Does Evil Exist?

[boftx]

Yes, there are some acts that humans can generally agree upon because most people want to live in peace. I'm not disagreeing with you that there is a good and evil, I just don't believe it derives from the natural world. It is something that is defined by humanity itself, and this capability is what allows us to form a civilized society. 

 

And so we come to Kant, Sarte, and my own favorite approach, Enlightened Self-Interest. Talk about a can of worms!

[RipVanWinkle]

Just an observation on free will: According to Xtianity all are sinners because of Adam. God in his<br />infinite wisdom decided that it would be fair and reasonable, which is always his style, to impute the sin of Adam to every human who was born after him, in other words, to everyone irrespective of any sin<br />but Adam's. If anybody fails to ask God for forgiveness by accepting the murder of his son as a sacrifice and atonement for the imputed sins of mankind, he/she gets to go to hell because Adam disobeyed God. Now this person, whom I'll call Heshe didn't get a chance to exercise his/her free will to sin,<br />because that was his/her nature as determined by.... Heshs??? No--- as determined by God through the<br />fiction of imputation.<br /><br />Apologists have said, ever since they were old enough to lie,that free will is the culprit.<br />Well, it's both a gift from God and the potential culprit, which allows a person to choose to sin or<br />not. If he/she sins, free will is the culprit in a sense in which it requires that the consequences of that sin fall squarely on his/her shoulder. All is quite tidy and proper, isn't it? Something that we<br />would expect from a fair and reasonable God. But wait! I thought Heshe was imbued with the corruption of sin because of Adam. And if that's so, whether Heshe personally sinned or not, he's branded a sinner by virtue of God's infinite wisdom. So, free will has nothing to do with it after all. God gave people an awfully short plank to walk, I should say. So free will really has nothing to do with God's blood<br />lust after all. Even if no person after Adam had sinned, every human would be a sinner.<br /><br />Oh, wait. I get it. God knew that if he hadn't imputed sin to each human from Adam,we would have<br />exercised our free will to sin anyway. So, why go through the unnecessary motions of waiting until<br />each person does the deed. God took care of it up front before we were born. But why were we born in<br />the first place? Why, for the purpose of God sending us to hell, of course.<br /><br />How did God know we would sin since we have free will and therefore could choose not to?<br />Unless, God, who made us and gave us our strengths and weaknesses knew that his product had a defect.<br />He knew before any human was born that no one would be able to go through life without exercising his<br />will to sin, at least once. So God thought, "I made the perfect trap for humans: They have no choice<br />but to be born and play the game. They have no say as to the rules; they have zero possibility<br />of winning and I get to be judge and determine the sentence. What fun!" And how can we complain? After all, we had free will? bill

[TheBeast]

Given enough words, I could make anyone or anything look ethically acceptible to a deluded mind. The difference is only in the amount of words needed. Proving how messed up biblegod is would need just one bible verse, but it would take me a paragraph or two to explain away the same passage. Therein lies the difference. Occams razor applies here. It takes a whole lot of f*cked up thinking (otherwise known as faith) to accept biblegod as a good and holy being, but just a minute amount of rational thinking to see through it.

[seeker001]

 

Yes, there are some acts that humans can generally agree upon because most people want to live in peace. I'm not disagreeing with you that there is a good and evil, I just don't believe it derives from the natural world. It is something that is defined by humanity itself, and this capability is what allows us to form a civilized society. 

 

And so we come to Kant, Sarte, and my own favorite approach, Enlightened Self-Interest. Talk about a can of worms!

I haven't heard about Kant and Sarte, looks like I have something new to check out. Enlightened Self-Interest is exactly what I was getting into even if I didn't know the term until you mentioned it.

 

One man's heaven is another man's hell as the saying goes, I mostly noticed that everyone has an opinion on what makes a utopia and distopia. What is it that makes a place good to live? Everyone has their own cultural norms and ideas of what is and is not acceptable. I can't see anything in the natural world that sets the rules, so it must derive from people deciding for themselves.

[OrdinaryClay]

OrdinaryClay,

 

Consider the following verse:

 

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7

 

"God" is saying he created both light and darkness. If one grants that darkness is nothing more than the absence of light, then the same should apply to "heat" and "cold" using your logic, and by extension, to "good" and "evil."

 

In other words, "God" created the absolute principle that is being referred to in relative terms. Again, "God" created the conditions being described by the terms, otherwise how could Man know what they are? And in the case of evil, "God" specifically created a means for Man to have knowledge of it. Both logic, and "God's" own words agree: "God" created evil.

First, An analogy is not a logical deduction. Darkness is the absence of photons. Cold is the absence of heat. Evil is the absence of the will to do God's will. They are analogous, but just because they are analogous does not mean you can deduce other characteristics they may or may not share. Analogies allow us to gain insight not draw deductions. God indeed creates the conditions for all these "states" to arise. It is incontrovertible that God cannot force a freed willed being to choose of their own free will.

 

In any event, nothing you have said has allowed one to deduce that God created evil. This is what we know. God allows evil. God created free willed creatures who are capable of evil. Free willed beings are culpable for their own evil acts. This culpability is undeniable. We can't shift the blame.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

He created us with the nature we have, with the possibility of choosing evil. If he did exist he would be a loser for doing such a thing. Why create a life form with the ability to choose something, then punish it for a nature you gave it? That seems pretty evil to me.

We are not punished for our nature. On the contrary, God is no respecter of persons. We are punished for our choices we freely make.

 

Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.

(Act 10:34-35)

 

What crap of course we are punished for a nature. Shsme we don't get a choice about living by a stupid set of rules that generally turn people into judgemental assholes if we don't want to be thrown into hell. I dont care what you say i should not have to pay for the bad choices of some bitch who couldnt keep her hands off gods fruit.

The beauty of it all is that you don't have to pay for your own bad choices. Christ's sacrifice on the cross allows you to approach Him with no concern of who sinned.

[boftx]

In any event, nothing you have said has allowed one to deduce that God created evil. This is what we know. God allows evil. God created free willed creatures who are capable of evil. Free willed beings are culpable for their own evil acts. This culpability is undeniable. We can't shift the blame.

 

You are correct, there is no deduction involved. "God" said it directly. Here is the statement, again, for your benefit:

 

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7

 

You do believe in "God" and accept the Bible as his word, right? Or is this a case where one must infer the true meaning from what you apparently consider an allegorical passage?

[OrdinaryClay]

 

centauri:

But the problem with your sweeping generalization is that God predestines certain decisions and roles for at least some people.

It's by his choice and his will, not theirs.

God also manipulates human decisions by stepping in and hardening their hearts, which ensures a particular outcome.

There is no way to know how much "free will" is allowed when it isn't a universal and constant condition, which the Bible clearly indicates it is not.

God declared that he creates evil in Isa 45:7, and the word "ra" includes ethical evil, not simply disaster.

 

OC:

I made no generalization.

 

God cannot force a free willed agent to make a choice of their own free will. That is a logical impossibility.

Yes, you did make a generalization.

You assert free will as a given, with constant application.

You haven't established that free will is a universal condition.

In fact, you blatantly ignore the scripture that clearly states God predestines some people to certain roles, conditions, and choices according to his will, not their will.

You also ignore cases where God engages in manipulation of a human in order to ensure they make a particular decision.

>God actualized a world in which He knew with certainty many would choose evil. This is not the same as forcing them to make those choices. They freely choose to make the choices they make.

You don't know the degree of freedom that anyone has and your sweeping generalization contradicts scripture.

 

Deut 2:30(ESV)

But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day.

 

Deut 2:30(NLT)

“But King Sihon of Heshbon refused to allow us to pass through, because the Lord your God made Sihon stubborn and defiant so he could help you defeat him, as he has now done.

 

This is direct manipulation of so called "free-will" to ensure the outcome that God wanted.

Predestination also ruins your universal "free-will" claim.

When someone is predestined to a condition, God is in control and it's his will, his plan, and his choice.

Culpability lies with the evil person. They cannot shift the blame and no such attempt will be accepted at judgement day.

If a person has been subjected to either manipulation or predestinaton (which the Bible clearly shows instances of), you have no way to assign blame to them.

God's sovereign purpose and choice trumps human will as God sees fit.

The roles of Jacob and Esau were determined by God before they were born, not based on anything they had done.

People cannot choose to revoke their free will. People have free will by virtue of what they are. I applied no generalization because the characteristic is inherent in us.

 

You blatantly ignore the vast amount of Scripture that clearly states humans have free will, we are incumbent to make choices, we are culpable for what we do. That is what an honest and open reading of scripture says to a seeking heart.  The entire book is fundamentally about our choices and their consequences.  Even your own proof text Deut 2:30 implies Sihon had a choice. You have attempted to fit your preconceived notions in deciding it means he has no free will.

 

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

(Deu 30:19)

 

"Go and speak to David, 'Thus the LORD says, "I am offering you three things; choose for yourself one of them, which I will do to you."'"

(2Sa 24:12)

 

"If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

(Jos 24:15)

 

You setup false dichotomies. The choice is not free will vs a hardened or obstinate heart. That is silly and illogical. A hardened heart or an obstinate predisposition does not remove free will and the ability to choose otherwise. All the disciples had predispositions to sin before following Christ.

 

 

Ra includes ethical evil, not simply calamity or disaster.

 

Ra-

adj bad, evil bad, disagreeable, malignant bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery) evil, displeasing bad (of its kind - land, water, etc) bad (of value) worse than, worst (comparison) sad, unhappy evil (hurtful) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition) bad, evil, wicked (ethically) in general, of persons, of thoughts deeds, actions n m evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity evil, distress, adversity evil, injury, wrong evil (ethical) n f evil, misery, distress, injury evil, misery, distress evil, injury, wrong evil (ethical)

 

I just pointed out what the word means so repeating what I just said does not make your point stronger. The root Ra may mean moral evil but the context of the verse clearly portrays physical calamity.

 

God did create all the circumstances we find ourselves in. He did foreknow exactly the way all of us would choose. He chose to create a world in which He knew how we would choose. This does not logicallly contradict free will. Moral evil emerges from free willed choices as demonstrated by Scripture, reason and logic.

 

 

Free will is a binary state. You either have free will or you don't. It is part of being human so all humans have free will.

Wishful thinking and denial of scripture doesn't make all humans have free will.

You have no idea how much God might have predestined people nor do you have any idea to what degree he manipulates behavior.

No amount of ignoring Scripture allows us to shift the blame away from ourselves. I have Scripture, reason and logic which tell me we are free willed beings who are culpable for our won actions with no excuse.

 

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

(Rom 1:20)

 

Furthermore, your use of the word "free" is not accurate.

The Christian God will punish an improper choice with damnation or some other torture.

In order for a choice to be given under truly "free will", there is no punishment for the failure to make a particular choice.

Free means without charge.

The Christian God does not give free will regarding salvation, but instead gives an ultimatum.

This is not free choice but a conditional choice where threats of punishment are used to coerce a particular response.

Your reasoning here is a non sequitur. Just because there are consequence for our actions does not mean we still don't have a choice. The world is rife with people who make bad choices while knowing the terrible consequences and repercussions  to their choices.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

OC is really trying to argue that god doesn't interfere with "free will" (a term that never appears in the bible so far as I know)?  Holy crap, good luck with that!

Influencing a choice does not remove free will. People everyday decide not to do something despite proclivities to do them. Free will still holds.

[OrdinaryClay]

Paging BAA.....BAA please respond.

He cannot save you.

[RipVanWinkle]

What christians mean by "out of context" is that if the particular quote in question does not favorably and completely fit THEIR conclusions as to the meaning and theme of the

whole bible, then it is out of context. I'm not merely being sarcastic. THAT IS what

Xtians mean. They set up a "heads I win; tails you lose" standard of biblical

interpretation which they apply to no other document.

 

They also think that they are making winning points in a debate about their myth, when

they use platitudes, like, "They can't save you. Only Jesus." And they think, "Well I

guess that settles that." bill

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

Evil is the willful intent to act contrary to God's will.

Apologies in advance if you're a liberal believer, but is "God" the genocidal, filicidal bully described in the old testament? (as Richard Dawkins aptly described him).

You misunderstand the Old Testament.

I read the OT as is, but you want to read your pre-conceived ideas about your imaginary friend into it. It's you that doesn't understand.

Or maybe God exists and He is who He says He is and you simply don't want to believe it to be so.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

Although, I'm sure all of the ex-christian's figured this one out some time ago .

That's what separates the ex's from the Christians. We're just that little bit more intelligent. 

There are many very intelligent people who believe in Christ and the Bible.

OrdinaryClay actually speaks the truth here.

Maybe, but his response was a diversion. Ex-Christians are clearly more intelligent than Christians (as a whole), which is the reason we can see through the BS. I dare say any statistical analysis will prove my point.

Then prove it to me. I don't believe you.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

OrdinaryClay,

 

"God" created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, right? That says that "God" knows what "evil" is. And "God" must know what it is since "God" is omni-everything. Nothing can exist without his knowledge. Nothing can exist except that "God" conceived of it first. Even if as you say, "God" did not create "evil" but created free will, then "God" created the ability to do evil.

Yes, God created free willed beings who could do evil.

 

>And since there could be no knowledge of what evil was except that Eve or Adam ate the fruit of the tree that "God" created then it must follow that "God" created

evil.

Evil is an act. God does not create the actions of free willed agents. God did not force Adam and Eve to sin. They chose to do so. They could have chosen otherwise. The act was theirs not Gods. So no, God did not create evil.

What a load of crap. Is there free will in the afterlife? If so, you'll lose your place in heaven sooner or later. One little slip up, one sinful thought, and you'll be gone. I'll save you a warm spot in the lake of fire.

 

We don't know many details of life after death, and it really does not matter. We know that 1) we are culpable for what we do and decide in this life, and 2) there will be judgement for the choices we make in this life. This is enough knowledge to allow us to live.

 

But the Lord answered and said to her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

(Luk 10:41-42)

 

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

The specifics of what is good and evil may vary from society to society, but there are some universal themes that humanity seems to agree on that are malevolent to a civilized society. Indiscriminate murder and stealing from others is considered bad or at the very least counter productive. Most people find inflicting needless pain and suffering as revolting. I think most people across all cultures are in agreement with these basic principles of good and evil.

This universality speaks against the idea that evil is relative to the societal context.

 

I would also say that there are a set of acts that are evil even if some evil dictator brainwashed everyone alive into thinking it was not. Rape for example would still be evil even if every human decided for some reason it was not.

That's kind of the thing, most people have a functional working compass.  Humans can derive the difference between right and wrong on their own, because most people have a sense of moral decency and empathy. Unless they have something wrong with them (such as being brainwashed in your example) most people do not go out and cause mayhem without a good reason. Most people like to think they are good decent individuals and try to live a good decent life.

 

In your example, that dictator forcibly altered the peoples' sense of right and wrong. If those people in your example were not brainwashed they would find rape to be evil because it is a horrendous act.  For anyone to find rape to be acceptable would mean they must have something wrong with them.

Exactly, and more importantly even if every person were brain washed to think rape was right it would be still be wrong. It is wrong because it is objectively wrong. Evil is not a relative judgment.

Good, so God saving a bunch of virgin girls for his followers while commanding the killing of male children and pregnant women would surely be objectively wrong, regardless of the time and culture. Yes?

If you are referring to Scripture please quote it.

[OrdinaryClay]

Isaiah 45:7 says that God created evil.

Some might want to call it "calamity". Isn't that great! Look at the world around you. Wherever you see calamity, God did that. Whenever you see a family homeless due to a house fire or a war, wherever you see a person in a panic because he or she has lost a limb or a loved one because of seemingly senseless violence, whenever you see a child starving of malnutrition with a huge distended belly because of the decisions of the big people around it, wherever you see bombs drop and guns shoot at airplanes that are dropping bombs and you just wish the world would settle down and behave itself but it won't, God created that. That's way better than if God created evil, isn't it?

We are born in a physical world in which physical laws apply. Physical suffering is simply part of that and is not morally evil. God's creating a world in which we will suffer (all of us do at one point in time) is not evil as physical suffering often will lead to our making choices which are morally good. Life without suffering is essentially hedonism and hedonism is a recipe for psychological suffering and inevitably leads to a rejection of God which is the ultimate suffering.

 

I'd like to ask you, O.C; how could God expect perfect humans that knew no sin to know that disobeying God and eating from the tree was wrong?  There was, according to the Genesis story, no sin in them until after they ate, and not before. Adam and Eve were created in the likeness of God Himself, sinless and perfect. You can't presuppose that they knew what they were doing when they ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, because for them, there was no knowledge of good and evil in them until they ate from the tree. 

Adam and Eve were perfect when they were created, weren't they? How could a perfect being like Eve even be tempted by a serpent, unless she already knew of evil? Can one be tempted to do evil, if one has no concept of evil at all?

They had free wills. God just got done telling them not do something and they did it anyway. A child may not know why a parent tells them not to do something but that does not mean they should do it. That is silly.

 

Also, where in the Genesis story, is the serpent wrong? Didn't the serpent tell the truth? Of course it did, all the way through the story, from start to finish.

The serpent told them to disobey God. This is evil.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Oh.. Yahweh most certainly is the author of evil.

 

Isaiah 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

We are the author of free willed evil. See my post above for the answer.

 

Now use some basic logic... if Yahweh is the source, the originator of the universe - time, space, matter, energy, etc...the laws of physics etc..., the CREATOR - then he created everything, EVERYTHING.  There is no scriptural basis for any created being (either human or angelic) creating anything. If God is the author, the source - then ALL comes from him. (even if it makes you feel icky.)

Yes, He created everything, but God cannot make an incoherent sentence have meaning. It is incoherent to say "God can force a free willed being choose of their own free will". It is impossible for God to create a married bachelor, for example.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

Paging BAA.....BAA please respond.

He cannot save you.

Correct.

 

If there is no threat, no rescue is required.

 

But you need saving from the crisis that the eternal Multiverse puts your faith in - even if you'll go to your grave denying it.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

Evil is the willful intent to act contrary to God's will.

Apologies in advance if you're a liberal believer, but is "God" the genocidal, filicidal bully described in the old testament? (as Richard Dawkins aptly described him).

You misunderstand the Old Testament.

I read the OT as is, but you want to read your pre-conceived ideas about your imaginary friend into it. It's you that doesn't understand.

Or maybe God exists and He is who He says He is and you simply don't want to believe it to be so.

There's no maybe about the existence of the eternal Multiverse, however.  You simply don't want to accept it.

[Adrianime]

 

Also, where in the Genesis story, is the serpent wrong? Didn't the serpent tell the truth? Of course it did, all the way through the story, from start to finish.

 

The serpent told them to disobey God. This is evil.

 

 

Har har, and who in your mind created this serpent?  It's fine that you believe in evil and all.  But you should be honest with yourself and acknowledge that given the claims you make, it only points to the god you believe in creating evil. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

OrdinaryClay,

 

"God" created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, right? That says that "God" knows what "evil" is. And "God" must know what it is since "God" is omni-everything. Nothing can exist without his knowledge. Nothing can exist except that "God" conceived of it first. Even if as you say, "God" did not create "evil" but created free will, then "God" created the ability to do evil.

Yes, God created free willed beings who could do evil.

 

>And since there could be no knowledge of what evil was except that Eve or Adam ate the fruit of the tree that "God" created then it must follow that "God" create

devil.

Evil is an act. God does not create the actions of free willed agents. God did not force Adam and Eve to sin. They chose to do so. They could have chosen otherwise. The act was theirs not Gods. So no, God did not create evil.

What a load of crap. Is there free will in the afterlife? If so, you'll lose your place in heaven sooner or later. One little slip up, one sinful thought, and you'll be gone. I'll save you a warm spot in the lake of fire.

We don't know many details of life after death, and it really does not matter. We know that 1) we are culpable for what we do and decide in this life, and 2) there will be judgement for the choices we make in this life. This is enough knowledge to allow us to live.

 

But the Lord answered and said to her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

(Luk 10:41-42)

 

 

 

 

All scripture can be summarily dismissed as coming exclusively from a human origin.  Therefore, using it as it it came from a divine source is in error.  No deity was required to create this reality.

 

 

 

OrdinaryClay,

 

"God" created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, right? That says that "God" knows what "evil" is. And "God" must know what it is since "God" is omni-everything. Nothing can exist without his knowledge. Nothing can exist except that "God" conceived of it first. Even if as you say, "God" did not create "evil" but created free will, then "God" created the ability to do evil.

Yes, God created free willed beings who could do evil.

 

>And since there could be no knowledge of what evil was except that Eve or Adam ate the fruit of the tree that "God" created then it must follow that "God" create

devil.

Evil is an act. God does not create the actions of free willed agents. God did not force Adam and Eve to sin. They chose to do so. They could have chosen otherwise. The act was theirs not Gods. So no, God did not create evil.

What a load of crap. Is there free will in the afterlife? If so, you'll lose your place in heaven sooner or later. One little slip up, one sinful thought, and you'll be gone. I'll save you a warm spot in the lake of fire.

We don't know many details of life after death, and it really does not matter. We know that 1) we are culpable for what we do and decide in this life, and 2) there will be judgement for the choices we make in this life. This is enough knowledge to allow us to live.

 

But the Lord answered and said to her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

(Luk 10:41-42)

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

The specifics of what is good and evil may vary from society to society, but there are some universal themes that humanity seems to agree on that are malevolent to a civilized society. Indiscriminate murder and stealing from others is considered bad or at the very least counter productive. Most people find inflicting needless pain and suffering as revolting. I think most people across all cultures are in agreement with these basic principles of good and evil.

This universality speaks against the idea that evil is relative to the societal context.

 

I would also say that there are a set of acts that are evil even if some evil dictator brainwashed everyone alive into thinking it was not. Rape for example would still be evil even if every human decided for some reason it was not.

That's kind of the thing, most people have a functional working compass.  Humans can derive the difference between right and wrong on their own, because most people have a sense of moral decency and empathy. Unless they have something wrong with them (such as being brainwashed in your example) most people do not go out and cause mayhem without a good reason. Most people like to think they are good decent individuals and try to live a good decent life.

 

In your example, that dictator forcibly altered the peoples' sense of right and wrong. If those people in your example were not brainwashed they would find rape to be evil because it is a horrendous act.  For anyone to find rape to be acceptable would mean they must have something wrong with them.

Exactly, and more importantly even if every person were brain washed to think rape was right it would be still be wrong. It is wrong because it is objectively wrong. Evil is not a relative judgment.

Good, so God saving a bunch of virgin girls for his followers while commanding the killing of male children and pregnant women would surely be objectively wrong, regardless of the time and culture. Yes?

If you are referring to Scripture please quote it.

 

What would be the point of that?

 

Scripture comes from men, there being no God.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

The specifics of what is good and evil may vary from society to society, but there are some universal themes that humanity seems to agree on that are malevolent to a civilized society. Indiscriminate murder and stealing from others is considered bad or at the very least counter productive. Most people find inflicting needless pain and suffering as revolting. I think most people across all cultures are in agreement with these basic principles of good and evil.

This universality speaks against the idea that evil is relative to the societal context.

 

I would also say that there are a set of acts that are evil even if some evil dictator brainwashed everyone alive into thinking it was not. Rape for example would still be evil even if every human decided for some reason it was not.

That's kind of the thing, most people have a functional working compass.  Humans can derive the difference between right and wrong on their own, because most people have a sense of moral decency and empathy. Unless they have something wrong with them (such as being brainwashed in your example) most people do not go out and cause mayhem without a good reason. Most people like to think they are good decent individuals and try to live a good decent life.

 

In your example, that dictator forcibly altered the peoples' sense of right and wrong. If those people in your example were not brainwashed they would find rape to be evil because it is a horrendous act.  For anyone to find rape to be acceptable would mean they must have something wrong with them.

Exactly, and more importantly even if every person were brain washed to think rape was right it would be still be wrong. It is wrong because it is objectively wrong. Evil is not a relative judgment.

It is, there is nothing in the natural world stopping humanity from deciding that rape is ok. It is because people have a sense of common decency that makes it not so. In the physical world, we are bound by the laws of nature that prevents us from taking certain actions. We can't touch fire for example, because fire hurts. We can't fly without some form of technological assistance, because gravity takes over. Humans can't naturally breath underwater, we drown and die. These are limitations that we are all subjected that no amount of wishful thinking can change.

 

Morality on the other hand is not bound by the physical world. For example, at one time suicide in was considered to be an honorable way to resolve dishonor in Japan, but the Japanese government is trying to change that. In the west, suicide is considered to be the cowardly way out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/03/japan-honourable-suicide-rate

 

Yes, there are some acts that humans can generally agree upon because most people want to live in peace. I'm not disagreeing with you that there is a good and evil, I just don't believe it derives from the natural world. It is something that is defined by humanity itself, and this capability is what allows us to form a civilized society. 

I agree, I don't think morality comes from the physical world either.

 

So to be clear, do you think rape would be okay if everyone in the world agreed to say it was? I don't. I think rape would be reprehensible even if the whole world said it was not.

[midniterider]

 

Paging BAA.....BAA please respond.

He cannot save you.

 

Neither can Jesus.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Yes, there are some acts that humans can generally agree upon because most people want to live in peace. I'm not disagreeing with you that there is a good and evil, I just don't believe it derives from the natural world. It is something that is defined by humanity itself, and this capability is what allows us to form a civilized society. 

 

And so we come to Kant, Sarte, and my own favorite approach, Enlightened Self-Interest. Talk about a can of worms!

I haven't heard about Kant and Sarte, looks like I have something new to check out. Enlightened Self-Interest is exactly what I was getting into even if I didn't know the term until you mentioned it.

 

One man's heaven is another man's hell as the saying goes, I mostly noticed that everyone has an opinion on what makes a utopia and distopia. What is it that makes a place good to live? Everyone has their own cultural norms and ideas of what is and is not acceptable. I can't see anything in the natural world that sets the rules, so it must derive from people deciding for themselves.

Enlightened Self-Interest is foolishness.