of genetics, morals? What? If we can't define a good society, assuming that a good society is good, then how can we determine what is good for society?
Apparently you know that trusting your conscience is good but you can't figure out what is good for society.

Can you?
If your conscience tells you what is good for you, then it's also saying what is good for the people who you interact with and as a consequence what is good for society.

Why do you retreat from that idea and pretend that you don't know what is good for society?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:52 pm

phyllo wrote:If your conscience tells you what is good for you, then it's also saying what is good for the people who you interact with and as a consequence what is good for society.

Why do you retreat from that idea and pretend that you don't know what is good for society?

Because I don't even know what is good for me, nevermind others and even less about society as a whole.

And what is a good society? Are we to maximize population or maximize the quality of the members of the population? What is a quality member?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:57 pm

Because I don't even know what is good for me, nevermind others and even less about society as a whole.
Then what was all that talk about trusting your conscience??

Does it mean that you don't trust your conscience to tell you what's good for you?

I'm really confused now.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Fanman » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:15 pm

I think that many of a society's norms and values are inextricably linked to what our consciences inform us is morally right and wrong. Such that people who do not act within the spectrum of what is considered morally acceptable are classed as deviants. I think that through introspection our consciences are capable of informing us what is good or best for ourselves and others. The importance of the conscience in human development may be understated, but I think that a society with a general consensus of what is conscionable, that aims towards what is morally right, is one that would be more likely to thrive, due to having a strong emphasis on equality and cooperation.
Fanman
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Greatest I am » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:37 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?

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.


That is where discussions and debates come into play and better laws drafted.

If you think living by duty and honor is psychopathic then do not live for duty and honor.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:45 pm

phyllo wrote:
Because I don't even know what is good for me, nevermind others and even less about society as a whole.
Then what was all that talk about trusting your conscience??

Because that's all we can do. If you cannot trust yourself, you can't trust anything, so you have to trust yourself knowing you're going to be right and wrong sometimes, but you can't impose that decision on someone else.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:52 pm

If you cannot trust yourself, you can't trust anything, so you have to trust yourself knowing you're going to be right and wrong sometimes, but you can't impose that decision on someone else.
You impose that decision on everyone that you interact with directly and indirectly. And you do it every day.

You decide, you act. Then people react. Society changes as a result.

I don't know what you expect to be different.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:58 pm

Fanman wrote:I think that many of a society's norms and values are inextricably linked to what our consciences inform us is morally right and wrong. Such that people who do not act within the spectrum of what is considered morally acceptable are classed as deviants.

Because they deviate from the norm.

I think that through introspection our consciences are capable of informing us what is good or best for ourselves and others. The importance of the conscience in human development may be understated, but I think that a society with a general consensus of what is conscionable, that aims towards what is morally right, is one that would be more likely to thrive, due to having a strong emphasis on equality and cooperation.

Society seems awfully decadent to me. I see some imposition of morality, but not much practicing.

There is a song that goes "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything."
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Greatest I am » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:58 pm

Serendipper wrote:[.


Sniped for brevity.

You do what you do for your own sense of duty to your fellow man and the honor you feel that allows you to hold your head high.

" The bad part of holding yourself to high standards is being in judgement of those who don't."

Yet if those like you did not, the rest would never improve.

"Those who know, don't speak; those who speak, don't know."

If one is in the know and does not speak, then one does not love or care about his fellow man.

I quote few word out of the scriptures for their moral value, because they are few but do quote this one.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

I do not love near as well or as much as I should, and likely never will, but duty forces me to try to correct which at the same time would correct myself if I were wrong thanks to whatever wisdom I would learn from my interlocutors.

Imagine if no one bothered to correct poor thinking or actions. We would still be living in caves and trees.

Remember that when a love bias is formed, it's counterpart, a hate bias is formed against whatever goes against your love bias. IOW, hate is born of love and should be embraced as it will act to reduce hateful actions and thoiughts.

We should work both our love and hate biases to their limits.

Like a newscast though, people will see more evil than good.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Greatest I am » Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:12 pm

Fanman wrote:I think that many of a society's norms and values are inextricably linked to what our consciences inform us is morally right and wrong. Such that people who do not act within the spectrum of what is considered morally acceptable are classed as deviants. I think that through introspection our consciences are capable of informing us what is good or best for ourselves and others. The importance of the conscience in human development may be understated, but I think that a society with a general consensus of what is conscionable, that aims towards what is morally right, is one that would be more likely to thrive, due to having a strong emphasis on equality and cooperation.


I agree. That seems to be the case except when a country is religious. Stats are showing that the more religiosity there is in a country, the less peaceful and internally coherent it is.

Religion is not our friend, even though I am one of those who follows a religious ideology. Gnostic Christianity. We tend to be peaceful though as we are thought to be closer to agnosticism than theism.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: The problem of evil

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:20 pm

phyllo wrote:
If you cannot trust yourself, you can't trust anything, so you have to trust yourself knowing you're going to be right and wrong sometimes, but you can't impose that decision on someone else.
You impose that decision on everyone that you interact with directly and indirectly. And you do it every day.

You decide, you act. Then people react. Society changes as a result.

I don't know what you expect to be different.

No, I've been unceremoniously replying to everyone and every point for the last 4 months while quietly watching every single person here eventually fail to reciprocate and I've not said a peep until now and only because it's an example of my morality affecting my decision, but not y'all's.

Do I put myself above you? Maybe, but I couldn't do what y'all do because I view it as inconsiderate. I just don't feel right about it and I never have. The only way I can leave anyone hanging is just to leave to site altogether. So are you superhuman or am I? How can we tell? Is the drunk drinking 30 beers per night superhuman? Or the one who wouldn't notice if beer fell off the earth? Who has the advantage?

Morality is obviously a disadvantage:

Survival was a moral as well as a physical struggle. A woman doctor wrote to a friend in June 1933 that she had not yet become a cannibal, but was "not sure that I shall not be one by the time my letter reaches you." The good people died first. Those who refused to steal or to prostitute themselves died. Those who gave food to others died. Those who refused to eat corpses died. Those who refused to kill their fellow man died. Parents who resisted cannibalism died before their children did.[52] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Morality seems a high-brow game among gentlemen to feel superior to everyone else while in competition with each other.

"The fact that you possess a sense of morality, and we do not, gives us an evolutionary advantage."

Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users