Good in itself

[eudaimonia]

Because I affirm the good in itself, I can argue that the existence of evil is wholly destructive and unneeded. We can work together as human beings to annihilate evil and only participate in the good, striving onward in progress rather than destruction, only knowing the good.

Agreed! :yes:


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Agreed! :yes:


eudaimonia,

Mark

I figured that you'd agree with me because of your name.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Good and evil are still subjective.

I'm not sure where this love of the subjective comes from, but it is highly inconsistent and illogical. It looks to me like a perversion of existentialism and popular ethics.

I will argue that the "everything is subjective" crap is inconsistent with the scientific method and thus inconsitent with its naturalistic assumptions. We've seen this in your friends who assume that because "everything is subjective" that they actually give substance to reality (a gross perversion of quantum physics that I do not presume that you hold) and thus are deity themselves and therefore can do what they want (they live only according to their judgement of good and evil).

A critical problem with this destructive and idiotic fantasy is that human experience can be replicated, using social, psychological, and medical sciences. There are some human experiences that can be replicated in almost all humans and therefore ojective and not subjective by virtue of replicated experience.

Some things are destructive only for all humans and therefore can be called "evil" in an objective sense. Murder is one - all of our bodies are mortal - we know this from science - and all of our bodies can be destroyed by others. Disease is another universal evil - most of our bodies are suject to similar destructive reactions to the same bacteria and viruses. Incest may be a universal evil as supported by the findings in anthropology and social science. Hunger destroys the body, and poverty is the source of hunger.

We can identify universal goods: justice systems, medical care, provision of food, and equitable distributions of wealth.

 

[Comet]

I'm not sure where this love of the subjective comes from, but it is highly inconsistent and illogical. It looks to me like a perversion of existentialism and popular ethics.

I will argue that the "everything is subjective" crap is inconsistent with the scientific method and thus inconsitent with its naturalistic assumptions. We've seen this in your friends who assume that because "everything is subjective" that they actually give substance to reality (a gross perversion of quantum physics that I do not presume that you hold) and thus are deity themselves and therefore can do what they want (they live only according to their judgement of good and evil).

A critical problem with this destructive and idiotic fantasy is that human experience can be replicated, using social, psychological, and medical sciences. There are some human experiences that can be replicated in almost all humans and therefore ojective and not subjective by virtue of replicated experience.

Some things are destructive only for all humans and therefore can be called "evil" in an objective sense. Murder is one - all of our bodies are mortal - we know this from science - and all of our bodies can be destroyed by others. Disease is another universal evil - most of our bodies are suject to similar destructive reactions to the same bacteria and viruses. Incest may be a universal evil as supported by the findings in anthropology and social science. Hunger destroys the body, and poverty is the source of hunger.

We can identify universal goods: justice systems, medical care, provision of food, and equitable distributions of wealth.

I agree with what you have said, mostly. Yet, good and evil are abstract thoughts that have no basis in worldly or universal facts. They are subjective in the sence that it is an opinionated view as to how a viewer relates to it. No two people are the same and will have different opinions and views on things.

You say all humans can work together to annihilate evil, impossible for no two humans view what is evil the same. Evil is not like a tree or the sun. Those are real and tangible "facts". Evil is a subjective term though. To annihilate evil as humans, we would have to all agree as to what is evil.

Bacteria that finds our bodies a wonderful home I do not view as evil at all. Disease is a fact of life, yes..... it is not evil though. Does it kill people? Yes. People die without disease though. How is it evil? We have different deffinitions of evil - that is why we have been debating. Evil is relative to the viewer and the viewers opinion. Disease is not relative, it is a fact - to say disease is evil is a relative opinion to you, not me. Thus, we disagree on what the term "evil" is or what it is applied to. So how is it that with everybody elses' opinions on evil are we ever to annihilate it to only have good? Everything would be destroyed by that rational.

Again, you are correct in many ways. I also agree that everything is not subjective. Evil however is a subjective and abstract thing. When you apply that term to different things that are factual, people will disagree with you.

There are people who believe George W. Bush is evil. GWB is a fact, nobody can debate that..... not subjective or logical to debate that he is. Him being evil is up for debate for evil is subjective and relative to different viewers of the situation. That is what I've been getting at this whole time.

(not to worry, in another debate that only cats and humans kill for fun - I joined in just to argue on behalf of the cats not the humans - If I debate for disease here and not humans, then I suppose it is nothing new to me )

I have enjoyed this thread greatly - bytheway

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree with what you have said, mostly. Yet, good and evil are abstract thoughts that have no basis in worldly or universal facts.

I recognize that it is unfortunate that many religions use "good" and "evil" with connotations other than what can be obejectively measured. I am not associating good and evil with anything higher than observable, concrete facts. I'm detecting that you are not.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree with what you have said, mostly. Yet, good and evil are abstract thoughts that have no basis in worldly or universal facts. They are subjective in the sence that it is an opinionated view as to how a viewer relates to it. No two people are the same and will have different opinions and views on things.

You have not recognized that some evils are not subjective as they are replicated.

You say all humans can work together to annihilate evil, impossible for no two humans view what is evil the same. Evil is not like a tree or the sun. Those are real and tangible "facts". Evil is a subjective term though. To annihilate evil as humans, we would have to all agree as to what is evil.

We can work against the objective evils. I have only mentioned evils that are universal and not personally subjective: hunger, murder, poverty, and disease. If a person does not consider these as evils, they rightly need psychological attention as they are prone to be a sociopath and cause great damage to themselves and others if they act on their diabolical thinking.

Bacteria that finds our bodies a wonderful home I do not view as evil at all. Disease is a fact of life, yes..... it is not evil though. Does it kill people? Yes. People die without disease though. How is it evil? We have different deffinitions of evil - that is why we have been debating. Evil is relative to the viewer and the viewers opinion. Disease is not relative, it is a fact - to say disease is evil is a relative opinion to you, not me. Thus, we disagree on what the term "evil" is or what it is applied to. So how is it that with everybody elses' opinions on evil are we ever to annihilate it to only have good? Everything would be destroyed by that rational.

Again, you are correct in many ways. I also agree that everything is not subjective. Evil however is a subjective and abstract thing. When you apply that term to different things that are factual, people will disagree with you.

I have limited by definition of evil to that which only destroys.

There are people who believe George W. Bush is evil. GWB is a fact, nobody can debate that..... not subjective or logical to debate that he is. Him being evil is up for debate for evil is subjective and relative to different viewers of the situation. That is what I've been getting at this whole time.

(not to worry, in another debate that only cats and humans kill for fun - I joined in just to argue on behalf of the cats not the humans - If I debate for disease here and not humans, then I suppose it is nothing new to me )

I have enjoyed this thread greatly - bytheway

As have I.

 

[Comet]

You have not recognized that some evils are not subjective as they are replicated.

Replication of something doesn't make it evil. Ants replicate, humans replicate, bacterica replicates, trees replicate..... not evil. You think disease is evil, I think it is evil to say it doesn't have the right to exist.... the same right we exercise by living. Again evil is a subjective term relative only to the opinion of the viewer.

We can work against the objective evils. I have only mentioned evils that are universal and not personally subjective: hunger, murder, poverty, and disease. If a person does not consider these as evils, they rightly need psychological attention as they are prone to be a sociopath and cause great damage to themselves and others if they act on their diabolical thinking.

Hunger? Not evil in my opinion, evil to yours. Poverty? Not evil in my opinion, evil to yours. Disease? Not evil in my opinion, evil to yours. Murder? Was it evil for Germans to kill Jews in WWII but okay for Americans to kill Germans? To say one is okay and not the other is to justify murder itself by one's relative and subjective view of it. Again, evil is a subjective term to an individual.... not an objective fact of the universe that can't be subjected to subjectivity.

I have limited by definition of evil to that which only destroys

The only thing I found that fits that definition are:

Fundamentalist humans who wish to impose their will and beliefs on everything and everybody; and will villify anything or anybody that opposes them.


I assure you I am not or do not need:

need psychological attention as they are prone to be a sociopath and cause great damage to themselves and others if they act on their diabolical thinking

destructive and idiotic fantasy

your harmful views

Nor inhumane or the other things you have made refference to

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Replication of something doesn't make it evil. Ants replicate, humans replicate, bacterica replicates, trees replicate..... not evil.

I was referring to the scientific process of replicating results, which ants, bacteria, and trees cannot do. I think that you misunderstood replicate for reproduce. I was using the principle of replication to demonstrate that evil (defined as something that is only destructive) is objective in the sense that evil things can be replicated. This means that AIDs is evil to the cast majority of humans - this is not subjective.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nor inhumane or the other things you have made refference to

By virtue only of your inconsistency.

 

[Comet]

Replication of something doesn't make it evil. Ants replicate, humans replicate, bacterica replicates, trees replicate..... not evil.

I was referring to the scientific process of replicating results, which ants, bacteria, and trees cannot do. I think that you misunderstood replicate for reproduce. I was using the principle of replication to demonstrate that evil (defined as something that is only destructive) is objective in the sense that evil things can be replicated. This means that AIDs is evil to the cast majority of humans - this is not subjective.

Again, you make it evil only by your relative stance to YOUR definition of evil as well s your relative stance that it is something that effects humans. Does a computer fear AIDS? Does God? Does an elephant or a dog? A tree? NO. Subjective concept from a relative view point.

AIDS creates life for its own survival, for it reproduces itself. Does that meet your definition of only being destructive? NO.

By virtue only of your inconsistency.

I don't recall changing my stance that evil is a subjective concept, not a fact of life proved by science as you seem to view it. Nor have I deviated from my point that your thoughts on humans coming together to annihilate "evil" is not possible. You want a replicated reference? HUMAN ACTIONS, HUMAN NATURE, HUMAN BEHAVIOR. All these would say that your point is illogical for the past track record of humans would say that they do not agree with what is evil and what is good.

Again, the only thing I know of that fits your definition is:

Fundamentalist humans who wish to impose their will and beliefs on everything and everybody; and will villify anything or anybody that opposes them.

 

[Comet]

I recognize that it is unfortunate that many religions use "good" and "evil" with connotations other than what can be obejectively measured. I am not associating good and evil with anything higher than observable, concrete facts. I'm detecting that you are not.

"Objectively measured"..... AN OBSERVABLE CONCRETE FACT:

Cancer (or whatever disease you wish).... it is not ONLY DESTRUCTIVE. It is life and it reporduces itself, creating more life. That does not meet your definition, unless you wish to change it to:

EVIL= That which is only destructive to humans

 

[Comet]

You have not recognized that some evils are not subjective as they are replicated.
.

You have yet to prove objectively (or offer) any evil that is not subjective.

By your definition all the things you have listed as FACTUAL EVILS have been disputed by other observable facts that you choose not to see.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You have yet to prove objectively (or offer) any evil that is not subjective.

By your definition all the things you have listed as FACTUAL EVILS have been disputed by other observable facts that you choose not to see.

I don't think that you can successfully defend that disease is not evil. You've merely baselessly announced that it is subjectively evil, I suppose on the grounds that we should have disease around because some people think that it is good. Perhaps they enjoy the destruction of their bodies.

Who thinks that murder is not evil? And AIDs? Starving children?

You've pointed out that not all hunger is evil, because some hunger strikes brings about good. Nevertheless, those on hunger strikes I am sure would rather be eating, and would welcome their cause to be fulfilled and to be well-fed.

I cannot begin to understand why you would even argue that evil is subjective due to the obvious fact that humans all experience disease, murder, and hunger in the same way. What should we do if one person enjoys being killed (an application I suppose of evil being 'subjective') - shall we conclude that murder is good?

 

[Comet]

I don't think that you can successfully defend that disease is not evil. You've merely baselessly announced that it is subjectively evil, I suppose on the grounds that we should have disease around because some people think that it is good. Perhaps they enjoy the destruction of their bodies

I already did... by your definition, and you ignore it. I never said I thought it was good, you put those words in my mouth. I merely said it was not evil. Here it is again, so perhaps you will address it:

Cancer (or whatever disease you wish).... it is not ONLY DESTRUCTIVE. It is life and it reporduces itself, creating more life. That does not meet your definition

(so please tell me how my perception is wrong to your definition)

Who thinks that murder is not evil? And AIDs? Starving children?

Have you missed every post I have made? I asked you a question on murder that you ignored. I addressed aids and disease in general. Yet, you revert to a different disease or ignore my points to you. Have I debated starving children? Look at your next paragraph and see your own inconsistancy.

You've pointed out that not all hunger is evil, because some hunger strikes brings about good. Nevertheless, those on hunger strikes I am sure would rather be eating, and would welcome their cause to be fulfilled and to be well-fed.

Hmmm.... not all hunger is evil. Your words. Thank you for seeing a point finally. You said hunger is evil. Now you are saying not all hunger is evil. Again you are being relative to YOUR point of view and subjecting others to your "exceptions"... such as: destroying something is okay because you call it "surgically removing".

Rather be eating? NO! Then they would be eating. Plus, you ignore my point of the Cathars (among others), who choose to die that way. They would rather be eating? I guess if you were one with no faith.... Just as with poverty that you ignore my points on as well. Some choose to do so and gain more by doing it. Was Mother Theresa evil for choosing a life of poverty since YOU view poverty as evil? Your inconsistancy is more than illogical in this debate, not mine.

I cannot begin to understand why you would even argue that evil is subjective due to the obvious fact that humans all experience disease, murder, and hunger in the same way. What should we do if one person enjoys being killed (an application I suppose of evil being 'subjective') - shall we conclude that murder is good?

Again- you speak only relative to your perception and to the subjectivity of a human's opinion of evil. Where have you shown me the "factual objectivity" of your point? Where have you addressed my counter points? Still waiting.............................

I have never brought up how ONE person feels being killed. That would be a "subjective" opinion of ONE person. "Shall we conclude that murder is good?" That is something I have asked you in two different ways and you have not answered....... so I take it you have no answer and wish to use my subjective answer against me. That merely proves my point again that many things are subjective to a relative view point. Either way, your only stand point is from a "subjective point of relativity". Thus, you disprove what I have said is not possible from your OP.

You also said that you can't understand how I can think humans don't view X Y & Z in the same way. Yet, Z being hunger.... you have said you see my point of reference.... Who is inconsistent in thier points? You.

Just for the sake of your limited point of view and quick judgement upon other things: I have not said disease is good, I have only said it is not evil. I gave you a concrete fact that is not "subjective" and you refuse to deny or accept that..... though the "evil of hunger" was taken to an acceptance. I guess that is one universal evil you see as not being evil now then???? As I have said before, don't subject me to your subjective view point. If you cannot address my "repllicated" and "objected" points back to me, but just rattle off random nonsence or ignore my points and come up with something else to debate...... well, then this debate was over a few posts ago.

Frankly I do feel sorry for you brother. I see you do believe in God. Yet, you deny any life that was created as it doesn't suit YOUR means. Sad really. I read your 1 on 1 debate with Nhstn. He is my brother as well..... though he views me as an enemy as he does you. I feel sorry for you both for your limited capacity to understand what you both seem to profess you understand so well.

Peace be with you both.

 

[Purple Thyme]

Evil and Good are all relative to the person,time and place. Disease,bacteria, hunger and poverty are part of our existence. They cannot be classified as evil. Also if I murder someone in defense of my child's life, am I evil? I don't think so, I'm a parent.

 

[spont76]

“The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are able and willing.

“If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can but will not, then they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent.

“Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, why does it exist?”
-Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 B.C.E.)

 

[Mystic-als]

spont76 - Maybe because the gods are good and evil. So the consept of good and evil is purely a subjective one. It depends what side you're on.

 

[stemann]

Who thinks that murder is not evil? And AIDs? Starving children?

I don't think these things are 'evil' because I do not believe there is a definition of evil. If you define evil only as destructive then that is an actual definition, and you can argue whether or not murder, AIDs and starving children are destructive. However, this would be nothing to do with 'ethics' because 'destructive' is not an ethical concept.

If, on the other hand, there is an absolute definition of evil that is not based on hypothetical imperatives such as destruction then I would like very much to know what it is so I can understand the idea of 'objective morality' (which I do not at this time believe exists).

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

There is a Chinese story of a farmer who used an old horse to till his fields. One day, the horse escaped into the hills and when the farmer's neighbors sympathized with the old man over his bad luck, the farmer replied, "Bad? Good? Who knows?"

A week later, the horse returned with a herd of horses from the hills and this time the neighbors congratulated the farmer on his good luck. His reply was, "Good? Bad? Who knows?"

Then, when the farmer's son was attempting to tame one of the wild horses, he fell off its back and broke his leg. Everyone thought this very bad luck. Not the farmer, whose only reaction was, "Bad? Good? Who knows?"

Some weeks later, the army marched into the village and conscripted every able-bodied youth they found there. When they saw the farmer's son with his broken leg, they let him off. Now was that good or bad? Who knows?

Everything that seems on the surface to be an evil may be a good in disguise. And everything that seems good on the surface may really be an evil. So we are wise when we leave it to God to decide what is good fortune and what misfortune, and thank him that all things turn out for good with those who love him.
Author Unknown

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

“The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are able and willing.

“If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can but will not, then they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent.

“Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, why does it exist?”
-Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 B.C.E.)

Evil is a product of human behavior.

As a parent one understands that sometimes the only way for a child to learn is to make mistakes. All the talking in the world did not stop my son from burning his hand because until he experienced what 'hot' was, he didn't understand my warnings of stay away from the stove. In many cases, learning happens by trial and error. This life experience is a mirror for our spiritual journey. And only by experiencing evil, can we truly comprehend what is good.

It's not that he want's us to go through these pains of life, just like I didn't want to see my son get all banged up learning how to ride a bike. But if we don't let our children experience the pain in life, they will never know the joys of it. This is how God (or whatever you call the One Source above All) loves us as well.