Here's the second thread starter. I really have to come up with a cool sounding name for these. The first one is far from finished, however; feel free to keep discussing that one as well...

The problem of evil is the common name for an apparent paradox, first (as far as we know) stated by Epicurus, a Greek philosopher who lived a couple of centuries BC.

The paradox is this: there is "evil" in the world; that much is usually agreed on. How can that be, if God is supposedly omnipotent and "good"?

There are many explanations to that. The most common one, that of the theist apologists, is related to "free will"; God wants people to be good on their own, instead of being "compelled", like automatons. Of course, since many supposedly "good", devout people suffer, pray for deliverance, and get none, it means God is ignoring their pleas - which, if we were talking about a human being instead of a deity, would probably make him "evil" (or at least completely uncaring).

A different, although actually very similar, explanation is this: it's all part of God's plan, and we're not capable of understanding any of it. This, to me, is a non-answer - and an appeal to ignorance and blind following, as well. Besides, what "divine plan" can need the suffering and sacrifice of millions of innocents to brutal dictators, wasting diseases, and more? Is God so incompetent?

In more logical terms, we can look at the obvious hypotheses (which Epicurus stated):

- God could prevent evil, but doesn't want to. Not what I'd call "good".
- God would like to prevent evil, but is unable to. Not very "all-powerful", is he?
- God can't prevent evil, and wouldn't want to anyway. As Epicurus said, "why call him God?"
- God can prevent evil, and wants to. Then how can evil exist?

Of course, to an atheist, the solution is simple: there are no gods, so none of the explanations above are needed.

What do you think?

This post was last modified: 11-27-2006 10:42 AM by Pedro Timóteo.

There are no moral phenomena , only moral perceptions of phenomena.

Xtimmy,

Of course thousands of years of history and the nature of rationality (and vulnerability) prove that hypothesis false..

That is a human perception. That is human history. Being rational is also human. My actions, indeed my life are subject to perception, but in reality it has no quanitity of good or evil, unless it is instilled.

Rationality is neither limited to nor dependent upon "humanness" As for history and reason being mere perception, setting aside that this is false on the surface of it, it assumes that perception must necessarily exist without perceiver or perceived... Surely this is a problem..

As for the stipulation that no good nor evil exists do you care to offer up evidence?

This post was last modified: 11-27-2006 11:20 PM by TXStorm.

History in the recorded sense, i.e. history books, Rather than simply past events, is always subject to human perception. History is a perception of a subject (the perceived) in the past tense, for instance, imagine if the events of the holocaust had never come to light and Hitler had taken over the world, to History he would be a hero, someone morally "good".

Now imagine if the events of the holocaust, during Hitlers alternate reign, DID come to light, but, because History was subject to the "new" humans perception, the Jews really where "evil", then Hitler would still be a hero.

This post was last modified: 11-27-2006 11:56 PM by XTimmy.

You are equivocating between "history" which you define and describe as perception, and history itself. Only through this equivocation does the argument have the illusion of sense.

Regardless of the perception, the acts of killing innocents remains evil. Morality is outside of perception, just as is the shape of the planet, or the temperature at which water boils.

Here's the second thread starter. I really have to come up with a cool sounding name for these. The first one is far from finished, however; feel free to keep discussing that one as well...

The problem of evil is the common name for an apparent paradox, first (as far as we know) stated by Epicurus, a Greek philosopher who lived a couple of centuries BC.

The paradox is this: there is "evil" in the world; that much is usually agreed on. How can that be, if God is supposedly omnipotent and "good"?

There are many explanations to that. The most common one, that of the theist apologists, is related to "free will"; God wants people to be good on their own, instead of being "compelled", like automatons. Of course, since many supposedly "good", devout people suffer, pray for deliverance, and get none, it means God is ignoring their pleas - which, if we were talking about a human being instead of a deity, would probably make him "evil" (or at least completely uncaring).

A different, although actually very similar, explanation is this: it's all part of God's plan, and we're not capable of understanding any of it. This, to me, is a non-answer - and an appeal to ignorance and blind following, as well. Besides, what "divine plan" can need the suffering and sacrifice of millions of innocents to brutal dictators, wasting diseases, and more? Is God so incompetent?

In more logical terms, we can look at the obvious hypotheses (which Epicurus stated):

- God could prevent evil, but doesn't want to. Not what I'd call "good".
- God would like to prevent evil, but is unable to. Not very "all-powerful", is he?
- God can't prevent evil, and wouldn't want to anyway. As Epicurus said, "why call him God?"
- God can prevent evil, and wants to. Then how can evil exist?

Of course, to an atheist, the solution is simple: there are no gods, so none of the explanations above are needed.

What do you think?

This has always been a problem with me too.
With free will, how many prayers can God actually answer without interfeering?

It would seem that the gift of free will would strip God of his own powers. Or maybe there are acceptions...


Suffering is another thing too though. People act like suffering = evil, but that not only depends one your definition of suffering, but on circumstances surrounding it too.
Take working out... if you work your body enough, this is what you are doing: You are putting yourself through physical struggling, the next few days of being sore you'll be suffering of constant pain at any certain movement of your own body. Suffer this way long enough, and you'll be quite strong.
That of course is a clear example of ONE case. The point being though, that not all suffering is bad, and without it, many things would be different today.

But no one... and I repeat, no one... has a first hand knowledge of all that makes up history. Even first hand writings written down while an event occurred are coloured by the person writing it.

So, on one hand, I agree with TX that "history" is what it is. It is objective and unchangeable. On the other hand, the only way we can experience history is through our perceptions and of those that came before. I cannot think of a way (although I'm certain someone will try to enlighten me) that would allow us to look at an objective and true history.

Everyone suggests they are objective, but few... very few... people truly are. Not out of malice, but because of conditioning.

And while I'm on a roll, whose morality are you referring to TX? While I think that you and I (and many, many others) would agree that killing innocents is wrong - might there not be a culture that thinks that there are times when this is justified? If this is too extreme an example, pick anything smaller that you would define as morally wrong. I'm not arguing for cultural relativity here, just trying to point out that I think we need more information as to what is your basis of morality before assuming that the 'objective' morality you refer to truly is objective. Or "outside of perception" as you put it.

Jim,

There is no this morality and that morality, only morality as it in fact exists. Sadly too many have tried to usurp the word, and all discussion of morality (usually the religious) and in doing so created much confusion. I use the term to refer to the informal public system by which actions are judged. You can assume that I am referring to objective morality or not, or you can simply compare the facts to the facts to see that in fact they match perfectly.

If you want a more thorough explanation and details check out Bernard Gert's Morality:Its Nature and Justification. In this you will find that Gert takes the sadly novel approach of describing morality as it actually is, rather than trying to impose some nifty scheme, or religious doctrine onto morality. When you look to the religious claims about morality, they are claiming to tell us that they know what morality is but only they are privy to the specifics, others claim to have really cool systems of what they wish morality would be and claim that it must be. However when we take the rational approach to morality we begin with observation and critical examination and see where this leads us. This is the approach Gert takes, and of course all who are interested in truth regardless of the subject take.

So you see your question is fatally flawed in assuming that morality originates with the individual (necessitated by the "whose" aspect of your question) rather than exists independent from any given individual. You might as well be asking "whose" gravity is it? Or "whose" square it is..

I apologise for the misunderstanding TXStorm, I assumed you where referring to recorded past events, rather than simply past events, when you where speaking about history. I also assumed you where referring to morality outside of society.

Would you agree, however, that in an objective reality, outside of subjective views, there is no morality (ignoring human constructs design to enforce "good" morals)?

I don't think he will. Unless I misunderstood, he said the exact opposite.

More about it by yours truly , by the way: The Origin of Morality. My own opinion is there. And some comments by TX, too.

EDIT: if you / we're moving away from the "problem of evil" subject, maybe a new thread in the Ethics and Morality subforum would be more appropriate...

This post was last modified: 11-29-2006 10:59 AM by Pedro Timóteo.

TX - Once again I find myself at a loss in understanding what you are saying. Your post seemed to tell me what morality was not (as in anything espoused by religions) but little about what it is. Your quote, "only morality as it in fact exists..." leaves me at a loss as to what you mean. I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass - I truly do want to understand, and to be honest I do not have the time to read Bernard Gert's work. Can you give me some examples how this "morality as it in fact exists" works?

Thanks!

Not at all of course. Morality does in fact exist outside of subjective views as is evidenced by thousands of years of history and necessitated by rationality and vulnerability. Morality is no more dependent upon "society" (whatever that would mean in this context) than it is on any given individual. Do you also question gravity outside of society? What of the visible light spectrum? Do these exist outside of society and the individual?

Jim,

I am not sure what you are looking for here. Morality is not a slogan so bumper sticker responses are not going to be sufficient or accurate. Rationality requires self interest which includes an interest in some finite number of others. Vulnerability means that we can be harmed and those around us can be harmed. Since harms are not in our interest for ourselves and those for whom we care, we as rational beings understand that we must respect the value and vulnerability of others. The result is essentially morality. Avoiding harms and promoting goods. This is obviously too quick and too dirty, but that is the general explanation why morality exists.

As for what morality is, it is the informal public system by which actions are judged based upon harms and goods.

TX -

Not looking for a bumper sticker... just a little more info. You provided it, and while I respect that it is too short an explanation, I don't see your description as an "objective morality."

Avoiding harms and promoting goods? What is harm? That answer may be different between one person who is a masochist and one who is not, wouldn't it be? Or are the nuances lost in your quick explanation?

I appreciate your trying to help me understand! Thanks!

As for "an" objective morality, this is still a confused notion. It is simply objective morality, not one of many. If pure description of morality separate from the individual and necessitated by objective criteria is not sufficient evidence of objectivity, what could possibly count? And how do we apply this standard across the board? Do we similarly dismiss physics? What of simple geometry?

Harms are determined by rationality, not subjectivity. The basic harms to rational vulnerable entities are: death (or permanent loss of consciousness), pain, disability, loss of freedom, loss of pleasure.

The quote above does not answer my other question though. If the basic harm to a rational entity is pain... are we talking about objective pain (as measured by what?) or subjective pain? Since you mention pain as a harm, I ask again how would this apply to a masochist vs. someone who is not.

Phrased another way - if pain is a harm, then a masochist would be seeking harm (does this imply that the masochist is morally wrong?). At the same time, if you say that to a masochist such pain is actually pleasure, and to deny that would be a loss of pleasure, then aren't you implying that pain is subjective?

Guys, please...

if you / we're moving away from the "problem of evil" subject, maybe a new thread in the Ethics and Morality subforum would be more appropriate...

When a discussion deviates from the original subject, the correct thing to do is to open a new thread in the appropriate sub-forum, post a message here saying something like "let's continue this at (link), OK?", and leave this thread for the original topic.

I now it's a bit bothersome, but it soon becomes second nature, and it makes the forum much more organized, on-topic, and easy to read.

Thanks.

This post was last modified: 11-29-2006 09:48 PM by Pedro Timóteo.

Sorry Pedro, I had thought that the simple clear answer would have been sufficient thus not necessitating a new thread. However since I was mistaken, Jim your response can be found here:

http://forum.wayofthemind.org/The-Nature...-t-27.html

Pedro, my apologies. I guess in my mind I see morality wound up in the question of evil so I assumed we were still on post. However, when I reread your initial post I see that we digressed. Sorry!

No problem. Thanks for understanding, both of you.

This post was last modified: 11-30-2006 09:04 PM by Pedro Timóteo.