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

[hankroberts]

Each person sets their own standard, based on what they can reconcile with their conscious and being able to function properly in society.

Unless one if a sociopath of course, then we are talking a different ballgame.

Actually, by definition, a Sociopath does exactly what you describe: they self-determine morality. To the Sociopathic Personality whatever they deem "right" to them is Right. That's precisely Moral Relativism. And we all know and understand exactly how dangerous such a mind is, and we lock them away as soon as we identify them.

 

[Inkfingers]

Our practical judgement will always have a subjective element, but the question is whether there is an absolute morality against which all is measured.....or is everything just a matter of opinion (which basically means that there is no morality, because without authority the concept of morality is meaningless).

If you want to claim there is some absolute morality floating out there somewhere, it would be up to you to support that claim.

If there were not, there would be no morals; only opinions, each of no greater weight than any other.

And yes, I am aware that this statement is not evidence for the existence of an absolute morality, but rather is just a statement on the nature of the claim that there is no absolute morality.

On the subject of actually providing support for the claim of there being an absolute morality....the problem here is that such is probably beyond the scope of a forum post (as I kind of hope that you would appreciate).

Personally, I wonder if it is better to speak of a scale of inferior to superior, rather than a black and white good/evil. That isn't to deny that some things are utterly evil (its barbeque-a-baby night at B L Zeebub's bar and grill) but that it isn't a purely digital phenomenon. Just a thought.

It is my opinion, if you were to give a morality test with a series of situations to atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims and various other religions, they would agree on what is moral and what is not moral on the vast majority of the questions. Why, because we all have to live in a manner to be accepted in society and we all have a need to be accepted and don't want to be outcast. We all have a conscious, that we have to deal with in our actions and although there can be differences of opinion of what is moral and what is not moral, that difference is driven by; religious beliefs, culture and how our psyches developed over time.

Yes, many people agree on some simple basics (at least in theory) as to what is needed for a society to work; no stealing, no murdering, no raping, no defrauding, respecting those who respect peaceful and harmonious social order, acting justly against those who oppose peaceful and harmonious social order....

There are some basic rules that apply to the very nature of a peaceful, harmonious and orderly society (that keep it from collapsing back into conflictive, brutal, dog-eat-dog "war of each against all"). Rules that clearly favour structure and knowledge over confusion, in an orderly universe intrinsically apprehendable by reason. A universe that itself is a rational phenomenon, operating in accord with what the Taoists called Tao, Greeks called Logos, and the Christians call the Way and the Word.

An orderly universe, appreciable by orderly minds, resulting in orderly harmonious societies that are things of knowledge rather than confusion.

And you doubt that there is an absolute morality?

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, by definition, a Sociopath does exactly what you describe: they self-determine morality. To the Sociopathic Personality whatever they deem "right" to them is Right. That's precisely Moral Relativism. And we all know and understand exactly how dangerous such a mind is, and we lock them away as soon as we identify them.

The point you missed was, sociopaths don't care much about fitting in with society and being accepted.

Now, can you demonstrate this "absolute morality" you claim exists and how you "objectively" determine good from evil by using it?

 

[hankroberts]

To be absolute and for it to be objective, one would need reliable methods to confirm this objectivity.

So, what are they?

No, sir, not to simply determine that an absolute moral standard exists: you can do that with a purely rational process. Then you pursue the standard to see where it resides and how to understand it.

 

[hankroberts]

The point you missed was, sociopaths don't care much about fitting in with society and being accepted.

Now, can you demonstrate this "absolute morality" you claim exists and how you "objectively" determine good from evil by using it?

No, sir: sociopaths do indeed care about being accepted by society: they fully realize that if their deviant thinking is discovered, they will be identified as dangerous and restrained. Sociopaths are masters at deception for exactly this reason; to remain invisible.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But if you don't believe it to be absolute, you recognise it as an invention and thus no more weighty than that of the rapist?

Oh I can understand that, yes. The problem is that "in my own opinion" is not a particularly impressive (and thus esteem-worthy) argument.

If I hold something to be absolutely wrong, that intrinsically carries more weight in a conversation than if I am just of the opinion that it is wrong. Wishy-washy isn't impressive.

Are you asking if I hold the rapist's opinion with equal weight to my own? Or are you asking if I think he values his opinion as much as I value mine?

Who says I'm wishy washy? Saying I believe my opinion to be fact and not opinion doesn't change anyone else's mind.

 

[Thepz]

The point you missed was, sociopaths don't care much about fitting in with society and being accepted.

Now, can you demonstrate this "absolute morality" you claim exists and how you "objectively" determine good from evil by using it?

How about we equate "absolute morality" to love and base decisions on love.
And with love, I am talking about loving someone like a friend, brother, sister, or someone you really care about and making decisions in the best interest of the other individual. This love is very similar to the agapao, phileo, and agape love that Winston (n.d.) describes.

Do you agree that morality has a foundation on love? If not, what would you base morals on? Morals cannot only be defined by what society or the individual determines to be moral. There has to be an underlying construct that helps to define morals. More than likely that construct is love.

Now if love is what is used to define measure morality. Then one can objectively determine good from evil. One that acts with love is good. One that acts without love is evil.

References
Winston, B. E. (n.d.). Agapao Leadership. Inner Resources for Leaders, 1-6. Retrieved from www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/innerresources/vol1iss1/winston_agapao.pdf

 

[Inkfingers]

Are you asking if I hold the rapist's opinion with equal weight to my own? Or are you asking if I think he values his opinion as much as I value mine?

Neither.

I'm pointing out that if its all a matter of opinion the rapist has no less moral authority for his actions than you do for yours.

Who says I'm wishy washy? Saying I believe my opinion to be fact and not opinion doesn't change anyone else's mind.

If all you have is your opinion, your morality IS wishywashy. It has no substance. Its just your subjective desire. Or, to quote the Bible, it is build on sand not rock.

Hence, wishywashy.

 

[quatona]

If all you have is your opinion, your morality IS wishywashy.

I´m looking forward to someone demonstrating that their moral views are more than their opinion.

 

[selfinflikted]

I´m looking forward to someone demonstrating that their moral views are more than their opinion.

Agreed. It's never been demonstrated to me, if that isn't the case.

Also, for the record, OP, my original response did seem to miss the point of the question.

I don't think there is a such thing as "objective morality" (or, if you rather, absolute morality) at all, but I still think it is possible to recognize "evil" because there are a handful of moral ideas that, while not universal (or objective), are pretty darn close.

 

[Inkfingers]

I´m looking forward to someone demonstrating that their moral views are more than their opinion.

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

 

[Inkfingers]

Agreed. It's never been demonstrated to me, if that isn't the case.

Also, for the record, OP, my original response did seem to miss the point of the question.

I don't think there is a such thing as "objective morality" (or, if you rather, absolute morality) at all, but I still think it is possible to recognize "evil" because there are a handful of moral ideas that, while not universal (or objective), are pretty darn close.

That is like saying 2.1+2.1 is close enough to 2+2 as to make no difference.

 

[selfinflikted]

That is like saying 2.1+2.1 is close enough to 2+2 as to make no difference.

No, it really isn't.

 

[bhsmte]

No, sir, not to simply determine that an absolute moral standard exists: you can do that with a purely rational process. Then you pursue the standard to see where it resides and how to understand it.

Explain this rational process and the logic behind it.

 

[quatona]

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

Sure you don´t have the intention to do that.

 

[quatona]

There´s something quite disturbing about these ever recurring "I am a sociopath - without a God I don´t know why not to harm others" threads.

 

[bhsmte]

No, sir: sociopaths do indeed care about being accepted by society: they fully realize that if their deviant thinking is discovered, they will be identified as dangerous and restrained. Sociopaths are masters at deception for exactly this reason; to remain invisible.

If sociopaths want to fit in and be accepted by society, why are they; antisocial and lack a social conscience?

 

[Thepz]

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?

 

[bhsmte]

How about we equate "absolute morality" to love and base decisions on love.
And with love, I am talking about loving someone like a friend, brother, sister, or someone you really care about and making decisions in the best interest of the other individual. This love is very similar to the agapao, phileo, and agape love that Winston (n.d.) describes.

Do you agree that morality has a foundation on love? If not, what would you base morals on? Morals cannot only be defined by what society or the individual determines to be moral. There has to be an underlying construct that helps to define morals. More than likely that construct is love.

Now if love is what is used to define measure morality. Then one can objectively determine good from evil. One that acts with love is good. One that acts without love is evil.



References
Winston, B. E. (n.d.). Agapao Leadership. Inner Resources for Leaders, 1-6. Retrieved from www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/innerresources/vol1iss1/winston_agapao.pdf

First, you would have to "objectively" be able to identify love.

 

[Ken-1122]

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

I see this question asked frequently by unbelievers who want to argue that the existence of Evil is somehow a refutation of the existence of a Moral God.

It seems to me that the appropriate first response to this question should be to ask, "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?".

People define good and evil. When people say God is good, they are saying he is good according to the human concept of good; the same applies to evil.

Ken