Answer to the Problem of Evil

[The Great Zaganza]

So your argument is that Evil requires Intent and not just callous disregard?

 

[Tassman]

There is no problem of evil - there is just an illusion of there being a problem of evil.

There IS no problem of evil in an absolute sense - merely non-conformist behavior which is opposed to the values of society at any particular period of history.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There IS no problem of evil in an absolute sense - merely non-conformist behavior which is opposed to the values of society at any particular period of history.

by your definition, that would include opposing slavery in a society that supports the institution of slavery.

 

[Tassman]

by your definition, that would include opposing slavery in a society that supports the institution of slavery.

Supporting slavery was the norm for centuries just as 'witches' were killed and women denied equal rights etc. etc. etc. But social values evolve and such behavior is no longer acceptable in today's culture.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

supporting slavery was supported for centuries just as 'witches' were killed and women denied equal rights etc. etc. etc. But social values evolve and such behavior is no longer acceptable in today's culture.

but was it just non-conformist to call for the abolition of slavery in a pro-slavery society? Or did people at the time make a superior moral judgement?

 

[Navigator]

Well of course you didn't. You just addressed it as an argument made by people who "cannot entertain the idea that we exist within a creation", for some really clever reason, I'm sure.

In the immortal words of Pee-wee Herman, "I meant to do that".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13995717&postcount=1

 

[Navigator]

There is no problem of evil - there is just an illusion of there being a problem of evil.

There IS no problem of evil in an absolute sense - merely non-conformist behavior which is opposed to the values of society at any particular period of history.

Yes - and those societies invented the problem of evil because they saw value in doing so, in every particular period of human history.

 

[Tassman]

but was it just non-conformist to call for the abolition of slavery in a pro-slavery society? Or did people at the time make a superior moral judgement?

Not so much "a superior moral judgement" per se. Society changes when a few persuasive influencers like Emily Pankhurst with the Suffragette Movement or Martin Luther King re racial equality, convince the majority that their opinions would bring about a more cohesive society and be better for everyone.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Not so much "a superior moral judgement" per se. Society changes when a few persuasive influencers like Emily Pankhurst with the Suffragette Movement or Martin Luther King re racial equality, convince the majority that their opinions would bring about a more cohesive society and be better for everyone.

Not historically accurate.

Slavery, for example, had detractors ever since it came into being. Clearly, some people at all times in history could see it as something bad.

 

[Tassman]

Not historically accurate.

Slavery, for example, had detractors ever since it came into being. Clearly, some people at all times in history could see it as something bad.

Clearly not enough people thought slavery was "something bad" given that slavery has existed for most of human history.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Clearly not enough people thought slavery was "something bad" given that slavery has existed for most of human history.

but that isn't the argument being made here.

the question was: is opposition to slavery in a time where slavery is the norm just "non-conformism" or a moral decision ?

In other words, are some people less bad than others?

If so, we DO have a Problem of Evil, not just norm breaking.

 

[Tassman]

but that isn't the argument being made here.

the question was: is opposition to slavery in a time where slavery is the norm just "non-conformism" or a moral decision ?

In other words, are some people less bad than others?

If so, we DO have a Problem of Evil, not just norm breaking.

I do not accept that there is an absolute morality. Morals and ethics are a product of the evolution of the necessary social behavior to survive as cooperative intelligent social animals. They vary to a degree from culture to culture over time - often at the instigation of a charismatic, insightful individual such as Emily Pankhurst and the women's movement.

 

[Navigator]

I do not accept that there is an absolute morality.

What is meant by this?

Is morality an absolute in any absolutely real thing?

For example, are the morals and ethics which are a product of the evolution of the necessary social behavior to survive as cooperative, intelligent social animals, an absolute necessity?

If so, would it be fair to say that morals and ethics have to fit absolutely perfectly with the agenda re the evolution of the necessary social behavior to survive as cooperative, intelligent social animals?

If so, would that not constitute an absolute morality

 

[Tassman]

What is meant by this?

Is morality an absolute in any absolutely real thing?

For example, are the morals and ethics which are a product of the evolution of the necessary social behavior to survive as cooperative, intelligent social animals, an absolute necessity?

If so, would it be fair to say that morals and ethics have to fit absolutely perfectly with the agenda re the evolution of the necessary social behavior to survive as cooperative, intelligent social animals?

If so, would that not constitute an absolute morality

No, the truth of any given moral or ethical position is not absolute or universal. It depends upon the traditions and convictions of a specific culture or community. And these can and do change over time.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I'm fine with Relative Morality.

You don't have to be a Saint, just less ****** than most people.

 

[gabeygoat]

Clearly not enough people thought slavery was "something bad" given that slavery has existed for most of human history.

No. Not enough people with Power found it wrong

 

[Roger Ramjets]

are the morals and ethics which are a product of the evolution of the necessary social behavior to survive as cooperative, intelligent social animals, an absolute necessity?

No.

As you say, they are a (possible) product, not a prerequisite.

If so, would it be fair to say that morals and ethics have to fit absolutely perfectly with the agenda re the evolution of the necessary social behavior to survive as cooperative, intelligent social animals?

No. They could be a quite bad fit and yet still not prevent the 'necessary' social behavior from occurring. In fact this is often the case.

If so, would that not constitute an absolute morality

No, it wouldn't.

The particular morals that emerge vary depending on what social (and antisocial) behavior actually occurs. We only have to look at our own history to see that at various times the most 'fundamental' morals were violated on a massive scale, while others that were quite counterproductive were followed to the letter - and yet we still survived as cooperative, intelligent social animals.

The only way to make the behavior fit the morality perfectly would be to declare that 'anything goes' ie. whatever people do is moral by definition. But then morality is a redundant concept.

Or you could argue that even if people aren't always (or ever) following the moral code, its existence is somehow necessary to make them behave the way they do. But you might have a hard time proving it.

As for being 'absolute', what you are arguing is exactly the opposite. If the morals are required for generating the necessary social behavior for us to survive as cooperative, intelligent social animals, then they are obviously relative to it. Situation changes, morals have to change. One day killing is absolutely wrong, next day we need to eat somebody to survive. So now your 'absolute' moral is 'killing is always wrong, unless you are hungry'.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

God's plan was not to simply create an environment where humans can live temporarily then die forever more.

Well that explains a lot.

 

[Navigator]

No.

As you say, they are a (possible) product, not a prerequisite.

No. They could be a quite bad fit and yet still not prevent the 'necessary' social behavior from occurring. In fact this is often the case. .

The particular morals that emerge vary depending on what social (and antisocial) behavior actually occurs. We only have to look at our own history to see that at various times the most 'fundamental' morals were violated on a massive scale, while others that were quite counterproductive were followed to the letter - and yet we still survived as cooperative, intelligent social animals.

The only way to make the behavior fit the morality perfectly would be to declare that 'anything goes' ie. whatever people do is moral by definition. But then morality is a redundant concept.

Or you could argue that even if people aren't always (or ever) following the moral code, its existence is somehow necessary to make them behave the way they do. But you might have a hard time proving it.

As for being 'absolute', what you are arguing is exactly the opposite. If the morals are required for generating the necessary social behavior for us to survive as cooperative, intelligent social animals, then they are obviously relative to it. Situation changes, morals have to change. One day killing is absolutely wrong, next day we need to eat somebody to survive. So now your 'absolute' moral is 'killing is always wrong, unless you are hungry'

So then the only absolute moral is that morality depends upon the situation humans find themselves in, as to what is moral and what is not?

Thus morality is dictated by circumstance?

How does this tie in with the supposed problem of evil?

My take on morality re absolute is that the one thing we could identify as an absolute, might be that it is morality is absolutely open to change.

However, there may come a point where human beings develop enough in relation to the environment, that a steady state can be achieved, and therein morality might be understood as an absolute thing...

 

[Leumas]

My Turkish article translated with machine:

https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9611966.0

Peace

Surah Yunus 44 Allah does not oppress people in any way. But people oppress their own selves.

Allah lied... who made all the pestilence and pests and diseases and natural disasters and congenital diseases etc. etc. etc.???


NSFW - Not for the faint hearted