|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 2, 2022 12:45:17 GMT
For the record I do believe that objective morality is real in a sense, but whether or not a person cares about it is where the subjectivity comes in. A psychopath knows that it is morally wrong to kill someone else, they just don't care. I think this is part of the reason why the idea of eternal torment was introduced in the first place, as incentive to not harm other people even if you would like to. The threat of death or prison just isn't enough reason for some people.
I'm not sure I agree with everything Tom the atheist says here (I'd have to think about it a lot more, but I think he goes too overboard with the free will stuff), but I haven't heard the "problem of evil" addressed quite this way before.
I'd say the fact that we have no choice in whether we are born or not is a very easy way to address "the problem of evil." I am mostly talking about whether Hell exists, but it also can be applied to people who experience an unnecessary amount of suffering in this life. It has been argued and the argument is solid imo, that it would have been more moral for God to create nothing than to create something if that creation entails thinking beings that can suffer. Anti-natalists take this position within a naturalistic framework.
On a side note, it is interesting to me that in most of these online debates the atheists never hide their faces. It is the theists who hide their faces more often than not.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 2, 2022 16:37:01 GMT
This is one of the most honest and polite discussions I have seen on the subject of God, especially when they talk about abstract vs. not. It also really gives insight in the difference in understanding between atheists and theists.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 3, 2022 2:35:04 GMT
For the record I do believe that objective morality is real in a sense, but whether or not a person cares about it is where the subjectivity comes in. A psychopath knows that it is morally wrong to kill someone else, they just don't care. I think this is part of the reason why the idea of eternal torment was introduced in the first place, as incentive to not harm other people even if you would like to. The threat of death or prison just isn't enough reason for some people. I'm not sure I agree with everything Tom the atheist says here (I'd have to think about it a lot more, but I think he goes too overboard with the free will stuff), but I haven't heard the "problem of evil" addressed quite this way before. I'd say the fact that we have no choice in whether we are born or not is a very easy way to address "the problem of evil." I am mostly talking about whether Hell exists, but it also can be applied to people who experience an unnecessary amount of suffering in this life. It has been argued and the argument is solid imo, that it would have been more moral for God to create nothing than to create something if that creation entails thinking beings that can suffer. Anti-natalists take this position within a naturalistic framework. On a side note, it is interesting to me that in most of these online debates the atheists never hide their faces. It is the theists who hide their faces more often than not. The theist who considers the problem of evil or the problem of suffering does not lead to a conclusion that a god is not likely to exist simply claims that whatever the level of suffering endured by humans/all of life/whatever, there is no way to prove the compensation in the form of 'good' that comes from god does not out weigh it. So our arguments do not carry enough weight because they/we place the weights on different places on the beam pivoting on the fulcrum.
As Archimedes is supposed to have said, "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world. "
IOW regardless of how much weight suffering represents by whatever metric one wants to use, all THEY have to do is slide the beam further up on the fulcrum or 'give' god more weight and viola, the good (from god) outweighs the evil/suffering.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 3, 2022 2:44:45 GMT
For the record I do believe that objective morality is real in a sense, but whether or not a person cares about it is where the subjectivity comes in. A psychopath knows that it is morally wrong to kill someone else, they just don't care. I think this is part of the reason why the idea of eternal torment was introduced in the first place, as incentive to not harm other people even if you would like to. The threat of death or prison just isn't enough reason for some people. I'm not sure I agree with everything Tom the atheist says here (I'd have to think about it a lot more, but I think he goes too overboard with the free will stuff), but I haven't heard the "problem of evil" addressed quite this way before. I'd say the fact that we have no choice in whether we are born or not is a very easy way to address "the problem of evil." I am mostly talking about whether Hell exists, but it also can be applied to people who experience an unnecessary amount of suffering in this life. It has been argued and the argument is solid imo, that it would have been more moral for God to create nothing than to create something if that creation entails thinking beings that can suffer. Anti-natalists take this position within a naturalistic framework. On a side note, it is interesting to me that in most of these online debates the atheists never hide their faces. It is the theists who hide their faces more often than not. The theist who considers the problem of evil or the problem of suffering does not lead to a conclusion that a god is not likely to exist simply claims that whatever the level of suffering endured by humans/all of life/whatever, there is no way to prove the compensation in the form of 'good' that comes from god does not out weigh it. So our arguments do not carry enough weight because they/we place the weights on different places on the beam pivoting on the fulcrum.
As Archimedes is supposed to have said, "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world. "
IOW regardless of how much weight suffering represents by whatever metric one wants to use, all THEY have to do is slide the beam further up on the fulcrum or 'give' god more weight and viola, the good (from god) outweighs the evil/suffering.
That argument is against the idea of an all good God though. Your point on behalf of the theist doesn't work for a theist that believes God is all good and all powerful imo. I would say the bad outweighs the good anyway.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 3, 2022 11:48:11 GMT
The theist who considers the problem of evil or the problem of suffering does not lead to a conclusion that a god is not likely to exist simply claims that whatever the level of suffering endured by humans/all of life/whatever, there is no way to prove the compensation in the form of 'good' that comes from god does not out weigh it. So our arguments do not carry enough weight because they/we place the weights on different places on the beam pivoting on the fulcrum.
As Archimedes is supposed to have said, "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world. "
IOW regardless of how much weight suffering represents by whatever metric one wants to use, all THEY have to do is slide the beam further up on the fulcrum or 'give' god more weight and viola, the good (from god) outweighs the evil/suffering.
That argument is against the idea of an all good God though. Your point on behalf of the theist doesn't work for a theist that believes God is all good and all powerful imo. I would say the bad outweighs the good anyway. Then why are there (so many) thoughtful intelligent theists?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 3, 2022 12:13:08 GMT
We can all agree that killing others in self-defense is not evil, neither is letting others die as collateral damage. That second statement seems pretty controversial. I would say most people would say collateral damage is an evil albeit some would consider it tolerable as an alternative to a greater evil eg killing 70 innocents to save 2000. I think part of the problem is we're so conditioned to compartmentalise. Take something as simple as buying vegetables - the people who live in countries that grow the vegetables generally can't afford them so they are exported to the West. If these countries' governments lowered prices for locals and raised tariffs on exports, these vegetables would become harder to acquire and more expensive in the West. People in the West see that as a bad thing and tend not to think that it might be beneficial to the world as a whole. And that I think is because the media and politicians deliberately obfuscate that relationship. Don't we? Look at the public outcry against the invasion of Iraq. Even most who supported it did so under the belief that it wasn't about safeguarding profits. How do you define evil though? Are the only actions that can be defined as evil those that cause suffering for the sake of suffering? I would say many (most?) people would consider hurting others in the pursuit of selfish goals pretty evil.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 3, 2022 12:33:25 GMT
It has been argued and the argument is solid imo, that it would have been more moral for God to create nothing than to create something if that creation entails thinking beings that can suffer. The problem with this argument is it only factors in the negatives to existence and tries to frame the positives as merely being the absence of negatives (eg "happiness is just the absence of sadness").
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 3, 2022 15:16:50 GMT
That argument is against the idea of an all good God though. Your point on behalf of the theist doesn't work for a theist that believes God is all good and all powerful imo. I would say the bad outweighs the good anyway. Then why are there (so many) thoughtful intelligent theists? The fact that there are thoughtful intelligent theists is irrelevant, because theists are humans and humans can be thoughtful and intelligent. There are also a bunch of horrible theists, specifically fundamentalists. Many that can't argue there way out of a paper bag. My mother is a theist and a very good person, but her belief in God isn't why she is a good person. She has no idea what the Bible actually says, besides the stuff that is common knowledge. Theists (specifically the Abrahamic theists) make excuses and mental gymnastics to get to the idea of God they want. It is a moot point for me, because I don't believe there is any God that exists. One of the arguments that an all good and all powerful, perfect God can't exist is because there is a contradiction there. If evil exists in the world (and more so the atrocities committed directly by God in the Old Testament) and God created the world and God is all good and also perfect than that specific God can't exist. There are other arguments too for different aspects claimed by theists, such as Jesus being 100% God and 100% man. That God can't exist because there is a logical contradiction there. Of course there are arguments on the other side in defense of this, but atheists and even many theists see a problem here. The problem of the incompetent God (an argument that God can't possibly be perfect) starts right off the bat in the story of Adam and Eve.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 3, 2022 16:19:33 GMT
As Nietzsche understood it, human beings are predators and just like lions (the Blond Beast), we kill lambs. But we don’t consider the lions evil for doing so, why should think humans are for killing the weak. Likewise, why should think human predators like Dick Cheney is evil? Key difference is the lion needs to eat meat to live. Cheney could survive just fine in a more egalitarian society, but he would rather live in a world where he and people like him live a privileged existence at the expense of most of its population. If Cheney is a predator, he has chosen to become one. So we agree he's bad at least. How would you distinguish between "very bad" and "evil"?
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 6, 2022 6:16:27 GMT
I used to believe in objective morality but the more I look at nature, I don't see it. If I take food from your babies to feed my babies, is that immoral even if your babies starve to death? Or is it moral because I kept my babies alive? Philosophy is like the legal profession, it is self-justifying. Lawyers make the law complex so that only lawyers can puzzle it out. Philosophers ask questions that don't matter but seem important to justify doing nothing. I believe there are social mores, rules for getting along with others in a social and hierarchical society, but I no longer believe that morality is fundamental to nature.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 11, 2022 11:14:56 GMT
Key difference is the lion needs to eat meat to live. Cheney could survive just fine in a more egalitarian society, but he would rather live in a world where he and people like him live a privileged existence at the expense of most of its population. If Cheney is a predator, he has chosen to become one.So we agree he's bad at least. How would you distinguish between "very bad" and "evil"? So, do you think humanity has lost its predatory instincts via evolution or is it social pressure, via politics and religion to not behave as a predatory? Has humanity ever really been a predator? The earliest humans seem to have thrived as societies rather than individuals preying on one another. I don't think it really matters anyway. Cheney's actions make the world worse for the vast majority of the population and for that I judge him. Letting him off on the grounds of human nature would also mean forgiving just about every misdeed going and throwing out the concept of morality entirely. If we do choose to throw out morality entirely then all we can do is appeal to our own interests. Cheney is a threat of the vast majority to the world and so he is our enemy.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 11, 2022 14:42:48 GMT
And he is no enemy. We know plenty of people who have Cheney’s kind of morals. There are basically two types of people who have Cheney's morals: A) those whose interests are not in common with the bulk of humanity; and B) those who mistakenly believe their interests are the same as that powerful minority. Group A, which Cheney is in, is a fundamental enemy to most of the population. Group B is a temporary enemy that simply lacks in political education. Regardless of his background, he ended up in a position of power where he could make himself and those who keep him in power very wealthy and he used that power in just that way. Resulting in the deaths of countless innocents. But hey, at least he's polite - easy to behave morally in ways that don't negatively impact your wealth and power. But that wasn't Cheney's motivation. You're confusing his motives with his justifications. There are indeed plenty who are ignorant of the former who supported the latter. Indeed, but he played an important role. Fine. But we need to be able to define what is a misdeed. Was Cheney's support of the War on Terror a misdeed? We both seem to agree it was regardless of whether we label it as "evil" or not. So where do we go from here?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 11, 2022 16:35:04 GMT
And the misdeed is obviously. He lied. Even if the objective to telling a lie was worthy in his mind. And who of us is innocent of that? I don't think lying in itself is the issue, it's the motivation behind his lies and their results. I've certainly told lies in the past but they haven't led to millions of deaths. But is conservative society a good thing? I would say no. I suspect you would agree.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 12, 2022 11:12:28 GMT
Keep in mind, they thought they were doing the best thing for America by invading Iraq. What do you mean by 'America'? If you mean they thought they were acting in the interests of the majority of the people who live in the USA, then I don't think they did. Certainly, it wasn't their primary objective. They wanted access to Iraq's resources and markets, to transfer public funds to private military contractors (which Cheney himself had financial interest in) and to increase US military presence in the Middle East. On to your point about lying, I dunno - perhaps in theory there can be white lies or even noble lies but this was not an example of either. They lied to line their own pockets and increase their dominance and didn't care that it would kill millions, displace even more and leave their own citizens more of a target for terrorists than they were previously.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 12, 2022 14:01:18 GMT
So, the rationale was, it really does not matter which country we bomb back into the Stone Age to take down and disrupt terror networks…just don’t destroy the oil while we are at it. It’s shitty morality, I don’t agree with it, but it made a lot folks sleep easier afterwards. Well, let's agree to disagree on whether disrupting terror networks was the primary goal of the War on Terror and for the sake of argument we'll say your analysis is correct. You say you think Cheney's motivations were 'shitty morality'. At what stage does 'shitty morality' transcend into evil?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 12, 2022 18:49:24 GMT
Well, let's agree to disagree on whether disrupting terror networks was the primary goal of the War on Terror and for the sake of argument we'll say your analysis is correct. You say you think Cheney's motivations were 'shitty morality'. At what stage does 'shitty morality' transcend into evil? a person can be motivated by many things. I guess it turns evil when the shitty morality disadvantages you. Interesting, that's a quite a relativist view of evil. Are there no actions that didn't disadvantage you that you would consider evil then?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 12, 2022 19:30:58 GMT
All morality is relative. How can something subjective be other otherwise? We assume the Muslim terrorist knows he is doing evil because we say he is. He doesn’t see it that way. Even under a subjective view of morality, we can still consider things immoral that don't negatively impact us. I mean (Godwin's Law Alert!) the Holocaust didn't hurt me or anyone I know but I still consider it evil.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 12, 2022 21:56:43 GMT
All morality is relative. How can something subjective be other otherwise? We assume the Muslim terrorist knows he is doing evil because we say he is. He doesn’t see it that way. Even under a subjective view of morality, we can still consider things immoral that don't negatively impact us. I mean (Godwin's Law Alert!) the Holocaust didn't hurt me or anyone I know but I still consider it evil. You might, but as Paul says it is relative, I know of many white supremacists who think it was the morally correct thing to do.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 12, 2022 22:35:38 GMT
Even under a subjective view of morality, we can still consider things immoral that don't negatively impact us. I mean (Godwin's Law Alert!) the Holocaust didn't hurt me or anyone I know but I still consider it evil. You might, but as Paul says it is relative, I know of many white supremacists who think it was the morally correct thing to do. I'm not arguing for objective morality here. I'm saying that even from a subjective stance we can condemn things as evil even if they don't negatively impact us. And I would argue most people do just that. Although tbh I would probably go a bit further and say that the idea of morality loses all meaning if things like the Holocaust can ever be labelled good but that's more than I want to argue here.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 12, 2022 23:48:11 GMT
You might, but as Paul says it is relative, I know of many white supremacists who think it was the morally correct thing to do. I'm not arguing for objective morality here. I'm saying that even from a subjective stance we can condemn things as evil even if they don't negatively impact us. And I would argue most people do just that. Although tbh I would probably go a bit further and say that the idea of morality loses all meaning if things like the Holocaust can ever be labelled good but that's more than I want to argue here. Thats what I mean though, morality is subjective, so something that you find abhorrent may well be desirable to someone else. Your condemnation of something as evil even if it does not affect you is , as you say, very naturally something we as humans do. It's normal. I am just saying that there are people who would hold the opposite stance. I think you hit the nail on the head, morality as an individual has no meaning, it is simply an opinion (of course as with all opinions it is founded on experience and indoctrination) and only means something really to the person that holds it. This differs a bit when we consider group morality, or agreed on morality such as societies laws, but even these are simply opinions held collectively and may well change over time.
|
|