Evil

Taure · Jul 4, 2007

I think you're missing my point slightly. I'm not saying that science, or compettion, or whatever, is evil - I'm saying that the consequences of "allowing" them are.

Take the American Football example. American Football is itself not evil. But for American Football to occur, you must first have violence. To allow violence is to allow evils such as murder to manifest.

Or the chess example. Chess is in of itself not evil. But in order to allow there to be winners and losers at games, you must first create the world unequal. Thus, evils such as poverty arise out of this unequalness.

Taure · Jul 4, 2007

I have plenty of basis for what I said Taure, philosophy, theology, classical tradition. you should reread what I said instead of accusing me of having no basis for it. Read some Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas if you want to keep talking otherwise, accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about is absurd

Perhaps you should read some philosophy yourself. What you just did is a fallacy called the appeal to authority..

Atomagenesis · Jul 4, 2007

I already proved it, but you don't believe me, so I told you to read what the greatest minds say about it. An appeal to authority is the only thing I can do when someone doesn't believe its the truth. I can't make you believe anything.

And if you believe that evil has substance and existence and essence and an end then you are not a Christian. God does not believe that, in fact, he condemns it.

Taure · Jul 4, 2007

And if you believe that evil has substance and existence and essence and an end then you are not a Christian.

No, no I'm not. I asked for my faith icon to be changed a few days ago, but it still hasn't been done. But even if I were, I would still disagree with you.

God* does not believe that, in fact, he condemns it.

*Correction: The Roman Catholic Church

Wiccan_Child · Jul 4, 2007

Taure said:
I think you're missing my point slightly. I'm not saying that science, or compettion, or whatever, is evil - I'm saying that the consequences of "allowing" them are.

Take the American Football example. American Football is itself not evil. But for American Football to occur, you must first have violence. To allow violence is to allow evils such as murder to manifest.

You're overestimating the zeal of American Football fans.
Why must one allow violence to allow American Football? And even if we assume that we must, how does this manifest evils such as murder? The violence in American Football would have a fundamentally different source than the violence in a murder.

comptetition, Or the chess example. Chess is in of itself not evil. But in order to allow there to be winners and losers at games, you must first create the world unequal. Thus, evils such as poverty arise out of this unequalness.[/quote]
Again, you are completely overexaggerating the situation. In chess, both players wilfully enter the game in the full knowledge that they may lose (probabilities aside). Does this make them unequals? Of course not. It makes them willing participents to competition.

Evils such as murder, poverty, war, etc, are fundamentally different in that the victims are not allowed to chose whether they want to participate at all; they do not get to chose whether they want to risk the detriments.

I think your false dichotomy is akin to the 'Love-Fear line' in Donnie Darko. English has evolved words that imply a linear morality that does not coincide nicely with our instinctive morality. And it certainly does not differentiate between the causes of morally wrong actions.

Taure · Jul 4, 2007

Again, you are completely overexaggerating the situation. In chess, both players wilfully enter the game in the full knowledge that they may lose (probabilities aside). Does this make them unequals? Of course not. It makes them willing participents to competition.

Yes, they both enter willingly, but one is a better chess player than the other, and will win. Thus there is a disequilibrium between the players: a winner and a loser.

I think your false dichotomy is akin to the 'Love-Fear line' in Donnie Darko.

Never heard of this; I'll have to look it up.

I'm surprised that the objection I expected to see hasn't come up. That is, the objection that morals don't exist objectively and are the creation of humanity. This is the reason why I don't personally believe this idea, though its an interesting thought experiment.

Wiccan_Child · Jul 4, 2007

Taure said:
Yes, they both enter willingly, but one is a better chess player than the other, and will win. Thus there is a disequilibrium between the players: a winner and a loser.

We attach arbitrary labels to them, yes. But to whom we label is amoral; it is not evil, however you define it.

Elspeth688 said:
Never heard of this; I'll have to look it up.

I'm surprised that the objection I expected to see hasn't come up. That is, the objection that morals don't exist objectively and are the creation of humanity. This is the reason why I don't personally believe this idea, though its an interesting thought experiment.

You come up with an idea in reaction to the opposition of said idea? I sense a time loop.

onshye1 · Jul 6, 2007

EVil is simply the absence of good.

Darkness is simply the absence of light. Evil contrasts with good, just like darkness contrasts with a bright streak of light. In light there can be no darkness. and in darkness there can be no light. They are direct opposites.

as long as there is evil, there can be no true happiness. Because evil is always at the expense of somebody else's suffering.

elman · Jul 6, 2007

Atomagenesis said:
Sure you can say it, but that doesn't mean it is that way. When I say something is good I am implying many things. That something has existence and essence, that it contains perfections and is in act moving towards its end. Evil has none of these qualities; therefore, you cannot switch the terms and be coherent, that is a logical fallacy.

You are presupposing good on morality to God when it is the other way. God is the author of good, not man's perception of it. Man does not give essence to things, they are that way because they have received those things from God. God does not lose omnipotence because He acts within his own framework of creation according to the rules He Himself laid down, the standard. It makes no sense to claim otherwise.

Your logic makes no sense about God being a moral. Logic does not neccesarily imply truth, even Aristotle says that. I do not know why you say God is not subject to morals. God cannot contradict Himself.

Everyday. And I suppose you are then pointing to certain acts which God commanded of the prophets in the Old Testament such as slaughtering a village or when Elijah was ordered to kill the 150 pagans who worshipped a demonic god.

If God ordered it, it was not murder because he knew it would be the most just thing to do, afterall he is omniscient. God would never order us to do something that is a sin, and He Himself cannot committ a sin, which is explained in my previous posts from St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica. God allows certain things for a reason and He is the sole judge of those things, we cannot presume to know the greater justice that comes from things that he knows perfectly in all things and every situation.

I don't agree. There is a difference between God allowing me to be evil and ordering me to be evil. I am defining evil as being unloving to others like in murdering them. I think God allows me to be evil because that also allows me to be loving and if I had no choice but be loving, then it would not be loving because being loving is always a choice. I don't think God sends any lying spirits from His throne to deceive us. God is trustworthy and good and loving all the time and that is what makes Him so different from us, because we are not trustworthy, good and loving all the time. I also do not believe God ever told anyone to kill someone else. I think there is a time to kill and I think it is possible for killing someone to be a loving act such as when you are saving someone else from harm by the killing.

Wiccan_Child · Jul 6, 2007

onshye1 said:
EVil is simply the absence of good.

Perhaps. But what is good?
And don't do an Aquinas and say, "Good is the absence of Evil".

onshye1 said:
Darkness is simply the absence of light. Evil contrasts with good, just like darkness contrasts with a bright streak of light.

Your analogy is flawed. Light, or the absence thereof, can be directly senses with our eyes. Morality, on the other hand, has no such manifestation, however you define it.

onshye1 said:
In light there can be no darkness.

I present to the jury exhibit A: a monochrome painting.

onshye1 said:
and in darkness there can be no light. They are direct opposites.

You contradict yourself. If A is the absence of B, then A is not the opposite of B. For A to be the opposite of B, then B would have to be a thing in it's own right, irrespective of whether A exists or not.
So, if evil is the absence of good (however you chose to define it), then evil is not the opposite of good.

onshye1 said:
as long as there is evil, there can be no true happiness.

Oh, I don't know. I have been happiest whenever I have risked suffering (physical or otherwise) and pulled through. Though I would gladly sacrifice my capacity for happiness if it aleviated the suffering of even one child.

onshye1 said:
Because evil is always at the expense of somebody else's suffering.

I thought evil was the absence of good? Is the moon evil because there are no good actions being committed upon it? If so, who is suffering? At who's expense is the evil being committed?

IzzyPop · Jul 6, 2007

onshye1 said:
EVil is simply the absence of good.

Darkness is simply the absence of light. Evil contrasts with good, just like darkness contrasts with a bright streak of light. In light there can be no darkness. and in darkness there can be no light. They are direct opposites.

as long as there is evil, there can be no true happiness. Because evil is always at the expense of somebody else's suffering.

Then good and evil cannot exists. In every evil act there is the potential for good consequences and in every good act there resides the potential for evil consequences.

The Holocaust was evil. But some good came from it. Studies into hypothermia helped medical science. The act itself was evil...throwing people into freezing water to see how the body reacted. But the knowledge gained has helped countless people.

elman · Jul 6, 2007

IzzyPop said:
Then good and evil cannot exists. In every evil act there is the potential for good consequences and in every good act there resides the potential for evil consequences.

The Holocaust was evil. But some good came from it. Studies into hypothermia helped medical science. The act itself was evil...throwing people into freezing water to see how the body reacted. But the knowledge gained has helped countless people.

Just because something good results from evil does not mean evil is not real and does not exist.

elman · Jul 6, 2007

=Wiccan_Child;36455594] what is good?

Helping someone in need.

I thought evil was the absence of good? Is the moon evil because there are no good actions being committed upon it? If so, who is suffering? At who's expense is the evil being committed?

Rocks and the moon is not evil or good. Only humans can be evil and good. This is done by loving others or harming others.

IzzyPop · Jul 6, 2007

elman said:
Just because something good results from evil does not mean evil is not real and does not exist.

I agree. That was my point.

Darkness is not the opposite of light, it is the mere absence of light. Light exists, darkness does not.

Intent and will have more to do with evil then anything else. I can do good actions with evil intent, and in my book that is evil.

Emmy · Jul 14, 2007

Dear Taure. God gave us His 10 Commandments for our own good. Jesus gave us 2 Commandments, which contain all 10 Commandments, God gave us. 1) Love God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. (No evil there.) 2) Love each other as you love yourselves. Meaning: never say or do anything to anybody, what you would not have anybody say, or do to you, or your dear ones!" Anything or everything which is not within these 2 Commandments, is EVIL. Anything or everything which is in these 2Commandments is love and compassion and considerration for all. The outcome of such treament for everybody, would be Love, Joy and Peace, NEVER dullness or boredom. I do admit, it takes some doing, Taure, but with the promised help and guidance of Jesus, our Saviour, it would be possible, And we will find that after a while our life would be truly worth living. Love begets love and friendliness has its own rewards. I say this humbly and kindly, and send greetings. Emmy, sister in Christ.

Yggdrasil · Jul 15, 2007

Evil doesn't exist, since evil is purely subjective.

elman · Jul 16, 2007

Yggdrasil said:
Evil doesn't exist, since evil is purely subjective.

Evil is not purely subjective, therefore evil is real.

Yggdrasil · Jul 16, 2007

elman said:
Evil is not purely subjective, therefore evil is real.

No. Evil is a personal view that someone has of something unfavorable to them. There is no "evil" that is across the board bad to everyone.

Wiccan_Child · Jul 16, 2007

elman said:
Evil is not purely subjective, therefore evil is real.

Care to justify your premise?

elman · Jul 17, 2007

Yggdrasil said:
No. Evil is a personal view that someone has of something unfavorable to them. There is no "evil" that is across the board bad to everyone.

Yes torturing babies to hear them scream is bad for everyone. There is evil that is bad for everyone, but the one doing the torturing, and his opinion is from a demented mind.

Evil

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regina decor Carmeli, ora pro nobis

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

onshye1

Guest

elman

Contributor

I wear my sunglasses at night...

elman

elman

I wear my sunglasses at night...

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

elman

Senior Member

Contributor

elman

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency