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

[Ophiolite]

Evolution is often seen as all about survival of the fittest, nature red in tooth and claw, and so forth, while the equally important concept of cooperation is downplayed or even overlooked.

I should say evil occurs when the cooperative, altruistic behaviour of individuals or groups is almost completely overwhelmed by aggressive, selfish behaviour of the individual. While it is natural, it is also counterproductive in most cases for the general good and should therefore be opposed.

 

[dysert]

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

No surprise there. Under that worldview everything is relative.

 

[Ken-1122]

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).

I think it comes down to the subjective vs objective morality discussion. If you believe morality is objective, you believe some things are wrong in spite of what others think. If you believe it is subjective, you believe right and wrong are only opinions that vary from person to person. I (and probably Ana) believe morality is subjective; you appear to believe it is objective.

Ken

 

[Received]

Evolution is often seen as all about survival of the fittest, nature red in tooth and claw, and so forth, while the equally important concept of cooperation is downplayed or even overlooked.

I should say evil occurs when the cooperative, altruistic behaviour of individuals or groups is almost completely overwhelmed by aggressive, selfish behaviour of the individual. While it is natural, it is also counterproductive in most cases for the general good and should therefore be opposed.

Interesting thoughts, and I agree except to the degree that much evil has been done by groups as well.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Interesting thoughts, and I agree except to the degree that much evil has been done by groups as well.

Absolutely.

The greatest evils are generally performed by large groups of people, who may even be acting with idealistic motivations. "You can't make an omelet unless you break a few eggs..."


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[essentialsaltes]

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

I have already stated my opinion that there are no moral facts.

The OT God's opinion on the Amalekites was that genocide was right. Was that just his opinion or was he objectively right about that? Or objectively wrong about that?

 

[talquin]

Surely we can agree on some examples of evil. Maybe a tsunami that kills thousands of people? Maybe genocide?

Why do such things occur? It's nature.

 

[dysert]

Why do such things occur? It's nature.

Genocide is nature?

 

[quatona]

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.

Personally, I have no use for the word "evil" (and even less as the description of an existing thing). So I am afraid I am the wrong person to ask if you want to discuss things on my terms.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Wow.

That is a truly morally vacuous stance.

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

It's reality... whether you find it hideous or not.

There are plenty of things that you think are wrong that I don't. You explained in another thread that you think sex for any reason other than procreation is "wrong". I do not.

If you could prove a "moral fact/absolute" exists you might be onto something...but since you can't, you're just in denial about reality.

 

[TillICollapse]

Wow.

That is a truly morally vacuous stance.

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

"Reality has a well known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert

The reality, is that people don't always agree on what is right or wrong, good/bad, etc, and that various factors are involved. And, both fortunately and unfortunately, a lot of things exist in the universe that we both like, and don't like ... people perpetrate all manner of things against each other, themselves, etc, and get away with both good/evil.

Is it okay for all people to eat bacon ? Now, is it okay for YOU to eat bacon ? Why or why not ?

 

[Received]

It's reality... whether you find it hideous or not.

There are plenty of things that you think are wrong that I don't. You explained in another thread that you think sex for any reason other than procreation is "wrong". I do not.

If you could prove a "moral fact/absolute" exists you might be onto something...but since you can't, you're just in denial about reality.

At the same time, if morality evolved, then we can at least make a few general (and maybe specific) points about our morality when it comes to at least a few subjects. And in this sense we can speak from a "moral realist" perspective, noting that although morality is relative to us, there still are universally better or worse things morally speaking because of evolution.

Like pedophilia: it's bad because, you know, harming children means screwing up one's genes big time.

 

[essentialsaltes]

although morality is relative to us, there still are universally better or worse things morally speaking because of evolution.

Not really. You can't derive an ought from an is. Just because it would be an evolutionarily successful strategy for men to procreate as frequently as possible with as many women as possible, does not mean that it would be moral to do so.

Like pedophilia: it's bad because, you know, harming children means screwing up one's genes big time.

How does harming (or having sex with) children screw up your genes?

 

[Received]

Not really. You can't derive an ought from an is. Just because it would be an evolutionarily successful strategy for men to procreate as frequently as possible with as many women as possible, does not mean that it would be moral to do so.



How does harming (or having sex with) children screw up your genes?

Quick question:

Are you implying that evolution has no influence on our moral inclinations or even ideals?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Quick question:

Are you implying that evolution has no influence on our moral inclinations or even ideals?

Evolution has provided us with a moral sense, in the same way that it provided us with senses of hearing and vision. No doubt it has influenced our moral instincts. But we have no obligation to trust our instincts as being right (much less authoritatively or objectively right). Simple people instinctually mistrust people who look different, and this may have an evolutionary basis. This is not a justification that xenophobia is morally right.

 

[Ana the Ist]

At the same time, if morality evolved, then we can at least make a few general (and maybe specific) points about our morality when it comes to at least a few subjects. And in this sense we can speak from a "moral realist" perspective, noting that although morality is relative to us, there still are universally better or worse things morally speaking because of evolution.

Like pedophilia: it's bad because, you know, harming children means screwing up one's genes big time.

Genes don't make us choose. Do they influence morality, sure...but they don't define it.

 

[Received]

Evolution has provided us with a moral sense, in the same way that it provided us with senses of hearing and vision. No doubt it has influenced our moral instincts. But we have no obligation to trust our instincts as being right (much less authoritatively or objectively right). Simple people instinctually mistrust people who look different, and this may have an evolutionary basis. This is not a justification that xenophobia is morally right.

Ah, that's the difference: you see instincts as having no necessary influence on our morality, and I see some (but not all) morality as being necessarily influenced by evolution. It's complicated. Basically I would argue that given that our quality of justice is hardwired, and so much of our morality is influenced by justice, it's true to say that evolution has indeed directly and necessarily influenced anything related to justice. And things like pedophilia are indeed reducible to questions of justice.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ah, that's the difference: you see instincts as having no necessary influence on our morality, and I see some (but not all) morality as being necessarily influenced by evolution. It's complicated. Basically I would argue that given that our quality of justice is hardwired, and so much of our morality is influenced by justice, it's true to say that evolution has indeed directly and necessarily influenced anything related to justice. And things like pedophilia are indeed reducible to questions of justice.

"Basically I would argue that given that our quality of justice is hardwired, and so much of our morality is influenced by justice, it's true to say that evolution has indeed directly and necessarily influenced anything related to justice."

Huh?

How is morality influenced by justice? Maybe I'm not following what you're saying...but it seems that we think something is right or wrong whether or not any "justice" is applied to the action/behavior.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

Not so much...I suppose law conveys something of what a society agrees upon about right and wrong...but not entirely.

It's conveyed whenever we voice an opinion about someone's behavior.

 

[dysert]

Not really. You can't derive an ought from an is. Just because it would be an evolutionarily successful strategy for men to procreate as frequently as possible with as many women as possible, does not mean that it would be moral to do so.

Why not?