Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Anyone?
How do you know what is evil when evil is none existent?
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
It has no existence on it's own, but it's a label that can be applied to clearly immoral behavior.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
How does atheism work out the problems of good, evil, and suffering? And without God, where do atheists go to for comfort?
Well just try molesting a child in my presence and you'll find out quick enough exatly what I'd do with that person. Try to hurt someone in a way that upsets me and again I'll be happy to show you what my reactions would be . I do not believe in any god either but do set standards for myself.
Atheism says nothing about such things, but in the absence of rigid ancient and mostly anachronistic rules, we can more freely evaluate what the best and most moral course of action is. Remember you are just a follower, so if God tells you to do evil, as he told Abraham, you are obligated to accept it.
I assume you mean mental comfort, and you might be surprised, you don't need to go crying to a phantom to feel better, you just might be stronger than you think. But you won't know that if you don't take responsibility for your own state of mind.
I assume you mean mental comfort, and you might be surprised, you don't need to go crying to a phantom to feel better, you just might be stronger than you think. But you won't know that if you don't take responsibility for your own state of mind.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
How do you explain (or how does atheism explain) the meaning and purpose in life? And why do people seem to have a deep spiritual longing for truth and direction and feel incomplete inside when they lack them or are denied them?
What meaning? What purpose? There can be individual meaning, usually centered around human relationships, but I don't think there is any ultimate purpose.
I have that same longing for greater understanding, it's not specific to religion, although they like to claim it as their own. The point is not to accept just any answer because you can't stand the absence of one. It's OK to accept that one doesn't know.
I have that same longing for greater understanding, it's not specific to religion, although they like to claim it as their own. The point is not to accept just any answer because you can't stand the absence of one. It's OK to accept that one doesn't know.
"How do you know what is evil when evil is none existent?"
This question is self-annihilating. The question implies the existence of 'evil', then declares evil non-existent.
Evil is an idea. All ideas exist. Ideas fall into two general categories: subjective and objective. Ideas that have a physical correlation outside the mind are objective ideas. Those that don't have a physical correlation outside the mind are subjective; existing only in the mind.
Depending upon your stipulation of evil, the idea of evil may or may not have a physical correlation with the world. If it is based upon a code of morality (the most often used definition I suppose), then no.
Morality is a code of preferences. A violation of a moral code never harms anyone. But the violation of law, does harm a person*. This is why morality has no place in law.
Evil exists in terms of breaking a criminal code, but not a moral code.
* or brings a serious threat of harm
This question is self-annihilating. The question implies the existence of 'evil', then declares evil non-existent.
Evil is an idea. All ideas exist. Ideas fall into two general categories: subjective and objective. Ideas that have a physical correlation outside the mind are objective ideas. Those that don't have a physical correlation outside the mind are subjective; existing only in the mind.
Depending upon your stipulation of evil, the idea of evil may or may not have a physical correlation with the world. If it is based upon a code of morality (the most often used definition I suppose), then no.
Morality is a code of preferences. A violation of a moral code never harms anyone. But the violation of law, does harm a person*. This is why morality has no place in law.
Evil exists in terms of breaking a criminal code, but not a moral code.
* or brings a serious threat of harm
Morality is much older than religion. Wolves, crows, gophers and dolphins know what behaviour is acceptable and what behaviour is wrong. Right is whatever enhances the chance of survival of the social unit; wrong is whatever diminishes that chance.
In humans, it all becomes very complicated, partly because we have complicated social relationships, but mostly because we have a whole lot of impractical ideas. There is a large overlap between what human groups call illegal and what humans consider immoral, but there is also a little margin, either side, where an act can be wrong, even though it's legal, or criminal, even though it's right. Most of those illegal and immoral acts are not, however, evil.
Evil is something deeper and more harmful that simple transgression of rules. It does more than kill, injure or deprive other people in a single instance: it is a deliberate, freely chosen pattern of harmful behaviour.
In humans, it all becomes very complicated, partly because we have complicated social relationships, but mostly because we have a whole lot of impractical ideas. There is a large overlap between what human groups call illegal and what humans consider immoral, but there is also a little margin, either side, where an act can be wrong, even though it's legal, or criminal, even though it's right. Most of those illegal and immoral acts are not, however, evil.
Evil is something deeper and more harmful that simple transgression of rules. It does more than kill, injure or deprive other people in a single instance: it is a deliberate, freely chosen pattern of harmful behaviour.
Your question doesn't make a great deal of sense. How do you know what A is when A is non-existent? what theory of knowledge, that allows an agent to know about a non-existent particular, do you have in mind?
i've seen this disingenous topic time and again.
why is it disingenous? because 'evil' is just a word to them basically but even those who believe this, will hypocritically go to the police if threatened or wronged as well as protect themselves, all the while disassociating themselves from reality for the convenience of plucking 'evil' out as a non-issue in their head. to the op, here is some advice. if you don't think 'evil' exists, then don't defend yourself or be naturally offended by anything. can you manage that? i seriously doubt it.
it's as insane as deeming us non-entities because we are a bunch of atoms or making that equivalence.
why is it disingenous? because 'evil' is just a word to them basically but even those who believe this, will hypocritically go to the police if threatened or wronged as well as protect themselves, all the while disassociating themselves from reality for the convenience of plucking 'evil' out as a non-issue in their head. to the op, here is some advice. if you don't think 'evil' exists, then don't defend yourself or be naturally offended by anything. can you manage that? i seriously doubt it.
it's as insane as deeming us non-entities because we are a bunch of atoms or making that equivalence.
That is a good definition.
I call my evil ex-boyfriend the evil ex-boyfriend because he goes through life using people financially, conning them, and charming them into helping him by appearing vulnerable and sweet. He lies, he steals, he misleads, and I'm sure he's out there now, mooching off of some other sucker.
It's the way he is. Deliberately, freely, and gleefully. A petty conman.
I also keep thinking about evil what some (I think) Supreme Court justice said about obscenity: "I can't give you a clear definition, but I know it when I see it."
Yes, I'm aware I have no absolute evil. I have no absolute good either.
You called it "preferences" in your other post.
I think of preferences as I would prefer a peanut butter sandwich to a tomato sandwich...that sort of thing.
Fishing for examples:
I think it is immoral to spread malicious rumors on the job.
I think it's immoral to knowingly contract for a poor job on a contractee's house because the contractee does not know know precisely what needs done and how to specify for it (Has happened to my mom multiple times, the last time I observed it happen. No, she would not listen to me.)
I think it's immoral to borrow money informally and not pay it back.
All the above are not illegal though.
Must not be getting something here...:shrug:
elte
Valued Senior Member
What is evil is determined by common sense, by a type of universal rationality. That is the way it should be, at least.
Evil is individual behavior, which if extrapolated to the entire group, would regress or destroy the group. If one person rapes, the group can still survive and absorb this singular behavior. But this would be called evil because if we all did it, there would be a social melt-down.
The confusion that often arises, is the majority of the herd, by doing good, often carries the weight so a fraction can get away with evil. Since the group survives and may still thrive, some get the impression this is not really evil. But the real test is let us extrapolate this behavior to the entire group and let everyone do that at the same time, if there is anarchy and chaos it was evil being carrying by good. The Christian ethic of turn the other cheek, often carries evil on its back, evil can become part of culture as almost acceptable behavior.
If I say, hello, to everyone, this is good. I can tell since if we extrapolated that behavior to everyone, the group would be better off. If I falsely accuse someone this is evil, since if we all did it, there would be anarchy. But if only a few do it, the group can absorb it, by turning the other cheek to create the illusion this evil is relative.
In modern times,
The confusion that often arises, is the majority of the herd, by doing good, often carries the weight so a fraction can get away with evil. Since the group survives and may still thrive, some get the impression this is not really evil. But the real test is let us extrapolate this behavior to the entire group and let everyone do that at the same time, if there is anarchy and chaos it was evil being carrying by good. The Christian ethic of turn the other cheek, often carries evil on its back, evil can become part of culture as almost acceptable behavior.
If I say, hello, to everyone, this is good. I can tell since if we extrapolated that behavior to everyone, the group would be better off. If I falsely accuse someone this is evil, since if we all did it, there would be anarchy. But if only a few do it, the group can absorb it, by turning the other cheek to create the illusion this evil is relative.
In modern times,
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
With concerns to civil law, it seems to me that if the law is a teacher, it does not teach people how to be moral, but about discouraging people to break it, and encouraging people to follow it. Inevitably morality plays into subjective practical application of the law, and even theoretically morality ties into abstract notions of justice, ethics, humanity, and fairness. Law and morality sometimes seem to me like reluctant bedfellows.
Morality is based on behavior that maximizes the group. Although morality maximizes the group, it may not always maximize the individual or all individuals. The compromise is called ethics. Ethics takes into consideration the individual while trying to do it in a way that is not too disruptive to the group.
To see morality in action, all you need to do is look at the ten commands to see how each law maximize the group. Again, these commandments may not maximize all individuals in the group at the same time. Even the first commandment, which is love the one god, is useful for group maximization. If everyone loves different gods or no gods at all, there will be more conflict, compared to all are on the same page. Again, all on the same page will maximize the group or team entity, but may not always maximize the needs of every individual. Morality is based on team first, even if the individual takes a hit. It is team effort and no hotdogging.
If we look at commandments like stealing or killing, by not doing these things to each other, there is better group cohesion and less waste of group resources in police, courts and other defensive countermeasures. This may not optimize all the natural born killers or career criminals, in terms of these individuals. They would prefer more freedom to explore and practice their craft. But again morality is not about the subjective needs of the members of the teams, but the team, itself. Through a strong team, all the teammates benefit.
Ethical choices attempt to take the individual subjectivities more into account. You can steal using white color crime; banks, or via lobbying and when in politics, such as insider trading, but these ethics are not for all, or else the group will began to break apart not be able to absorb. The group would be better without these things, but ethics tries to take into consideration, individuals. Ethics tend to be created by one of the shadiest professions; lawyers.
Christianity defined extreme evil in the guise of Satan or Devil. But, paradoxically, Christianity also teaches its members to be tolerant of differences even to the point of turning the other cheek. There is a paradox of defining evil while making it easier for evil via tolerance. The logic behind this was to develop objective standards instead of remaining at the level of subjective standards. Being tolerant means accepting individual difference and optimizations, which sometimes is not all in the best interest of the team. While the vision of hell and evil means not all that you tolerate is good or is only subjective evil. Some of this is objective evil. It is a long process of elimination, which allows more room for ethics, while also giving the group the ability to maintain cohesion. America is free style among a wider range of differences yet maintains a sense of unity, due to Christian paradox and evolving ethics in the light of old morality.
We live in an age of special interests where everyone wants ethical considerations for their group, so they can be immoral (relative to group maximization) but not to the point of group collapse. Relative morality is called ethics.
To see morality in action, all you need to do is look at the ten commands to see how each law maximize the group. Again, these commandments may not maximize all individuals in the group at the same time. Even the first commandment, which is love the one god, is useful for group maximization. If everyone loves different gods or no gods at all, there will be more conflict, compared to all are on the same page. Again, all on the same page will maximize the group or team entity, but may not always maximize the needs of every individual. Morality is based on team first, even if the individual takes a hit. It is team effort and no hotdogging.
If we look at commandments like stealing or killing, by not doing these things to each other, there is better group cohesion and less waste of group resources in police, courts and other defensive countermeasures. This may not optimize all the natural born killers or career criminals, in terms of these individuals. They would prefer more freedom to explore and practice their craft. But again morality is not about the subjective needs of the members of the teams, but the team, itself. Through a strong team, all the teammates benefit.
Ethical choices attempt to take the individual subjectivities more into account. You can steal using white color crime; banks, or via lobbying and when in politics, such as insider trading, but these ethics are not for all, or else the group will began to break apart not be able to absorb. The group would be better without these things, but ethics tries to take into consideration, individuals. Ethics tend to be created by one of the shadiest professions; lawyers.
Christianity defined extreme evil in the guise of Satan or Devil. But, paradoxically, Christianity also teaches its members to be tolerant of differences even to the point of turning the other cheek. There is a paradox of defining evil while making it easier for evil via tolerance. The logic behind this was to develop objective standards instead of remaining at the level of subjective standards. Being tolerant means accepting individual difference and optimizations, which sometimes is not all in the best interest of the team. While the vision of hell and evil means not all that you tolerate is good or is only subjective evil. Some of this is objective evil. It is a long process of elimination, which allows more room for ethics, while also giving the group the ability to maintain cohesion. America is free style among a wider range of differences yet maintains a sense of unity, due to Christian paradox and evolving ethics in the light of old morality.
We live in an age of special interests where everyone wants ethical considerations for their group, so they can be immoral (relative to group maximization) but not to the point of group collapse. Relative morality is called ethics.
I had to return to this, because it irked me.
"Atheism" doesn't exist either. It's not a system or school of thought: it's nothing more than a label for all persons who reject the idea of a supreme being.
That doesn't mean all atheists unanimously believe anything else, or, indeed, have anything else in common.
Each atheist has to work out the problems of good, evil, life, death and suffering individually, according to our education, experience, proclivity and capability.
We have no Big Book of Absolute Contradictions to guide us.
And that, if not a source of comfort, is at least the absence of one source of mental anguish.