Guest Valkyrie0010 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 And also clay, even if evil existed without our perception of it, how would we know its evil. What would make us know it and therefore react to it. Owww wait I forgot, you are assuming what your trying to prove. you god exists so therefore we would have to morals from god, he is the christian god!!! using your tautology for moment You say objective moral values exist couldn't not god just allow us to develop morals? But also i forget you are thinking the christian god exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I think we're all getting hung up on the definition of "EVIL." We all agree certain things are evil. I am NOT suggesting that morality is individually relative. I am suggesting that humans developed an instinctive concept of good and evil over millennia. What we consider good and evil is part of the human group dynamic. Instinct? Please define exactly where "instinct" begins and ends in human behavior. You can not. Your claim to evolutionary advantage is empty. Clearly there would be acts that would still be evil even if we had "developed an instinct" to do so. He highlighted a point that would have followed mine. Morality was are next stepped needed evolutionary speaking to survive. It became instinct, like a evolutionary change would became apart of us. Instinct? Please define exactly where "instinct" begins and ends in human behavior? You can not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valkyrie0010 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 If only humans can decide then you are claiming all good and evil is subjective. What Pol Pot did was evil even if every human decided it was not. Pol Pot killed, which is evil, because of the harm we perceive killing causes. Good and evil are labels places on actions. Harm is evil. nonharm is good. and you can't say in these things like murder would be alright anyway, because if murder was ever permissable we would not have survived as a species. You are mixing in some kind of philosophical precept ("harm is evil") with evolutionary mechanics ("advantageous instincts"). This does not work. Harm is very often evolutionarily advantageous. Lions kill, but they don't murder. IOW, your gross generalization does not work. Do we kill for food? Do we do what many different animals do? it depends on the creature what is harm and what is not? it is advantageous for us to not murder Ever looked at the ten commandments here is a point ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' irrelevant to survival TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' irrelevant to survival THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' irrevelant to survival FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' irrelevant to survival FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.' SIX: 'You shall not murder.' relevant to survival SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.' relevant to survival EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.' relevant to survival NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' relevent to survival TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.' can be relevent to survival would the israelities not have known these were wrong. why the need to reinforce the obvious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Is circumcision evil? No. Even if the infant has no way to reject or accept it? Is that not exploitation? Based on your questions, I assume you agree there is an objective good and evil. 1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist 2) Objective moral values do exist 3) Therefore, God exists you got to prove god is needed for objective moral values, which the last time this came up you failed to do Objective moral values would have no where to exist with out God. After all they are objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valkyrie0010 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I think we're all getting hung up on the definition of "EVIL." We all agree certain things are evil. I am NOT suggesting that morality is individually relative. I am suggesting that humans developed an instinctive concept of good and evil over millennia. What we consider good and evil is part of the human group dynamic. Instinct? Please define exactly where "instinct" begins and ends in human behavior. You can not. Your claim to evolutionary advantage is empty. Clearly there would be acts that would still be evil even if we had "developed an instinct" to do so. He highlighted a point that would have followed mine. Morality was are next stepped needed evolutionary speaking to survive. It became instinct, like a evolutionary change would became apart of us. Instinct? Please define exactly where "instinct" begins and ends in human behavior? You can not. when it became nature not to murder or lie or pick some mortal wrong, it is a mental evolutionary add on. kind of like religion for that matter it would have had to otherwise we would have never gotten the compulsion to do so and we would not have survived Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Here we go again. "Good" and "Evil". Both exist only in the minds of man and therefore do not have any kind of independant existence. Clay and many others insist that even if the entire human race believed an act was OK, it would still be evil (by an independant observer I assume, i.e. god). The problem is partly one of definition in my opinion. "Murder" is the taking of anothers life. To imply an additional moral dimension (i.e. all murder is evil) is somewhat circular as you are the one deciding when it's murder (thus making is a relative and subject assessment). In my experience and studies, no one act has been considered taboo by every society throughout time. That, to me, strongly points to there being no true "good" or "evil" as it always appears to be relative to the society and then to the individual whithin that society. Sorry Clay, but I'm pretty sure if the majority of a culture accepts something, it is moral (circumcision is a good example, as was slavery). As for insticts - I think they play a small part in morality, but I think a much bigger influence is societal pressure. Each society molds the individual (to varying degrees) in a shape that will get along in the society. Those that don't (for whatever reasons the society deems, remember, it's relative) are isolated and/or killed to protect the society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I think you missed the point. Even if everyone alive thought raping a baby was okay it would still be evil. Would you know its wrong, if everyone in the world thought it right, and since you are apart of the world, even you? You are conflating knowing and thinking. It is evil even if no mind thought it was. Unsupported assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Is circumcision evil? No. Even if the infant has no way to reject or accept it? Is that not exploitation? Based on your questions, I assume you agree there is an objective good and evil. 1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist 2) Objective moral values do exist 3) Therefore, God exists Go back and study logic again. This cookie cutter stuff ain't gonna, forgive the pun, cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagan Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I think we're all getting hung up on the definition of "EVIL." We all agree certain things are evil. I am NOT suggesting that morality is individually relative. I am suggesting that humans developed an instinctive concept of good and evil over millennia. What we consider good and evil is part of the human group dynamic. Instinct? Please define exactly where "instinct" begins and ends in human behavior. You can not. Your claim to evolutionary advantage is empty. Clearly there would be acts that would still be evil even if we had "developed an instinct" to do so. Only if you accept that there is a universal standard of good and evil, right or wrong, which must come from a higher being. If my claim is empty, this is even more empty and I challenge you to prove that there is a universal standard of good and evil, right and wrong. Again, you also don't read the entire post. Look at the story of the chimps and the bonobos. Male chimps evolved to kill their rivals' babies. Would you consider that evil? The chimps don't. In India, women used to throw themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres, and baby girls used to be killed in favour of baby boys. This still happens in many places because some groups don't consider it evil, and because the groups that do consider it evil haven't pressured them enough to stop. Again, instead of just chipping away at my arguments with mock righteous indignation, feel free to step up anytime and offer your own. And again, I challenge you to prove there is a universal standard of good and evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 There is nothing wrong with mankind any more than there is anything wrong with nature. I believe man is no more good or evil than a dog or horse or tree. Man is a creature of this earth, blessed with astonishing intelligence that allows him to choose to behave well or badly. There is no good or evil, only choices and consequences. What do you call a man who consistently chooses to behave badly? A politician? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I think you missed the point. Even if everyone alive thought raping a baby was okay it would still be evil. Is circumcision evil? Very good point. So Clay, do you consider circumcision to be a physical violation of the sexual organ of male babies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Is circumcision evil? No. Even if the infant has no way to reject or accept it? Is that not exploitation? Based on your questions, I assume you agree there is an objective good and evil. 1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist 2) Objective moral values do exist 3) Therefore, God exists Far be it for me to speak for Burned Out, but the crux of the question I asked about circumcision is that there are opinions about it - some call it evil, some call it moral. There is no consensus on this issue, or, for that matter, on the issue of abortion (despite what you might wish). Hence, there are no objective moral values. 1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist 2) Objective moral values do not exist 3) Therefore, God does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist I don't agree. I believe objective morality can be established through human agreement. Society as a whole has evolved to accept certain values and standards. Each individual in that society can't control the overall standard. So the values and standards are objective in the view of the individual, but subjective to the development of society. And this happened without God. 2) Objective moral values do exist Yes. They evolve through subjective influence by individuals and the interaction in society. So morals are both subjective and objective. 3) Therefore, God exists Nope. See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Objective moral values would have no where to exist with out God. After all they are objective. Nope. Internet objectively exists. My influence, thought, will, interest, or knowledge doesn't change the fact that Internet exists. According to your logic, Internet must have been created by God and is a proof of God's existence. For something to be "objective" it means that it exists outside of one individuals mind. You exist outside of my mind. My mind can't change the fact that you exists. So you are an objective fact of reality in relationship to my mind. And the same goes for my existence in relationship to your mind. It has nothing to do with God, but it has to do with the relationship of something existing and someone's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I think you missed the point. Even if everyone alive thought raping a baby was okay it would still be evil. Would you know its wrong, if everyone in the world thought it right, and since you are apart of the world, even you? You are conflating knowing and thinking. It is evil even if no mind thought it was. either I need to improve my skills at writing or you need to not be so prone to regurgitating apologetics. Hypothetically lets say. We survived at a survived and got by as a species raping a baby, and it was accepted by everyone in our species. Would you know its wrong. I am not conflating thinking with knowing, though I am using the term think it was meant to be read as knowing. If we accept that there are societies that actually did, for whatever reason, kill babies to appease gods or to improve the crops and/or weather, then we know that those societies accepted that this process was "moral". Moral to them, not to OC. I think that OC wishes to say - his standards for morality are absolute regardless of what other societies have done or are doing. His standards are the absolute morals. Clay is God. Just ask him what's moral and immoral. He will tell you, because he is the mind of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 When Christians claim there are absolute evil, they forget to add one disclaimer. They need a qualifier to that claim. What they're really saying is: it's evil under all circumstances, except when God commands it. Because when commands people to do evil, all absolute evils become absolutely good. That's the only way they can excuse God for commanding genocide and murder of babies in the Bible. If I remember right, he even commanded some prophets to lie. If those things are mortal sins, God, as a conspirator to crime, is culpable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist 2) Objective moral values do not exist 3) Therefore, God does not exist. Hans already addressed this in detail. I just wanted to add that your conclusion doesn't follow. Subjective morality doesn't necessarily mean that god doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanakila Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 The apologetic argument of evil doesn't prove God exists. But that doesn't mean that Stalin was not an evil vile man and not according to just me but to most thinking humans. Most thinking humans with a conscience think killing kittens is evil and always has been. The serial killer knows what he/she is doing is wrong but something is tripped in their brains that causes them to not care enough about right and wrong to keep them from killing. It's hard to understand that type thinking when you are someone who would never commit such and evil act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko47 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Hmmm to choose to behave well or badly....so where does that leave murder, incest, and the most vilest depraved things a human can do? is that not evil? Im not so sure. You missed the point. They're evil because we humans decided they are evil, because they are destructive to us and to others, not because an invisible super-being created a universal law of good and evil. I think you missed the point. Even if everyone alive thought raping a baby was okay it would still be evil. Although I agree with Clay here, it still has nothing to do necessarily with a "God". In a way, only humans can decide what is evil for things involving humans. If only humans can decide then you are claiming all good and evil is subjective. What Pol Pot did was evil even if every human decided it was not. So all good and evil is subjective then; so what ? That doesn't make it frivolous or arbitrary, which is what you are trying to infer, or so it seems. I trust thoughtful philosophical analysis based on rational thinking and experience over views expressed by ancient barbarians any day. Stoning my daughter to death because she's not a virgin on her wedding day? This is your "objective" God teaching "objective goodness", is it ? This is why religion of any kind has failed to present a "perfect" system of morality and ethics; it blends imaginary ideas about "perfection" with personal emotional feelings and the ideas of a culture at a given time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 The apologetic argument of evil doesn't prove God exists. But that doesn't mean that Stalin was not an evil vile man and not according to just me but to most thinking humans. Most thinking humans with a conscience think killing kittens is evil and always has been. I agree. I think it says more about human beings than it does about the concepts of good/evil though. What it shows is that virtually everyone who is not mentally damaged can appear to agree on at least a few basic moral positions. And isn't this predictable since we are all social creatures with similar basic needs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 ... we are all social creatures... The word "creature" strikes me as a Christian/religious holdover. I use the word "organism". I'm on you a bit today Vigile. And I'll tell you why in a PM if you want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I agree. I think it says more about human beings than it does about the concepts of good/evil though. What it shows is that virtually everyone who is not mentally damaged can appear to agree on at least a few basic moral positions. And isn't this predictable since we are all social creatures with similar basic needs? Though I would add that the vast majority of moral lapses are not attributable to physiological maladies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 The apologetic argument of evil doesn't prove God exists. But that doesn't mean that Stalin was not an evil vile man and not according to just me but to most thinking humans. Most thinking humans with a conscience think killing kittens is evil and always has been. The serial killer knows what he/she is doing is wrong but something is tripped in their brains that causes them to not care enough about right and wrong to keep them from killing. It's hard to understand that type thinking when you are someone who would never commit such and evil act. Right. And consider that if cows were sentient, they would most likely argue that "humans' killing cows is evil." It's all depending on the perspective. But it doesn't make it non-existent either. Like you said, we would still believe certain things to be right or wrong, good or evil, even if it all is subjective to our species or group of beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I tink a strict definition of what is meant by 'evil' would be helpful in this thread. And OC, whenever a baby is raped it is your god's fault. Or would be if it existed. And your 'X is evil no mater...' line is tired already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 If only humans can decide then you are claiming all good and evil is subjective. What Pol Pot did was evil even if every human decided it was not. Pol Pot killed, which is evil, because of the harm we perceive killing causes. Good and evil are labels places on actions. Harm is evil. nonharm is good. and you can't say in these things like murder would be alright anyway, because if murder was ever permissable we would not have survived as a species. You are mixing in some kind of philosophical precept ("harm is evil") with evolutionary mechanics ("advantageous instincts"). This does not work. Harm is very often evolutionarily advantageous. Lions kill, but they don't murder. IOW, your gross generalization does not work. Lions do murder - I've seen the videos. Or when a dominant male slaughters the cubs sired by another male in his pride, is that not murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts