What Is "evil"?

[Ouroboros]

I see where you're coming from Han. I guess I was using "objective" in the sense of "pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality." [Dictionary.com]

 

Sure, I'm using the definition from New Oxford American Dictionary:

 

1 (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts : historians try to be objective and impartial. Contrasted with subjective .

 

But it also have the definition:

• not dependent on the mind for existence; actual : a matter of objective fact.

And the way I see it, both parts taken together, is that it's not about a fact that necessarily exists outside of time and space like some mathematical truth. Objective is just something that exists outside of one person's individual interests.

 

I guess it's the "exisiting independent of thought" that has always been the key difference between subjective and objective (for me).

The problem with the phrase "independent of thought" is that it means two somewhat different things: (1) independent of all humans thoughts ever in history and no human ever thought or planned out, or (2) only independent of one individual's thought but still could be thought out by several humans in agreement.

 

The first one is an absolute objective view while the second one is not absolute.

 

Subjective items exist only in our minds and have no independent existence in reality.

I'm not sure that is a good definition. You exist in reality, therefore subjective views exist in reality.

 

Subjective in my dictionary is defined:

1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions : his views are highly subjective | there is always the danger of making a subjective judgment. Contrasted with objective .

In other words, it's based on very personal and individual views. It's not that it doesn't exist, but it doesn't exist as something you can apply to a group since it's personal.

 

But like I said, I see where you're coming from. Using "absolute" as opposed to "objective" is probably less confusing for most.

Right. Absolute is like a higher level of objective. It's the objective that doesn't waver or change, ever, and exists outside of time and space. While objective is just the side of the matter of existing independent of the single person's will and wishes, not necessarily unchanging. At least, that's how I see it right now.

[zandurian]

I see the "Problem of Evil" used a lot to defend a non-belief in God. It goes something like:

 

1. Theologians say God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-good.

2 But since evil exists then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate evil, or doesn't know evil exists, or doesn't want to eliminate evil.

 

3. Therefore, God (at least the God described in 1.) doesn't exist.

 

Christians generally invoke the free-will argument at this point which (though intriguing in a way) reads (to me) like a cosmic science fiction romance novel with the very worst of possible endings. At least CUs (Christian Universalists) get a good ending out of the deal.

 

Ironically it seems that the existence of evil is largely responsible for both atheism and religion, since one of the driving forces of religious systems is to explain the origins of evil and to administer an antidote.

 

Literalist fairy tales aside, I see the Genesis story as pure genius, especially for it's day. Notice that in the story God actually agrees with the serpent that humans have become Godlike after they ate from the Tree OTKOGAE. It is also apparently understood that only the lower realm of existence (matter/space/time) contains the polaristic fruits while spiritual/eternal/ethereal existence remains free of contrasting elements (Tree of Life) and is put off limits to those who now must live in jars of clay (ie: within the limits of shadow and contrast).

 

Then the writer shows a belief that this condition is only temporary and it is compared to a simple "bite on the heal" compared to the ultimate destiny of human kind to "bruise the serpent's head" ie: rise above the power of the beggarly elements.

[Shyone]

 

Agree. The definition has changed, and so has the objective rule of the law.

 

I differentiate between "absolute" (always a certain way) and "objective" (applicable to all regardless of individual desires).

 

Hence the circumstances and consensus of the society determine "objective" morality by defining it in law. AS morality changes, laws change.

Right. The laws represent (or legalize) the objective view of certain mores and values. It sets it in stone, in a way. The law doesn't change fast, and it stays fairly the same between one judge to the next, so the law isn't applied solely on the judges subjective view.

I misunderstood. "Objective" then doesn't mean universally applicable, but simply something that everyone in any place can look at and say "Yep, that's the law" even if the law varies from place to place.

 

Confusing, though, since "objective" suggests to me something that is "visible to all equally" and therefore applicable to all equally.

 

Aren't you really saying that Laws are Objective Morals?

[Shyone]

 

Literalist fairy tales aside, I see the Genesis story as pure genius, especially for it's day. Notice that in the story God actually agrees with the serpent that humans have become Godlike after they ate from the Tree OTKOGAE. It is also apparently understood that only the lower realm of existence (matter/space/time) contains the polaristic fruits while spiritual/eternal/ethereal existence remains free of contrasting elements (Tree of Life) and is put off limits to those who now must live in jars of clay (ie: within the limits of shadow and contrast).

 

Then the writer shows a belief that this condition is only temporary and it is compared to a simple "bite on the heal" compared to the ultimate destiny of human kind to "bruise the serpent's head" ie: rise above the power of the beggarly elements.

If the religious would see that story only as a morality tale, similar to Aesop's Fables, then the world would be a much better place.

[Ouroboros]

I misunderstood. "Objective" then doesn't mean universally applicable, but simply something that everyone in any place can look at and say "Yep, that's the law" even if the law varies from place to place.

Right.

 

It's between relativistic/subjective and absolute view.

 

Confusing, though, since "objective" suggests to me something that is "visible to all equally" and therefore applicable to all equally.

Not necessarily.

 

Objective only means that it is not build upon one person's unique feelings and opinions. The word suggests the independence from one human interference, while absolute is objective (if you want) to the whole nature. At least if I use the definition from my dictionary. The definition for objective contains the elements for how a thing is in relationship to an individual, while absolute is defined with elements suggesting it's a relationship to everything and all humans. It's the higher level of objective.

 

Subjective - One individuals view (feelings, belief)

Objective - a truth that applies to a group of individuals regardless of the individuals personal views (values, mores, laws)

Absolute - a truth that applies to all nature regardless of any individuals views anywhere and at any time. (gravity)

 

Aren't you really saying that Laws are Objective Morals?

Right.

 

Because they're not subjective. It's not like you can do a crime, go to court, and say "I felt like it" and it would set you free. The law apply regardless of how you personally feel about it.

 

I used to use "subjective" to mean the same thing I'm describing above, but I realized it doesn't work too well in discussions. Most philosophers mix up subjective and relativistic, and I realized that the definition of "objective" does allow flexibility and change, it's just not one individuals personal view, but it can be the agreed view (and people have to compromise).

 

But here's the real bugger in the machinery, Objectivism is the philosophical view that morals exists outside the realm of human knowledge, in other words, it's the same as absolute.

 

So whichever way I turn it, it's fucked up. We have no word we can use without screwing something up to explain something which is developed as a common view and hence independent of individual views. Perhaps that's unavoidable. Every time someone come up with a new term to explain, someone who doesn't want things to be gray and flexible, must create a false dichotomy and spin the definitions until they either mean black or white and nothing in between. Argh!

[Shyone]

 

Right.

 

You should probably say, "Right, grasshopper."

 

I bow to your wisdom.

[Ouroboros]

You should probably say, "Right, grasshopper."

If so, then we're both grasshoppers.

 

Do understand that the distinction came to me very recently. I kind of kept on grouping the concepts together a bit. I'm just afraid that if I try to explain this to an absolute-religious-nut-job they will immediately consider it an approval of their view.

[zandurian]

 

Literalist fairy tales aside, I see the Genesis story as pure genius,

If the religious would see that story only as a morality tale, similar to Aesop's Fables, then the world would be a much better place.

 

That's right. Bible literalism and inerrantism is where things get really insane within Christianity - especially with all the 'end time' crap. But it actually goes to the OP in that people want to literally absolve themselves from evil (by a literal sacrifice). Same as any other ancient superstitious ritual.

[Shyone]

 

Literalist fairy tales aside, I see the Genesis story as pure genius,

If the religious would see that story only as a morality tale, similar to Aesop's Fables, then the world would be a much better place.

 

That's right. Bible literalism and inerrantism is where things get really insane within Christianity - especially with all the 'end time' crap. But it actually goes to the OP in that people want to literally absolve themselves from evil (by a literal sacrifice). Same as any other ancient superstitious ritual.

Superstitious is right! Sacrificing Jesus still makes no sense, unless one accepts the concept of animal sacrifice as a way to proptiate the gods, that a human sacrifice would be acceptable. It isn't! It's just wrong!

 

One person, god, fairy or goblin cannot die for another's sins. It is the antithesis of personal responsibility.

[zandurian]

 

 

Subjective - One individuals view (feelings, belief)

Objective - a truth that applies to a group of individuals regardless of the individuals personal views (values, mores, laws)

Absolute - a truth that applies to all nature regardless of any individuals views anywhere and at any time. (gravity)

 

I believe absolute morals exist as a higher consciousness. The rest (as far as how they are "applied") I don't know.