No objective grounding for evil?

[Asvin]

Why does "goodness" have to be grounded in God's nature if "evil" does not? "Evil", as traditionally understood, is the misuse of human free will. There is no objective grounding for it. It logically follows that "goodness" is the proper use of human free will. How, then, is it necessary to ground "goodness", but not "evil"? Is "evil" grounded in something other than God? If so, what is it? If not, then why does "goodness" HAVE to be grounded, but "evil" does not?

 

[prov1810]

How, then, is it necessary to ground "goodness", but not "evil"?

In a sense, evil is grounded in goodness (being) because it is the corruption of something. But corruption can't exist independently. But goodness is the superior mode of being because it existed independently of evil prior to corruption. If everything was evil - destruction, disorder, confusion - existence would cease to function. It would be total chaos, without substance, and it wouldn't display evil as a real thing. It is only in the resilience and order of being that evil stands out as a distinct category.

 

[JGL53]

> 2

Yes, evil and good define one another, in that they are a pair of opposites wherein one would not exist without the other.

To explain - if one lived in a universe wherein there was NO evil, then there would be no necessity to even invent the word or concept, so no one would. And it works the same way if we substitute the word or concept "good" in the previous sentence.

As to some objective definition of good and evil, there seems to be many different schools of thought. Christians disagree mightily on this issue, same as non-christians do, both religious and secular. E.g., just witness the thousands of christian denominations, with counter-charges among them regarding who is the "real" christian and who is heterodox or a "cult", i.e., not "really christian".

Or take the fact of racism.

If that is not an evil - a "sin" - then I don't know what an evil or a "sin" is.

And yet many christians apparently don't think racism qualifies as a sin.

I agree with the christians who are against racism. So - am I pro-christian or anti-christian on this?

You tell me.

 

[prov1810]

> 2

Yes, evil and good define one another, in that they are a pair of opposites wherein one would not exist without the other.

That's not what I said.

Or take the fact of racism.

If that is not a "sin" then I don't know what a "sin" is.

And yet many christians apparently don't think racism qualifies as a sin.

I agree with the christians who are against racism. So - am I pro-christian or anti-christian on this?

You tell me.

Maybe some people identify with their culture and race and they would like them to be preserved. This doesn't have to entail hatred of other people. If by racism you mean that kind of hatred, yes, it is a sin. Jesus told us to go to all nations and every race is represented in the church, His body. No racist could use this kind of universalist language, so a "Christian" racist hates what Jesus loves. This is standard Christian teaching in conservative denominations. You'll notice these denominations have churches all over the world and members of all races. Doctrinally racist churches are outliers.

 

[juvenissun]

Why does "goodness" have to be grounded in God's nature if "evil" does not? "Evil", as traditionally understood, is the misuse of human free will. There is no objective grounding for it. It logically follows that "goodness" is the proper use of human free will. How, then, is it necessary to ground "goodness", but not "evil"? Is "evil" grounded in something other than God? If so, what is it? If not, then why does "goodness" HAVE to be grounded, but "evil" does not?

There is A.
And there is -A.

The ground of A is on something.
The ground of -A is A.

So, the ground of evil is good, not God.

 

[JGL53]

There is A.
And there is -A.

The ground of A is on something.
The ground of -A is A.

So, the ground of evil is good, not God.

But what if X created both A and -A, or at least the potential for them, then X would be ULTIMATELY responsible for both A and -A.

I think there's a verse in the bible admitting that god created both good and evil, so it's not like I'm saying anything new here.

 

[juvenissun]

But what if X created both A and -A, or at least the potential for them, then X would be ULTIMATELY responsible for both A and -A.

I think there's a verse in the bible admitting that god created both good and evil, so it's not like I'm saying anything new here.

If I were X, I won't do that stupid thing. If I create A, then I don't care if -A exists or not.

There is no such verse.

 

[Ken-1122]

. If I create A, then I don't care if -A exists or not.

Actually you should care. If -A takes away from the A that you created, you should care enough to prevent that from happening.

Ken

 

[Huntun]

Good and evil are correlative value judgments. That's how both exist- as value judgments. They both come into being via the process of making value judgments.

 

[hownow]

But what if X created both A and -A, or at least the potential for them, then X would be ULTIMATELY responsible for both A and -A.

I think there's a verse in the bible admitting that god created both good and evil, so it's not like I'm saying anything new here.

You all are forgetting that in addition to A and -A (negative A) there is also !A
(not-A).

 

[juvenissun]

Actually you should care. If -A takes away from the A that you created, you should care enough to prevent that from happening.

Ken

Yes, I should care before I created the A. If I created A, I certainly have a way to deal with the effect of -A, which I did not create.

 

[juvenissun]

Good and evil are correlative value judgments. That's how both exist- as value judgments. They both come into being via the process of making value judgments.

No. Good appeared first, then evil. They do not show up at the same time.

 

[juvenissun]

You all are forgetting that in addition to A and -A (negative A) there is also !A
(not-A).

If so, !A is not related to A. You are off the topic.

 

[Huntun]

No. Good appeared first, then evil. They do not show up at the same time.

Did the first being to make a value judgement end up making a negative judgement (evil) first or a positive judgement (good) first ? I don't know but the one concept mutually entails the later regardless of whether the first such judgment was "good" or "evil". You know the whole YinYang thing like in your picture.

Good, or evil, is an abstract concept and a value judgement. I think people are unnecessarily reifying (or maybe the term is hypostatizing?) good and evil. Making them into substances or things that exist outside the realm of value judgement. It would be like talking about "liking" vs "disliking" or "Yay" vs "boo" and saying the former is objectively grounded in God whereas the later isn't. Then arguing over which was first.

 

[juvenissun]

Did the first being to make a value judgement end up making a negative judgement (evil) first or a positive judgement (good) first ? I don't know but the one concept mutually entails the later regardless of whether the first such judgment was "good" or "evil". You know the whole YinYang thing like in your picture.

Good, or evil, is an abstract concept and a value judgement. I think people are unnecessarily reifying (or maybe the term is hypostatizing?) good and evil. Making them into substances or things that exist outside the realm of value judgement. It would be like talking about "liking" vs "disliking" or "Yay" vs "boo" and saying the former is objectively grounded in God whereas the later isn't. Then arguing over which was first.

I guess it could be, if the idea was made by human. In fact, that is a more common case than not.

 

[jayem]

There is A.
And there is -A.

The ground of A is on something.
The ground of -A is A.

So, the ground of evil is good, not God.

Why isn't it possible that A is evil and -A is good? Maybe God is actually evil, but he suspends it from time to time. Which is when we experience good. The world be eaxctly as we see it if God's nature was the opposite of what is commonly believed. Aside from having faith in God's goodness, you have no way to know what the "ground," or let's say the default state really is.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

Why does "goodness" have to be grounded in God's nature if "evil" does not? "Evil", as traditionally understood, is the misuse of human free will. There is no objective grounding for it. It logically follows that "goodness" is the proper use of human free will. How, then, is it necessary to ground "goodness", but not "evil"? Is "evil" grounded in something other than God? If so, what is it? If not, then why does "goodness" HAVE to be grounded, but "evil" does not?

Evil is the absence of God's will, like darkness is the absence of light.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why does "goodness" have to be grounded in God's nature if "evil" does not? "Evil", as traditionally understood, is the misuse of human free will. There is no objective grounding for it. It logically follows that "goodness" is the proper use of human free will. How, then, is it necessary to ground "goodness", but not "evil"? Is "evil" grounded in something other than God? If so, what is it? If not, then why does "goodness" HAVE to be grounded, but "evil" does not?

Can you explain what you mean by "objective grounding"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is A.
And there is -A.

The ground of A is on something.
The ground of -A is A.

So, the ground of evil is good, not God.

It seems to me that that argument works in the opposite direction as well.
You assert that good = a. But you don't give any reason for it....
Why can't "good" be the -A?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No. Good appeared first, then evil. They do not show up at the same time.

Evidence of this claim? And no, pointing to a book from where you repeated the claim will not do.