Comments on: The Problem of Evil http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/ Fri, 04 Jul 2008 05:32:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: kerrin http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-533 kerrin Mon, 05 May 2008 17:25:52 +0000 http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-533 John, Wouldn't Kant's position on causality be the same as a strong-agnostic? Also didn't he appose direct democracy on the grounds that it violated the individual's freedom? John,

Wouldn’t Kant’s position on causality be the same as a strong-agnostic?

Also didn’t he appose direct democracy on the grounds that it violated the individual’s freedom?

]]> By: John Scott http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-440 John Scott Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:15:42 +0000 http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-440 Hi Kerrin, Kant's anti-individualist moral theory could be seen as an impetus to National Socialism of Hitler. Even without Hitler, it's evil. Hi Kerrin,

Kant’s anti-individualist moral theory could be seen as an impetus to National Socialism of Hitler. Even without Hitler, it’s evil.

]]> By: kerrin http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-422 kerrin Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:10:25 +0000 http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-422 John, In your <a href="http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2007/12/07/the-closing-of-the-american-mind/" rel="nofollow">book review on <i>Closing of the Liberal Mind</i></a> you mention "evil Kant" as one of the philosophers you have studied. What would you then be basing his evilness on... the outcome of his theories? I was curious why you labeled him as such. I have thought that some of his theories are evil in that their logical outcomes are bad for humanity... they will infringe on an individual's freedom or justify one to violate another's freedom. John,

In your book review on Closing of the Liberal Mind you mention “evil Kant” as one of the philosophers you have studied. What would you then be basing his evilness on… the outcome of his theories? I was curious why you labeled him as such. I have thought that some of his theories are evil in that their logical outcomes are bad for humanity… they will infringe on an individual’s freedom or justify one to violate another’s freedom.

]]> By: John Scott http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-416 John Scott Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:41:25 +0000 http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-416 <blockquote>Evil is a human assigned characteristic of behaviour.</blockquote> That's much too broad of a statement. It ignores the fact that each value system (hedonism, Christianity, utilitarianism, etc, etc) has its own definition of evil. <blockquote>Theists *need* evil</blockquote> Theists? You are giving theism way too much credit. Your statement assumes that theists are the only ones with moral values. Humanists and secularists have moral values, too. An agnostic person can define murder as evil just as validly as a Christian can. Perhaps even more so, because the Christian defines murder as evil simply by virtue of the Bible saying so. An agnostic calls murder evil for the very valid rationality that murder is destructive to the human race, causes pain, and begets violence. <blockquote>They may need to identify morally reprehensible activities that they can legislate against, or recognise as being wrong - but that doesn’t need an appeal to “evil”.</blockquote> Are you suggesting that philosophers should abandon the use of the words "good" and "evil"? Philosophers have spoken in terms of "good" and "evil" for thousands of years. Aristotle did, and did so without any regard to theism. I fear you've just lost sight of the big picture and are obsessing over semantics. Words are just phonetic representations of concepts, and not worthy of much debate themselves. Concepts, on the other hand, are interesting.

Evil is a human assigned characteristic of behaviour.

That’s much too broad of a statement. It ignores the fact that each value system (hedonism, Christianity, utilitarianism, etc, etc) has its own definition of evil.

Theists *need* evil

Theists? You are giving theism way too much credit. Your statement assumes that theists are the only ones with moral values. Humanists and secularists have moral values, too. An agnostic person can define murder as evil just as validly as a Christian can. Perhaps even more so, because the Christian defines murder as evil simply by virtue of the Bible saying so. An agnostic calls murder evil for the very valid rationality that murder is destructive to the human race, causes pain, and begets violence.

They may need to identify morally reprehensible activities that they can legislate against, or recognise as being wrong - but that doesn’t need an appeal to “evil”.

Are you suggesting that philosophers should abandon the use of the words “good” and “evil”? Philosophers have spoken in terms of “good” and “evil” for thousands of years. Aristotle did, and did so without any regard to theism.

I fear you’ve just lost sight of the big picture and are obsessing over semantics. Words are just phonetic representations of concepts, and not worthy of much debate themselves. Concepts, on the other hand, are interesting.

]]> By: JezC http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-415 JezC Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:06:55 +0000 http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-415 The obvious problem is statement 1. "If evil exists". This is an example of the logical error of arguing from a false premise. Evil is a human assigned characteristic of behaviour. At one point, Nelson Mandela is an evil terrorist. At another he is a next-to-Christ like figure of goodness. He's the same person. Evil is in the mind of the beholder, not an abstract entity identifiable by a third party armed with a definition. It's a problem caused by confusing the existence of real things with identifying and labelling characteristics. Just because you can apply a label to a group of things, doesn't mean that the label is useful or even helpful. For example, looking out of the window, I can see several groupings. One is a group of entities in a thing I'll call a field. I'll call the entities "fieldists". Now I can make up all sots of stories about fieldists. Until some of them unexpectedly fly away to a different field, and some of them are herded to a second field and some swim up and down river. The label wasn't useful. It was an artifact of my perceptions. Theists *need* evil, so that their god can be defined as being as being in opposition. However, there is no reason for there to be something evil - it's just a convenient fiction. Non-theists don't need a label called evil. They may need to identify morally reprehensible activities that they can legislate against, or recognise as being wrong - but that doesn't need an appeal to "evil". Arguing anything beyond point 1 becomes fatuous. Cheers, JezC. The obvious problem is statement 1. “If evil exists”. This is an example of the logical error of arguing from a false premise. Evil is a human assigned characteristic of behaviour. At one point, Nelson Mandela is an evil terrorist. At another he is a next-to-Christ like figure of goodness. He’s the same person. Evil is in the mind of the beholder, not an abstract entity identifiable by a third party armed with a definition.

It’s a problem caused by confusing the existence of real things with identifying and labelling characteristics. Just because you can apply a label to a group of things, doesn’t mean that the label is useful or even helpful.

For example, looking out of the window, I can see several groupings. One is a group of entities in a thing I’ll call a field. I’ll call the entities “fieldists”. Now I can make up all sots of stories about fieldists. Until some of them unexpectedly fly away to a different field, and some of them are herded to a second field and some swim up and down river. The label wasn’t useful. It was an artifact of my perceptions.

Theists *need* evil, so that their god can be defined as being as being in opposition. However, there is no reason for there to be something evil - it’s just a convenient fiction. Non-theists don’t need a label called evil. They may need to identify morally reprehensible activities that they can legislate against, or recognise as being wrong - but that doesn’t need an appeal to “evil”.

Arguing anything beyond point 1 becomes fatuous.

Cheers, JezC.

]]> By: dave walker http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-413 dave walker Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:16:52 +0000 http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-413 Oops! I submitted the first bit of the above post accidentally before I'd finished. Oops! I submitted the first bit of the above post accidentally before I’d
finished.

]]> By: dave walker http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-411 dave walker Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:06:58 +0000 http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-411 favourite species developed the relevant technology. It only remains for us to ponder whether the almighty chooses to view our broadcasts on cable or via satellite, or does he employ some other kind of method, possibly taking advantage of his famed omnipotent, omnipresent nature and in this way avoiding paying a subscription charge. favourite species developed the relevant technology. It only remains for us
to ponder whether the almighty chooses to view our broadcasts on cable or
via satellite, or does he employ some other kind of method, possibly taking
advantage of his famed omnipotent, omnipresent nature and in this way
avoiding paying a subscription charge.

]]> By: dave walker http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-410 dave walker Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:44 +0000 http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-410 If god did not allow evil in the world, this would have an effect in the realm of TV drama even more devastating than the current Hollywood writers strike. How many unmemorable reality based made for TV movies, usually starring Lindsay Wagner portraying one woman's harrowing struggle to cope with a less than ideal domestic situation could never have been made if god had placed a ban on evil? The relevant source material would simply be unavailable. Take for instance the 1996 TV movie, "A Mother's Instinct" in which Lindsay plays a woman who marries a man who is the father of two small boys. When she begins to ask questions about his past, he disappears with the boys. She then discovers that the boys' mother is still alive and the two "wives", join forces and set out to track down him and the boys. Now under the almighty's draconian, "No Evil" rule, the father's bigamous and decietful behavoir would never have been allowed to take place, resulting in the denial to millions of mainly female afternoon viewers of a fairly mediocre example of TV film drama to have on in the background while they do the ironing. Where would that leave movies such as "The Godfather and"Goodfella's with their graphic depictions of evil behaviour? Clearly, Ford Coppola and Scorcese would be reduced to directing dramatic productions of the same sanitised quality as shows like "The Waltons". So in conclusion, maybe this is why god allows evil in the world. Like us he enjoys a good film and decided in his wisdom that a mixture of good and evil would make for far more interesting TV and movie drama when his favourite developed the relevant technology. If god did not allow evil in the world, this would have an effect in the realm of
TV drama even more devastating than the current Hollywood writers strike.
How many unmemorable reality based made for TV movies, usually
starring Lindsay Wagner portraying one woman’s harrowing struggle to cope
with a less than ideal domestic situation could never have been made if god
had placed a ban on evil? The relevant source material would simply be
unavailable. Take for instance the 1996 TV movie, “A Mother’s Instinct” in
which Lindsay plays a woman who marries a man who is the father of two
small boys. When she begins to ask questions about his past, he disappears
with the boys. She then discovers that the boys’ mother is still alive and the
two “wives”, join forces and set out to track down him and the boys.
Now under the almighty’s draconian, “No Evil” rule, the father’s bigamous
and decietful behavoir would never have been allowed to take place, resulting
in the denial to millions of mainly female afternoon viewers of a fairly
mediocre example of TV film drama to have on in the background while
they do the ironing.
Where would that leave movies such as “The Godfather and”Goodfella’s
with their graphic depictions of evil behaviour? Clearly, Ford Coppola and
Scorcese would be reduced to directing dramatic productions of the same
sanitised quality as shows like “The Waltons”.
So in conclusion, maybe this is why god allows evil in the world. Like us
he enjoys a good film and decided in his wisdom that a mixture of good and
evil would make for far more interesting TV and movie drama when his
favourite
developed the relevant technology.

]]> By: jdspc http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-409 jdspc Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:19:52 +0000 http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-409 'A benevolent creator would never allow this situation to arise' by dave God is not a bouncer....but yeah, jaco is right seat of God! ‘A benevolent creator would never allow
this situation to arise’ by dave

God is not a bouncer….but yeah, jaco is right seat of God!

]]> By: kerrin http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-407 kerrin Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:52:30 +0000 http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2008/01/11/the-problem-of-evil/#comment-407 But he's got a point with Steely Dan... fabulous guitar sound! Benevolence would be consistent.... Joni Mitchell = not so consistent. But he’s got a point with Steely Dan… fabulous guitar sound!

Benevolence would be consistent…. Joni Mitchell = not so consistent.

]]>