The problem of evil

[Resha Caner]

No, you were trying to deflect.

Since you didn't address my citation, I assume we're done.

 

[Loudmouth]

Since you didn't address my citation, I assume we're done.

The act of covering up or destroying evidence is evidence that they agree with the generally accepted morality. Otherwise, why would they be trying to cover their tracks?

People who think murder and theft are completely moral are locked up in mental institutions instead of prisons. Last I checked, our prisons are full of people who have committed those crimes.

 

[Resha Caner]

The act of covering up or destroying evidence is evidence that they agree with the generally accepted morality. Otherwise, why would they be trying to cover their tracks?

My example (police) was meant to answer your question. They are legally permitted to do many of the same things you are attributing to criminals. Why is it "moral" in one case and "immoral" in another? In both cases the reason for these actions is to accomplish the goal with the least amount of damage to those acting.

Addressing the cited source would require a scientific investigation to falsify its results. It may be that someone has already published such a study. As it stands, the idea is pretty simple. People rationalize their behavior. It is typical to make oneself the good guy and others the bad guy. I'm not saying everyone does that, but it's very difficult to know what is truly motivating people to act as they do, and I think you've oversimplified.

In the end, morality is a set of rules intended to benefit a select group. That can range from a group of one for the narcissist to all of existence for the tree hugger. It does seem that over the course of history the trend has been moving from morality for the tribe to global morality. But I still don't see any agreement on what morality is.

I guess I just think its possible for a moral system to be non-arbitrary and yet still bad. I also think the key to making a moral system good (non-arbitrary, non-autocratic, etc.) is understanding the purpose of creation - a task forever beyond any single finite being, and so requiring some trust and obedience.

 

[Loudmouth]

My example (police) was meant to answer your question.

Then you don't know how to answer questions. You knew I was talking about people who were committing crimes, not cops trying to find people committing crimes.

They are legally permitted to do many of the same things you are attributing to criminals.

No, they aren't. Cops aren't allowed to steal people's stuff or murder people. You know this. All you are trying to do is deflect away from the obvious point.

Addressing the cited source would require a scientific investigation to falsify its results. It may be that someone has already published such a study. As it stands, the idea is pretty simple. People rationalize their behavior. It is typical to make oneself the good guy and others the bad guy. I'm not saying everyone does that, but it's very difficult to know what is truly motivating people to act as they do, and I think you've oversimplified.

If not everyone does it, then my point stands. People know that something is immoral, and they do it anyway.

In the end, morality is a set of rules intended to benefit a select group. That can range from a group of one for the narcissist to all of existence for the tree hugger. It does seem that over the course of history the trend has been moving from morality for the tribe to global morality. But I still don't see any agreement on what morality is.

And there is probably nothing that will make you see it. My conclusions are not based on your denial. I will let others judge for themselves who has made their case.

I also think the key to making a moral system good (non-arbitrary, non-autocratic, etc.) is understanding the purpose of creation - a task forever beyond any single finite being, and so requiring some trust and obedience.

Obedience is not a valid replacement for morality.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, they aren't. Cops aren't allowed to steal people's stuff or murder people. You know this. All you are trying to do is deflect away from the obvious point.

The police are allowed to confiscate property and use deadly force - different names for the same action. One is legally sanctioned and the other isn't, but it's the same actions: taking and killing.

If not everyone does it, then my point stands. People know that something is immoral, and they do it anyway.

Not if you're saying that's an explanation for all mentally competent people. Radiation is one cause of DNA mutation. That doesn't justify a claim that it is the only cause of DNA mutation. So, just curious, can you identify what caused a mutation after the fact? Because I don't know of any reliable means for confirming motivation.

 

[Loudmouth]

The police are allowed to confiscate property and use deadly force - different names for the same action.

It isn't the same. Stopping criminals is not the same as being a criminal.

One is legally sanctioned and the other isn't, but it's the same actions: taking and killing.

More to the point, one is moral and the other is not.

Not if you're saying that's an explanation for all mentally competent people. Radiation is one cause of DNA mutation. That doesn't justify a claim that it is the only cause of DNA mutation. So, just curious, can you identify what caused a mutation after the fact? Because I don't know of any reliable means for confirming motivation.

Are you now backing away from your previous claims? You are the one who said not everyone rationalizes their actions so as to make them think they are committing a moral act.

 

[Resha Caner]

More to the point, one is moral and the other is not.

In an absolute sense? Why?

Are you now backing away from your previous claims? You are the one who said not everyone rationalizes their actions so as to make them think they are committing a moral act.

I'm not backing away from anything. I can't understand your second sentence. The underlined "not" confuses the meaning. So, I'm not sure what statement of mine you refer to.

 

[Loudmouth]

In an absolute sense? Why?

For example, paying your taxes is a moral obligation in a representative democracy. If you don't pay those taxes, then society at large is morally justified in taking your property to pay those taxes.

I'm not backing away from anything. I can't understand your second sentence. The underlined "not" confuses the meaning. So, I'm not sure what statement of mine you refer to.

You said that some people rationalize their actions to fool themselves into believing they are being moral. This leads to the rather obvious conclusion that some don't do this, and know that they are committing immoral acts. I stated earlier that knowing what is moral does not guarantee that one will act morally. Thus far, you have not countered that argument. This argument certainly doesn't do it.

 

[Aldebaran]

It isn't the same. Stopping criminals is not the same as being a criminal.

Of course not, at least not as long as actions are redefined. If a citizen takes something that doesn't belong to them and didn't pay for, it's called theft. If a police officer does it, it's called "stopping crime, doing their job, confiscation, seizure, securing property, holding evidence", or whatever other words sound nice and official. Same with shooting and killing someone. If a citizen does it, it's called homocide, taking matters into your own hands, getting back at someone, etc. If a police officer does it, it's called "Stopping a crime in progress, ending a hostile encounter, neutralizing the threat, etc."

People in law enforcement know how to be wordsmiths, and are trained very well in how to do it.

 

[Resha Caner]

For example, paying your taxes is a moral obligation in a representative democracy. If you don't pay those taxes, then society at large is morally justified in taking your property to pay those taxes.

I think you're affirming the consequent. Or maybe begging the question. I'd have to diagram this sentence to be sure what the problem is, but there's a problem here.

Anyway, all you've done is give another example. You've given the legalized version of protection money. Same question. Why is one moral and not the other?

You said that some people rationalize their actions to fool themselves into believing they are being moral.

Yes. Not quite those words, but yes.

This leads to the rather obvious conclusion that some don't do this, and know that they are committing immoral acts.

It's another possibility, yes. I never claimed this doesn't happen. My statement was that the means you use to judge this condition are invalid.

I stated earlier that knowing what is moral does not guarantee that one will act morally.

Yes. I've never disputed that. It actually supports what I've been saying. If knowing morality doesn't necessarily cause it, and if the means of detection are unreliable, a priori methods are essentially useless. Rather, you wait and see if the person's actions are consistent with the morality they claim. Track record.

 

[Dan Bert]

Prayer....real prayer is two way communication with Deity. Faith is the power of God. Beliefs are what we think is true and knowledge is what we know to be true regardless of what the senses or science say.

Dan

Then prayer and faith are indistinguishable from something that has no power. I could claim that praying to the Flying Spaghetti monster will cure every type of cancer. If people come back and tell me their cancer is not cured, I will just tell them they were not praying the right way, or that they didn't have enough or the right kind of faith. Easy-peasy.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Prayer....real prayer is two way communication with Deity. Faith is the power of God. Beliefs are what we think is true and knowledge is what we know to be true regardless of what the senses or science say.

Dan

If your beliefs are in direct contradiction of the evidence, then you are not justified in claiming knowledge.

 

[bhsmte]

Prayer....real prayer is two way communication with Deity. Faith is the power of God. Beliefs are what we think is true and knowledge is what we know to be true regardless of what the senses or science say.

Dan

Knowledge of truth can be demonstrated.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course not, at least not as long as actions are redefined. If a citizen takes something that doesn't belong to them and didn't pay for, it's called theft. If a police officer does it, it's called "stopping crime, doing their job, confiscation, seizure, securing property, holding evidence", or whatever other words sound nice and official.

That is false. If a police officer goes into a store and takes merchandise without a court order and without the permission of the store owner then they are committing the same crime.

Same with shooting and killing someone. If a citizen does it, it's called homocide, taking matters into your own hands, getting back at someone, etc. If a police officer does it, it's called "Stopping a crime in progress, ending a hostile encounter, neutralizing the threat, etc."

If a police officer shoots a defenseless person and without any threat to their person, then they are committing the same crime.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think you're affirming the consequent. Or maybe begging the question. I'd have to diagram this sentence to be sure what the problem is, but there's a problem here.

You think there is a moral problem with laws that are voted on by a representative government, and defined by a constitution agreed upon by the people?

Anyway, all you've done is give another example. You've given the legalized version of protection money. Same question. Why is one moral and not the other?

Taxes are not extortion.

It's another possibility, yes. I never claimed this doesn't happen. My statement was that the means you use to judge this condition are invalid.

Someone not using reason and logic does not make reason and logic invalid. What you are pointing to is people not using the processes that I have laid out.

If knowing morality doesn't necessarily cause it, and if the means of detection are unreliable,

The means of detection are just fine. People not using what they have detected does not invalidate my argument.

 

[Resha Caner]

You think there is a moral problem with laws that are voted on by a representative government, and defined by a constitution agreed upon by the people?

No government is perfect, but you also failed to mention the other mechanisms at work in the American system, which are generally categorized as lobbying & petitioning.

American government (federal, state, and local) no longer represents my views (and maybe never did). When one is in the minority, voting is a losing cause and "the people" is a meaningless phrase. So, one becomes more active on the lobbying end of the spectrum.

Someone not using reason and logic does not make reason and logic invalid. What you are pointing to is people not using the processes that I have laid out.

You use the terms "logic" and "reason" quite frequently, but I've not seen you lay out any process (other than the one that led to the Golden Rule). Every time we enter an example, you stop answering my questions.

 

[Aldebaran]

That is false. If a police officer goes into a store and takes merchandise without a court order and without the permission of the store owner then they are committing the same crime.

What if they push their way into your home and take property from you without your permission and without a warrant? They'll claim they were "suspicious" or whatever. But here is something I found:

"In some situations, the police must first make this showing to a judge who issues a search warrant. In many special circumstances, however, the police may be able to conduct a search without a warrant. In fact, the majority of searches are "warrantless." - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...tions-of-the-police.html#sthash.raz1LWyS.dpuf

If a police officer shoots a defenseless person and without any threat to their person, then they are committing the same crime.

Maybe so, but how often are they held accountable that way? All they have to do is say something like, "The suspect was holding an object that I believed to be a weapon and I feared for my life and the lives of my fellow officers and took appropriate action to neutralize a perceived threat". Bingo! Justified!

 

[Loudmouth]

No government is perfect, but you also failed to mention the other mechanisms at work in the American system, which are generally categorized as lobbying & petitioning.

Are you saying those things are immoral?

You use the terms "logic" and "reason" quite frequently, but I've not seen you lay out any process (other than the one that led to the Golden Rule). Every time we enter an example, you stop answering my questions.

I have offered many examples, which you ignore.

 

[Resha Caner]

Are you saying those things are immoral?

I pay taxes.

 

[bhsmte]

I pay taxes.

Is it immoral to lobby?