the existence of evil

Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#3
Evil is a term man has created to define incidents unacceptable to one section of society or another. What one considers to be "Evil" another does not...thus is it an arbitrary term.

I personally consider the Pro-Life movement to be unacceptable attempts at forcing opinion on the lives of others...you could call it evil. Those who wish to ban abortion will call me evil for believing as I do.
 
Oct 7, 2012
1,916
383
NC
#4
Evil is a term man has created to define incidents unacceptable to one section of society or another. What one considers to be "Evil" another does not...thus is it an arbitrary term.


is the evil detailed in the url above...arbitrary? would you say its evil to some in society and not evil to others?
 
Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#7
is the evil detailed in the url above...arbitrary? would you say its evil to some in society and not evil to others?
Yes....I would. I as a matter of fact would not term this man as evil. He was a mentally screwed up person made eve worse by life circumstances and opportunity. His "Actions" were certainly disturbing and terrible, but the term evil does not come to mind.
 
Likes: 1 person
Oct 7, 2012
1,916
383
NC
#9
rationalizing and intellectualizing evil reduces reduced one's anxiety, allowing one to feel safer and more in control.

"if I can contain it in this box I am in control and don't have to worry".
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#10
Good and evil are arbitrary constructs used to describe a position on a society's moral compass. The closest you'll come to an objective good/evil is various moral situations in which a view is commonly held across time and culture, ie. murder being evil and charity being good. Even then it's simple coincidence (and hardly universal) rather than a true objective fact.
 
Likes: 2 people
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#13
"good" or "bad" are a social constructs too, so it's kind of hard to say. in fact hard is a social construct as well, so it's hard to say it's "hard" to say.
Hard is actually objective. Something that requires little work is easy, something that requires a lot of work is hard.
 
Likes: 1 person
Oct 7, 2012
1,916
383
NC
#15
Hard is actually objective. Something that requires little work is easy, something that requires a lot of work is hard.

Hard and easy are arbitrary constructs used to describe a position on a society's work compass. The closest you'll come to an objective hard/easy is various work situations in which a view is commonly held across time and culture, ie. sawing a redwood being hard and slicing butter being easy. Even then it's simple coincidence (and hardly universal) rather than a true objective fact.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#16
Hard and easy are arbitrary constructs used to describe a position on a society's work compass. The closest you'll come to an objective hard/easy is various work situations in which a view is commonly held across time and culture, ie. sawing a redwood being hard and slicing butter being easy. Even then it's simple coincidence (and hardly universal) rather than a true objective fact.
But I already demonstrated that's not true. Nice try though.
 
Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#17
But I already demonstrated that's not true. Nice try though.
I propose a terminology change to simplify. Difficult vs. Simple.

It is difficult to gather wool, weave it into a blanket and survive a winter storm.
It is simple to huddle in a a cave near a fire to do the same thing. Avoiding stealing anothers blanket is a simple act of morality in culture...doing so when it will save your child is not as easy.

It would be "Good" to not take the blanket yet easily considered "Evil" to let your child die.

The two terms are indeed arbitrary as they are entirely based on personal opinion of the individual.
 
Oct 7, 2012
1,916
383
NC
#18
But I already demonstrated that's not true. Nice try though.
I agree that you tried to demonstrate that it is not true. but is that truth you mention...subjective or objective?

What I highlight (or attempt to) is that one really just cherry-picks the things they want categorized as objective or subjective.

To the point, I think there are ultimate objective truths. However, I also believe that all are in some way subjective in their ability to capture or grasp these truths. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to grasp it or that our conception of them are "arbitrary or random", rather they are reasoned grasps at the objective truth.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#19
I agree that you tried to demonstrate that it is not true. but is that truth you mention...subjective or objective?

What I highlight (or attempt to) is that one really just cherry-picks the things they want categorized as objective or subjective.

To the point, I think there are ultimate objective truths. However, I also believe that all are in some way subjective in their ability to capture or grasp these truths. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to grasp it or that our conception of them are "arbitrary or random", rather they are reasoned grasps at the objective truth.
Hard/Easy is a matter of relevance, not subjection. Morality on the other hand is the opposite, name 1 example of an objective moral position. You can't, even people living within the same culture can't agree.
 
Oct 7, 2012
1,916
383
NC
#20
Hard/Easy is a matter of relevance, not subjection. Morality on the other hand is the opposite, name 1 example of an objective moral position. You can't, even people living within the same culture can't agree.
no they're subjective.

for proof of their subjectivity, I offer you my disagreement.
since we disagree = they are subjective.

morality has an objectivity at its core (as does hard or easy or quality or truth) but people only grasp at it subjectively. charity (as good) or murder (as evil) as you mentioned, are areas where people have come closer to this objectivity, not randomly but through reason.

by example:

a car runs a stop light and hits a kid on a bike and speeds off.

three people (witnesses) are interviewed by the police.


one says, "it was a black man driving a white Mustang"

a second says, "it was an arab man driving a yellow Camaro".

a third says, "it was a white woman driving a red Nova."


All have had a subjective experience of the hit and run, but their subjective experience of the hit and run does not negate the objective hit and run.


(footnote: the perpetrator was actually a heavy-set white man with bushy blonde white hair driving a diesel, maroon, smart car. )
 

Similar Discussions