"If God Exists, Why Does He Allow Evil?"

[Thepz]

No. Moral absolutism would mean that stealing is wrong. Period. Under all circumstances. But it's not. One can find exceptions to every "moral rule" - that is why they are neither universal, nor absolute.

Ok, understood. Therefore, what do you think is the construct behind these morals? I propose that it is love. Love is the "absolute moral."

 

[selfinflikted]

I have, and found no answer to my original question. I found numerous responses, but so far, no answer.

Then you obviously have not read the thread.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've already given the beginnings of that earlier on in the thread, but I've no intention of going into further detail on here with it

Which post?

And why not? What's so hard about demonstrating it that it can't be done with words?

 

[selfinflikted]

Ok, understood. Therefore, what do you think is the construct behind these morals? I propose that it is love. Love is the "absolute moral."

Sorry, I amended my post to answer that.

 

[hankroberts]

I think it's you who has misdefined morals.

If morality "conforms" to a "relative standard"...then I don't need to "objectively determine" good and evil...I can determine them relativistically.

If there is an "objective standard" then you need to be able to answer a few questions or the claim that this "objective standard" is entirely empty.

What is this objective standard?

How come nobody knows this objective standard? Or...

Why does everyone disagree on this objective standard?

The fact that you won't be able to tell me right and wrong in every situation, the fact that no one agrees on right and wrong in every situation...both point to the same conclusion. This "objective standard" doesn't exist and morality is a matter of relative opinion.

Ah, well, let us take those individually.
"If morality "conforms" to a "relative standard"...then I don't need to "objectively determine" good and evil"
Indeed. The key word there is "if". So far, no one has been able to describe an effective way that morality could 'conform to a relative standard' in such a way that one person could say another is acting immorally, or committing evil.

"If there is an "objective standard" then you need to be able to answer a few questions ..."
Possibly in another discussion where that was posed as a premise. Here, the issue was responding to the premise of others with a question, which has yet to be answered.

"How come nobody knows this objective standard?"

What makes you think no one knows it?

"Why does everyone disagree on this objective standard? "

You are aware than consensus has nothing to do with truth?

"The fact that you won't be able to tell me ..."

No sir, non sequitur.

 

[bhsmte]

Then you obviously have not read the thread.

That, or he requires a certain answer and he isn't getting it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There has to be a underlying construct to help humans determine what is moral and what is not moral. As someone stated previously, if a moral test was given to a random group of individuals, most would agree that stealing and murdering is wrong and that helping out someone in need is moral.

The question now is "why do most people believe that stealing and murdering is wrong and that helping someone in need is moral regardless of cultural and religious/non-religious background?" I don't think Christians talked to Buddhists and had a convention with Atheists discussing that murdering and stealing is wrong. These actions hurt people and are considered immoral.

Don't you think that foundation for "human morals" is love, with love being the absolute moral that should determine right from wrong?

I'd actually argue that most people agree murder is wrong in most situations... right in others.

 

[Thepz]

No. Moral absolutism would mean that stealing is wrong. Period. Under all circumstances. But it's not. One can find exceptions to every "moral rule" - that is why they are neither universal, nor absolute.

Further, the underlying construct to not murder, for example, is simply: humans are a social species. It's how we survive. In groups. Helping and relying on one another. If we went around murdering, stealing, raping, and pillaging, well... we would not have made it thus far.

You stated that helping and relying on one another is what helps us to survive. Isn't helping and relying on one another an aspect of love, the foundation of morals?

 

[hankroberts]

Then you obviously have not read the thread.

Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy. At least it is new...

 

[bhsmte]

Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy. At least it is new...

How is what he said a "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

 

[hankroberts]

That, or he requires a certain answer and he isn't getting it.

Indeed. I require one that adequately addresses the question, and you're correct: I'm not getting it.

 

[Thepz]

I'd actually argue that most people agree murder is wrong in most situations... right in others.

I agree with you also. There are exceptions. But if those exceptions and decisions are based on love, then the act is moral.

Yes, I agree that stealing can be wrong in most cases. But if one absolutely needs to take food to provide for one's own family or help someone desperately in need and has no money, then one may be able to see the action as moral. Love gives the ability to handle those exceptions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ah, but does that not take us back to the original question? If in fact all moral views are merely individual opinions, then on what basis does one assert that the existence of 'evil' is argument against the existence of God? You see, if your position is true (and incidentally, we can demonstrate it is not), then that argument fails completely. There is no objective evil for which God would be (potentially) accountable, if there is no objective morality.

Why would we need an objective evil? Why wouldn't the existence of a relative evil be sufficient for arguing against a benevolent/loving god?

I'm sure I can make the argument.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree with you also. There are exceptions. But if those exceptions and decisions are based on love, then the act is moral.

Yes, I agree that stealing can be wrong in most cases. But if one absolutely needs to take food to provide for one's own family or help someone desperately in need and has no money, then one may be able to see the action as moral. Love gives the ability to handle those exceptions.

Welcome to relativism!

 

[hankroberts]

How is what he said a "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

Simply because in order to meet his criteria (read the posts) I must agree with his conclusion (the answer is there). No True Scotsman.

 

[bhsmte]

Indeed. I require one that adequately addresses the question, and you're correct: I'm not getting it.

Question has been answered, numerous times.

If you don't like the answers, I can't help you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Indeed. I require one that adequately addresses the question, and you're correct: I'm not getting it.

Your question in the OP was...

""If there is no Moral God who has established an absolute moral standard, then on what grounds do you call certain things 'evil' at all?"

The shortened version of my answer was...

"On the grounds of opinion."

You may not like the answer, but it is an answer... and one you've failed to find fault with.

 

[selfinflikted]

Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy. At least it is new...

Huh? No. Not at all.

Anyway, the question has been answered. If not answered to your satisfaction, well, that's likely never to happen.

 

[hankroberts]

Why would we need an objective evil? Why wouldn't the existence of a relative evil be sufficient for arguing against a benevolent/loving god?

I'm sure I can make the argument.

Ah, excellent! Go ahead. Make the case for the existence of 'relative evil'. I've seen several attempts, none successful. But I'm open to discussing it.

 

[selfinflikted]

You stated that helping and relying on one another is what helps us to survive. Isn't helping and relying on one another an aspect of love, the foundation of morals?

I wouldn't consider that love, no. Perhaps you can define "love" so I can see where you are coming from?