“Evil” is a stupid concept and doesn’t exist.

[He is the way]

When looking at moral questions and God's commandments I believe we should focus on God as a father making rules for His children. Throughout the Bible God rewards His children according to their behaviour. The main theme of the Bible is to keep the commandments. All of the commandments are based on love. It is my belief that God is teaching His children to become loving and kind rather than selfish and hateful.When ignorance and selfishness flourishes it becomes necessary to eradicate some people for the benefit of future generations.

 

[gaara4158]

Take the Bible for example, you believe that the God of the Bible is evil (a common generality with self-proclaimed atheists) because God allowed rape and murder and slavery - yet you are importing a moral law to criticise what you feel the Bible says; and it is that same rationale where we recognise this reference point by which we differentiate between good and evil. We know rape and murder and slavery is evil, but in order to call them evil there must be a moral law by which these are held up to.

Yes, of course I’m holding him up to a particular moral standard. It’s the one I hold according to my opinion as to what adds to human flourishing and what detracts from it. As I’ve been saying, we have no objective measure of where each action truly lands, so any moral discussion is going to be one of opinion, and opinions are subjective. That said, some things are more obvious than others, and many of God’s actions land in an obviously evil category. That’s not to say it’s objectively evil, but rather it’s something we would all subjectively agree is evil.

The claim is there is no objective morality, and if that were the case, then why is "human flourishing" right to begin with? If there is no objective morality, then why is rape evil? Or murder is evil? Or slavery is evil? They are mere opinions if there is no objective morality.

By definition.

 

[He is the way]

Yes, of course I’m holding him up to a particular moral standard. It’s the one I hold according to my opinion as to what adds to human flourishing and what detracts from it. As I’ve been saying, we have no objective measure of where each action truly lands, so any moral discussion is going to be one of opinion, and opinions are subjective. That said, some things are more obvious than others, and many of God’s actions land in an obviously evil category. That’s not to say it’s objectively evil, but rather it’s something we would all subjectively agree is evil.


By definition.

Your concept of God's punishment as being evil is due to a misunderstanding. God knows everything even the thoughts of our mind. Every thing He does is for the greater good. He has eternal perspectives on everything.

 

[gaara4158]

Your concept of God's punishment as being evil is due to a misunderstanding. God knows everything even the thoughts of our mind. Every thing He does is for the greater good. He has eternal perspectives on everything.

That actually holds up, as long as God exists. This eliminates the possibility of an objective morality without the existence of God and introduces the problem of whether or not we can actually trust God to give us good moral standards. God may know the best course of action for every human being to maximize human flourishing, but how can we know?

 

[He is the way]

That actually holds up, as long as God exists. This eliminates the possibility of an objective morality without the existence of God and introduces the problem of whether or not we can actually trust God to give us good moral standards. God may know the best course of action for every human being to maximize human flourishing, but how can we know?

The only way to know God is to diligently seek Him and keep His commandments. Even so it took years for me to know, but I do know now.

 

[gaara4158]

The only way to know God is to diligently seek Him and keep His commandments. Even so it took years for me to know, but I do know now.

Is it possible none of that is true?

 

[He is the way]

Is it possible none of that is true?

I don't see any possibility that the human body came about by happenstance. It must have been engineered and watched:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

 

[gaara4158]

I don't see any possibility that the human body came about by happenstance. It must have been engineered and watched:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

Answer my question, please.

 

[Holoman]

To those that think "good" is identical to "human flourishing":

Why is it? If I were to say torture and mutilate a dog, then have sex with it's butchered corpse, is that an amoral act because it has nothing to do with "human flourishing"?

Or let's say the world consists of only 5 psychopaths and a baby. They torture and get great enjoyment from mutilating that baby. Is that then a "good" act?

It sounds all too similar to Sam Harris's idea of objective morality, which has been irrevocably refuted.

 

[quatona]

To those that think "good" is identical to "human flourishing":

Well, nobody said that. The point is that morality has been invented for the purpose of human flourishing.

Why is it? If I were to say torture and mutilate a dog, then have sex with it's butchered corpse, is that an amoral act because it has nothing to do with "human flourishing"?

It has something to do with it, imo.

Or let's say the world consists of only 5 psychopaths and a baby.

That´s not the world we and our considerations are dealing with...

They torture and get great enjoyment from mutilating that baby. Is that then a "good" act?

Well, the same would go for "objective morality": Is it a "good" act just because "objective morality" commands it?

But apart from that: personal enjoyment and human flourishing aren´t to be conflated.

 

[Holoman]

Well, nobody said that. The point is that morality has been invented for the purpose of human flourishing.

If morality has been invented it can't be objective, in which case @VirOptimus is correct and good/evil doesn't exist. Hitler wasn't evil, he was just deviating from an invented behaviour. It begs they question, why should we care? Why should I care about human flourishing just because I have been apparently biologically brainwashed with some "herd instinct"?

 

[VirOptimus]

If morality has been invented it can't be objective, in which case @VirOptimus is correct and good/evil doesn't exist. Hitler wasn't evil, he was just deviating from an invented behaviour. It begs they question, why should we care? Why should I care about human flourishing just because I have been apparently biologically brainwashed with some "herd instinct"?

You care because you have empathy. Its an evolved trait.

 

[quatona]

If morality has been invented it can't be objective, in which case @VirOptimus is correct and good/evil doesn't exist. Hitler wasn't evil, he was just deviating from an invented behaviour. It begs they question, why should we care? Why should I care about human flourishing just because I have been apparently biologically brainwashed with some "herd instinct"?

Well, this very question has been answered a couple of pages ago.
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...nd-doesn’t-exist.8076240/page-7#post-73057981

 

[Holoman]

Well, this very question has been answered a couple of pages ago.
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/“evil”-is-a-stupid-concept-and-doesn’t-exist.8076240/page-7#post-73057981

It's a poor answer. There are times when it is obviously against my self interest to act morally.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

It's a poor answer. There are times when it is obviously against my self interest to act morally.

To weigh in - sure, we call this immorality. It's less hard and fast but in general human societies regard greed as immoral - greed in isolation is very beneficial to the survival of an individual but in societies and group scenarios it's destructive.

I think most human morality is drawn from certain contexts: you can see why ancient societies that praised survival, high birthrates and feared familial disorder would have harshly structured views on sexual morality. Now we've developed systems of individual rights, understand sexuality a bit better and prize the societal utility of individuals above their ability to breed so you'd expect our morality to evolve and liberalise as a consequence.

 

[gaara4158]

It's a poor answer. There are times when it is obviously against my self interest to act morally.

That is separate to the question of why humans have a vested interest in enforcing a moral system.

 

[quatona]

It's a poor answer. There are times when it is obviously against my self interest to act morally.

I think we haven´t yet established what exactly "acting morally" means.

Your question, however, was a different one: Why should I care about human flourishing?

And the answer, in short, is: You simply do - because you are a human yourself; because you aren´t restricted to your reptile brain; because you have empathy. If you don´t have these traits (i.e. if you don´t care., i.e. if you are a sociopath), there is no way to convince you that you "should" do it. In this case, however, there isn´t a way to convince you that you "should" obey an allegedly existing objective morality, either.

Or even shorter: If you don´t like to swim in pee, it´s stupid to pee in the pool you are swimming in.

Do not expect my answer to be addressing a question you haven´t asked.

 

[Holoman]

I think we haven´t yet established what exactly "acting morally" means.

Your question, however, was a different one: Why should I care about human flourishing?

And the answer, in short, is: You simply do - because you are a human yourself; because you aren´t restricted to your reptile brain; because you have empathy. If you don´t have these traits (i.e. if you don´t care., i.e. if you are a sociopath), there is no way to convince you that you "should" do it. In this case, however, there isn´t a way to convince you that you "should" obey an allegedly existing objective morality, either.

Or even shorter: If you don´t like to swim in pee, it´s stupid to pee in the pool you are swimming in.

Do not expect my answer to be addressing a question you haven´t asked.

I'm not talking about convincing someone they should do something, I'm talking about moral obligations. Perhaps "ought" is a more familiar term than should. How do you get moral obligations without an objective standard? The simple answer is, you can't.

You could spend all day describing to me how morality arose as a natural inclination to empathy for the sake of human flourishing yada yada. How does that create an obligation for me to actually obey these impulses? It is trying to go from a description of how something "is" to how we "ought" to be, and you cannot bridge the gap. It is David Hume's guillotine.

 

[quatona]

I'm not talking about convincing someone they should do something, I'm talking about moral obligations. Perhaps "ought" is a more familiar term than should. How do you get moral obligations without an objective standard? The simple answer is, you can't.

I´m wondering why you need them to be obligations.

You could spend all day describing to me how morality arose as a natural inclination to empathy for the sake of human flourishing yada yada. How does that create an obligation for me to actually obey these impulses?

It doesn´t create an obligation - but that wasn´t the issue. If you can´t do what you feel is good without having an obligation to do so, I´m afraid I can´t help you -you seem to be stuck in some kind of authoritarean thinking that is alien to me.

Of course, even with there being an "objective morality" the question "Why should I obey it?" wouldn´t be answered.

 

[Holoman]

I´m wondering why you need them to be obligations.


It doesn´t create an obligation - but that wasn´t the issue. If you can´t do what you feel is good without having an obligation to do so, I´m afraid I can´t help you -you seem to be stuck in some kind of authoritarean thinking that is alien to me.

Of course, even with there being an "objective morality" the question "Why should I obey it?" wouldn´t be answered.

Morality without obligation is meaningless. You cannot hold anyone accountable for their actions or lack thereof because by your own admission it is divorced from actions. Murdering you may be evil, but I have no obligation not to do it.