From a non-Christian perspective, why is there evil?

[Ana the Ist]

No, I'm simply asking you to clarify whether you are saying that Child Abuse is only wrong to those who think it wrong, and that it is not wrong to those who do not think it so.

This is hardly a trick question is it. Is pinning down a child and having sex with that child only wrong to those who think it is wrong, and so not wrong to those who do not think it so?

Well now that you gave me a specific example, I can tell you my opinion of it.

I would say that's wrong.

Would you say that disciplining an unruly child with a "rod" is wrong (or evil if you prefer)?

 

[Inkfingers]

Well now that you gave me a specific example, I can tell you my opinion of it.

That isn't what I asked you.

I asked you whether "pinning down a child and having sex with that child is only wrong to those who think it is wrong, and so not wrong to those who do not think it so?"

Could you answer that specific question please...

 

[juvenissun]

No, I'm just saying that your responses seem to be nonsensical riddles to me.

Sorry, I just followed your riddle.

 

[dysert]

Some people do what's right in a given situation. Some people do what's wrong. Most people do both in their lives. This is not hard to explain.

At the abstract level, it isn't hard to explain. What I'm trying to get at, though, is how people determine what's "right" and what's "wrong"? And also, why is there "wrong" to begin with?

 

[Eudaimonist]

There is (moral) evil because:

1) The objective human good (flourishing) is not achieved with just any set of values
2) People are not pre-programmed to always act in a beneficial way, which means that they can knowingly act in a harmful way
4) Since people who harm could have chosen to do otherwise, we say that they are "evil"

We wouldn't say that a tiger is "evil" because it can't help but act according to its programming. A tiger can't reflect on its values and exercise rational self-restraint. A human being can.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dysert]

Evil exists where people decide there is evil. It's actually that simple.

How is this decision conveyed? Obviously there's no vote on it. Does the government represent our decision of what's evil?

 

[essentialsaltes]

What I'm trying to get at, though, is how people determine what's "right" and what's "wrong"?

Everyone has his own sense of right and wrong, which has developed from intuitions, upbringing, knowledge, and experiences.

And also, why is there "wrong" to begin with?

Since we are social animals, we have developed a moral sense in order to make sense of and classify our interactions with others. We can see rudiments of it in other social animals.

"All social animals have hierarchical societies in which each member knows its own place. Social order is maintained by certain rules of expected behavior and dominant group members enforce order through punishment. However, higher order primates also have a sense of reciprocity. Chimpanzees remember who did them favors and who did them wrong."

 

[Ken-1122]

I know there some other threads about evil, but I didn't see one specifically looking for a non-Christian answer to the question. Christians have an easy answer to the question of why there is evil. I'd like to hear non-Christian answers to why you think there is evil in the world (deftly avoiding how a non-Christian defines what "evil" is). Thanks.

Evil is a word humans made up to describe very bad behavior. Where the line is drawn between bad and evil? That line is subjective.

As long as people have choice, there will always be those who choose to do good, and those who choose to do bad; the initial motivation behind such actions vary from person to person. The reason some people choose to do bad and even to the point of evil is because people have the choice to do so.

Ken

 

[Ana the Ist]

That isn't what I asked you.

I asked you whether "pinning down a child and having sex with that child is only wrong to those who think it is wrong, and so not wrong to those who do not think it so?"

Could you answer that specific question please...

Sorry, your question is whether it's wrong to people who don't think it's wrong?

You answered your own question...

If they don't think it's wrong, then I'd guess it's not wrong to them lol.

 

[Inkfingers]

Sorry, your question is whether it's wrong to people who don't think it's wrong?

You answered your own question...

If they don't think it's wrong, then I'd guess it's not wrong to them lol.

I'm asking your view on the nature of right and wrong.

Your wriggling on the matter is there for all to see.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm asking your view on the nature of right and wrong.

Your wriggling on the matter is there for all to see.

The answer is simple! If you ask Ana he says it is wrong. If you ask the rapist, you might get a different answer. Right and wrong does not have an actual existence, they only exist as judgment calls people make about human actions. Because these judgment calls vary from person to person; we enact laws agreed upon by society in order to get consistency on acceptable behavior.

K

 

[Inkfingers]

The answer is simple! If you ask Ana he says it is wrong. If you ask the rapist, you might get a different answer. Right and wrong does not have an actual existence, they only exist as judgment calls people make about human actions. Because these judgment calls vary from person to person; we enact laws agreed upon by society in order to get consistency on acceptable behavior.

K

Sorry, but you are misunderstanding the whole discussion.

I'm not asking whether some consider it wrong or not. I'm asking whether Ana is absolutely wrong rather than wrong for some and okay for others (which appears to be Ana's claim).

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sorry, but you are misunderstanding the whole discussion.

Well, I think you are misunderstanding the answers you are getting.

I'm not asking whether some consider it wrong or not. I'm asking whether Ana is absolutely wrong rather than wrong for some and okay for others (which appears to be Ana's claim).

There's no such thing as absolutely wrong. There are no moral facts. There are only moral opinions, and they vary from person to person, like opinions about beauty.

"Is having a gap between the front teeth only ugly to those who think it is ugly, and so not ugly to those who do not think it so?"

As Ana said, you answered your own question. People who think it's ugly think it's ugly. People who don't, don't. There is no absolute answer to whether gapped teeth are ugly or not. There are only subjective judgments made by different people.

 

[Inkfingers]

There's no such thing as absolutely wrong. There are no moral facts. There are only moral opinions, and they vary from person to person, like opinions about beauty.

So in your view, some people think child rape is wrong and some think it is not wrong, and neither of them are more accurate or authoritative than the other but objectively speaking its just a conflict of opinion?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So in your view, some people think child rape is wrong and some think it is not wrong, and neither of them are more accurate or authoritative than the other but objectively speaking its just a conflict of opinion?

Correct, there is no authoritative or objective answer to the question. This is not quite the same as saying it is just or merely a difference of opinion. Moral opinions and intuitions are generally very strongly held and sincere, particularly on an issue like child rape.

 

[dysert]

Correct, there is no authoritative or objective answer to the question. This is not quite the same as saying it is just or merely a difference of opinion. Moral opinions and intuitions are generally very strongly held and sincere, particularly on an issue like child rape.

At this point I'll cast my vote for "this is ridiculous".

 

[Inkfingers]

So in your view, some people think child rape is wrong and some think it is not wrong, and neither of them are more accurate or authoritative than the other but objectively speaking its just a conflict of opinion?

Correct, there is no authoritative or objective answer to the question. This is not quite the same as saying it is just or merely a difference of opinion. Moral opinions and intuitions are generally very strongly held and sincere, particularly on an issue like child rape.

Wow.

That is a truly morally vacuous stance.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the hideous void at the heart of relativism.

 

[essentialsaltes]

""this is ridiculous"."

"Wow"

Ridicule and incredulity are not arguments against my position.

Perhaps you could demonstrate how slavery or genocide is authoritatively, objectively wrong.

 

[Received]

""this is ridiculous"."

"Wow"

Ridicule and incredulity are not arguments against my position.

Perhaps you could demonstrate how slavery or genocide is authoritatively, objectively wrong.

 

[Inkfingers]

""this is ridiculous"."

"Wow"

Ridicule and incredulity are not arguments against my position.

Perhaps you could demonstrate how slavery or genocide is authoritatively, objectively wrong.

So not just Child Abuse is a matter of opinion but also Genocide as well?