The Problem of Evil

Science > Philosophy > The Problem of Evil

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Philosophy
User:	"Gary Childress"
Date:	24 Jun 2004 06:38:30 PM
Object:	The Problem of Evil

1. God created everything that exists.
2. God does not create evil.
3. Evil exists.
All three of the above statements cannot seemingly be correct simultaneously.
So if God created everything that exists and does not create evil, how can evil
exist? Or did God not create everything? Or does God also create evil?
I've not yet seen an adequate solution to this problem. Does anyone know of
any?
Gary the Philologizer
Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in the state of Florida USA.
.

User: "Tron Furu"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	24 Jun 2004 06:57:44 PM

"Gary Childress" <philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM> skrev i melding
news:20040624193830.19398.00000510@mb-m17.aol.com...

1. God created everything that exists.
2. God does not create evil.
3. Evil exists.

All three of the above statements cannot seemingly be correct

simultaneously.

So if God created everything that exists and does not create evil, how can

evil

exist? Or did God not create everything? Or does God also create evil?

I've not yet seen an adequate solution to this problem. Does anyone know

any?

Which solutions have you seen?
Leibniz adresses this in his Theodicee, where he, IIRC, concludes that
creating a less than optimal world does not detract from God's benevolence,
since this gives Humanity a chance to prove its faith etc. This is "the best
of all possible worlds", i.e., had God made it better, it would not have
been as good.
I don't know how much sense such a summary gives - Leibniz spends a few more
lines on it - but the effort to solve tha problem has been made.
Another angle is from Patristics (or was it Neo-Platonists?) in the teaching
of Emanation, where evil is just "absence-of-Good" in descending levels from
God, via Arch- and sundry other angels to men, demons, devils and S.
himself. Plotin? Proklos? Irenaeus? Can't remember the name.
T
.

User: "Gary Childress"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	24 Jun 2004 08:19:18 PM

"Tron Furu"

wrote:

Which solutions have you seen?
Leibniz adresses this in his Theodicee, where he, IIRC, concludes that
creating a less than optimal world does not detract from God's benevolence,
since this gives Humanity a chance to prove its faith etc. This is "the best
of all possible worlds", i.e., had God made it better, it would not have
been as good.
I don't know how much sense such a summary gives - Leibniz spends a few more
lines on it - but the effort to solve tha problem has been made.

Another angle is from Patristics (or was it Neo-Platonists?) in the teaching
of Emanation, where evil is just "absence-of-Good" in descending levels from
God, via Arch- and sundry other angels to men, demons, devils and S.
himself. Plotin? Proklos? Irenaeus? Can't remember the name.

T

I'm vaguely familiar with Leibniz's "best of all possible" worlds (Voltaire's
_Candide_ is a farce on it) and of the notion of "evil" being a "lack" of good
and therefore not being something that is "created."
So according to Leibniz evil does exist and God created it.
According to the second approach evil does not exist. So things like
Earthquakes, wars and serial killers don't really "exist," nor perhaps
heartaches nor playground bullys or things of that sort.
So I suppose those would be solutions to the problem of evil. Evil does exist
and God created it. Or perhaps evil doesn't exist. They seem like difficult
things to believe but perhaps they are correct. I take it you are not entirely
sure either. On the other hand how can we humans pretend to judge God and his
or her or whatever's creation?
Or is it perhaps a crack in the armor of faith, that perhaps there really is no
God at all?
I would say I am slightly more convinced by Leibniz at this point, that "evil"
gives us a chance to proove our faith and goodness, otherwise how could there
be faith and goodness without their opposites? So the conclusion to the
problem would then be:
1. God created everything that exists
2. God creates evil
AND
3. Evil exists
Anyone disagree?
Gary the Philologizer
Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in the state of Florida USA.
.

User: "Tron Furu"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	25 Jun 2004 06:04:16 AM

Hi,
"Gary Childress" <philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM> skrev i melding
news:20040624211918.29660.00000478@mb-m16.aol.com...
....

I'm vaguely familiar with Leibniz's "best of all possible" worlds

(Voltaire's

_Candide_ is a farce on it)

That last factoid seems to be the only thing people know about it. To be
honest, I suspect that "Candide" satirizes Leibniz's words more than his
thoughts.
A related factoid is that Schopenhauers philosophy was dubbed "Pessimism" in
contrast with Leibniz's, dubbed "Optimism".
and of the notion of "evil" being a "lack" of good

and therefore not being something that is "created."

So according to Leibniz evil does exist and God created it.

Seemingly. If I get this right, Leibniz thought that God created the World
as it is, including its faults, and that this world is better than a world
without evils. Hence, creating evil is not evil ....
But there is more here:
http://www.msu.edu/~prenti12/web%20papers/The%20Best%20of%20All%20Possible%20Worlds.htm
and/or here
http://www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-24/chapter_vi.htm
Search words are e.g. Leibniz, "Must God Create the Best?" (Adams),
theodicee, optimism, best of all worlds, best of all possible worlds.

According to the second approach evil does not exist. So things like
Earthquakes, wars and serial killers don't really "exist," nor perhaps
heartaches nor playground bullys or things of that sort.

Both approaches centre around your sentence 2, either, with Leibniz, in
saying that God does create evil (but that this is a good thing) or that God
created a world including earthquakes, famines, mosquitoes and taxes, but
that neither of these are evil; or, with the Emanatists, to say that God
creates only good things, but hasn't "filled all disposable creation space"
with good things, such that certain areas of disposable creation space lack
goodness. But this kind of evil is a lack, a deficiency, a privative, a
negative, hence, as you say, it does not itself exist, it is a "lack of
existence", a shortcoming on the part of some phenomena. So God did not
create it.
I don't know where this would lead; it sounds a bit like lawyer speak, too.

So I suppose those would be solutions to the problem of evil. Evil does

exist

and God created it. Or perhaps evil doesn't exist. They seem like

difficult

things to believe but perhaps they are correct. I take it you are not

entirely

sure either.

I'm not; neither do I really feel that concerned by this problem.
Also, I wouldn't expect you to consider the problem solved on the basis of
e.g. my personal conviction, no mater how firm .... I just wanted to
contribute to possible areas of investigation for you, that is, I'd
reccommend reading e.g. Leibniz before listening to my opinions.
On the other hand how can we humans pretend to judge God and his

or her or whatever's creation?

Theoretically, on the tenet of Revelation, which implies that matters
concerning God etc. have been revealed to humans, and so that they are
within the grasp of our powers, such as they be. This was, IIRC, the basis
of Hegel's position.

Or is it perhaps a crack in the armor of faith, that perhaps there really

is no

God at all?

Purely as an intellectual problem, I'd have to hand that one to the
Ineffability guys. Such a puny logical problem doesn't seem like a
plausible reason for denying the existence of a god, awesome creatures if
their followers are to be believed.
With Quine, one can review any part of theory in the case of anomalies,
right? I guess His fans would like to keep the concept of Him, and shuffle
around the other bits. AFAICS, both the Leibniz and the Emanatist
propositions are more in this category ("maximum plausibility version")
rather than true solutions.

I would say I am slightly more convinced by Leibniz at this point, that

"evil"

gives us a chance to proove our faith and goodness, otherwise how could

there

be faith and goodness without their opposites? So the conclusion to the
problem would then be:

1. God created everything that exists
2. God creates evil
AND
3. Evil exists

Anyone disagree?

Yeaahhnnno ... well .... "God creates evil" is such a poor marketing slogan
...... Another case for the Ineff's .... "God allows things that we, in our
limited understanding, often have no choice but to deem evil, but which
serve a mysterious purpose ....." . I should probably work in the Vatican,
if I could muster enough cynicism to keep this up.
.

User: "aka Saturday night in the Sahara desert"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	24 Jun 2004 06:50:37 PM

"Gary Childress" <philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20040624193830.19398.00000510@mb-m17.aol.com...
: 1. God created everything that exists.
: 2. God does not create evil.
: 3. Evil exists.
:
: All three of the above statements cannot seemingly be correct
simultaneously.
: So if God created everything that exists and does not create evil, how can
evil
: exist? Or did God not create everything? Or does God also create evil?
:
: I've not yet seen an adequate solution to this problem. Does anyone know
of
: any?
:
:
: Gary the Philologizer
:
: Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university
philosophy
: major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but
stable
: on meds, living with parents in the state of Florida USA.
Do you define evil in terms of hardship like disease and death
or in terms of Satanic, devilish, devious, inhuman behavior?
.

User: "Gary Childress"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	24 Jun 2004 07:43:54 PM

aka Saturday night in the Sahara desert"

wrote:

Do you define evil in terms of hardship like disease and death
or in terms of Satanic, devilish, devious, inhuman behavior?

I would say both are "evils" and both present problems of the same sort. You
could state the positions similarly.
1. God created everything that exists
2. God does not create "devilish behavior" nor "hardships"
3. "Devilish behavior' and "hardships" exist.
I use the term "evil" to denote both. Perhaps I should be more specific and
denote them separately as is done above.
Gary the Philologizer
Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in the state of Florida USA.
.

User: "Abakus"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	24 Jun 2004 06:54:48 PM

"Gary Childress" <philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20040624193830.19398.00000510@mb-m17.aol.com...

1. God created everything that exists.
2. God does not create evil.
3. Evil exists.

All three of the above statements cannot seemingly be correct

simultaneously.

So if God created everything that exists and does not create evil, how can

evil

exist? Or did God not create everything? Or does God also create evil?

I've not yet seen an adequate solution to this problem. Does anyone know

any?

Gary the Philologizer

It is fatal that if you write a number of statements some of which are
contradictory with each other you will end up with an insoluble problem.
For example:
I painted all my house blue
I didnt paint any room red
My kitchen is red
or
I vacuum-cleaned my carpet perfectly
I didnt skip any bits of my carpet, really.
One corner of my carpet is covered in dust!
These are all problems without a solution. And I dont expect that any
philosopher (or any architect, economist or plumber for that matter) will
come up with a solution any time soon.
regards
abakus
.

User: "Gary Childress"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	24 Jun 2004 07:37:32 PM

It is fatal that if you write a number of statements some of which are
contradictory with each other you will end up with an insoluble problem.
For example:

I painted all my house blue
I didnt paint any room red
My kitchen is red

or

I vacuum-cleaned my carpet perfectly
I didnt skip any bits of my carpet, really.
One corner of my carpet is covered in dust!

These are all problems without a solution. And I dont expect that any
philosopher (or any architect, economist or plumber for that matter) will
come up with a solution any time soon.

regards
abakus

You have me at a loss with your answer and how it pertains to God and the
problem of evil. Are you saying one should simply ignore such statements and
go on one's merry way? Are you therefore disagreeing with the truth value of
some or all of the statements? If so, which statements are you in disagreement
with? Did God not create everything that exists, perhaps only creating some
things and not others? Does God create some evil along with all the good?
Does evil not really exist? Or are you saying God does not exist anyway to
even worry about such problems? Am I just not thinking "outside the box" on
this?
Gary the Philologizer
Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in the state of Florida USA.
.

User: "Abakus"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	24 Jun 2004 09:04:04 PM

"Gary Childress" <philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20040624203732.29660.00000474@mb-m16.aol.com...

It is fatal that if you write a number of statements some of which are
contradictory with each other you will end up with an insoluble problem.
For example:

I painted all my house blue
I didnt paint any room red
My kitchen is red

or

I vacuum-cleaned my carpet perfectly
I didnt skip any bits of my carpet, really.
One corner of my carpet is covered in dust!

These are all problems without a solution. And I dont expect that any
philosopher (or any architect, economist or plumber for that matter) will
come up with a solution any time soon.

regards
abakus

You have me at a loss with your answer and how it pertains to God and the
problem of evil. Are you saying one should simply ignore such statements

and

go on one's merry way? Are you therefore disagreeing with the truth value

some or all of the statements? If so, which statements are you in

disagreement

with? Did God not create everything that exists, perhaps only creating

some

things and not others? Does God create some evil along with all the good?
Does evil not really exist? Or are you saying God does not exist anyway

even worry about such problems? Am I just not thinking "outside the box"

this?

What I'm saying is that if you write 3 statements which are mutually
exclusive (and that you claim that the 3 are true) it is not surprising that
you end up with an insoluble problem. And I pointed out that your particular
set of 3 statements is just one example of many possible sets of 3
statements which are mutually exclusive. Each set of 3 statements is a
problem only for people who hold the view that the 3 statements are true.
Your particular set of 3 statements is a problem only for people who believe
those 3 statements to be true. It seems reasonable to infer that one or more
of the 3 statements must not be true. As I dont believe in gods your trio of
statements is not a problem for me. And, honestly, if you replaced "God" by
"Zorg" or by "Elvis", it would have no effect whatsoever in the way I
perceive your trio of statements. The "problem of evil" has been a problem
only for people who believe that there is some god which created everything
but that for some reason could not have created "evil" (whatever "evil" may
be). Too many beliefs, zero evidence. Not too far removed from the question
of how many angels can dance on a pin head. At least we have seen pins.
regards
abakus
.

User: "Li Han"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	24 Jun 2004 11:55:54 PM

"Gary Childress" <philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20040624193830.19398.00000510@mb-m17.aol.com...

1. God created everything that exists.
2. God does not create evil.
3. Evil exists.

All three of the above statements cannot seemingly be correct

simultaneously.

So if God created everything that exists and does not create evil, how can

evil

exist? Or did God not create everything? Or does God also create evil?

I've not yet seen an adequate solution to this problem. Does anyone know

any?

God didn't create anything, God is creation.
God is evil God is good,
God is widely misunderstood.
.

User: "not a philosopher"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	25 Jun 2004 02:57:04 AM

"Li Han" <raymond@CHRISTPUNCHalike.com> wrote in message
news:40dbb042@news.alphalink.com.au...
:
: "Gary Childress" <philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
: news:20040624193830.19398.00000510@mb-m17.aol.com...
: > 1. God created everything that exists.
: > 2. God does not create evil.
: > 3. Evil exists.
: >
: > All three of the above statements cannot seemingly be correct
: simultaneously.
: > So if God created everything that exists and does not create evil, how
can
: evil
: > exist? Or did God not create everything? Or does God also create evil?
: >
: > I've not yet seen an adequate solution to this problem. Does anyone
know
: of
: > any?
: >
:
: God didn't create anything, God is creation.
:
: God is evil God is good,
: God is widely misunderstood.
The rhyme would go better with
a one syllable word to replace
"widely", no?
like "oft" or "God is rarely understood."
God is great and God is small
God without and in us all.
God is right and God is wrong
An explanation takes too long.
God is now and God was then
God knows why and God knows when
God is funny. God is cruel.
God could kill you in a duel.
God is tall. God is short.
God could light you like a torch.
God is smart and God is dumb
God could squash you with his bum.
God is holy and profane.
God could make you room with Cain.
.

User: "Immortalist"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	25 Jun 2004 10:26:12 AM

"Gary Childress" <philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20040624193830.19398.00000510@mb-m17.aol.com...

The alert theological apologist would say that you can't get God on a "logical
impossibility" since it would be like sayin "Could God create a rock heavier than
he could lift?"
God creates all and God doesn't create all = a violation of the law of
contradiction also
A = not A

Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in the state of Florida USA.

User: "Mark Earnest"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	24 Jun 2004 07:26:06 PM

"Gary Childress" <philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20040624193830.19398.00000510@mb-m17.aol.com...

1. God created everything that exists.
2. God does not create evil.
3. Evil exists.

God only allows evil, and that for only a little while, which is a type of
creating it. But, since ultimately evil will not exist, when he finally
vanquishes it--in this sense, the permanent one--God does not create evil.
.

User: "aka Saturday night in the Sahara desert"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	25 Jun 2004 04:11:13 PM

"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cbfr9o$rlp@library1.airnews.net...
:
: "Gary Childress" <philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
: news:20040624193830.19398.00000510@mb-m17.aol.com...
: > 1. God created everything that exists.
: > 2. God does not create evil.
: > 3. Evil exists.
:
: God only allows evil, and that for only a little while, which is a type of
: creating it. But, since ultimately evil will not exist, when he finally
: vanquishes it--in this sense, the permanent one--God does not create evil.
Mark, doesn't God create hell for all time?
It seems quite a problem for God to have
allowed the suffering and death for 1000s
of years among humans and animals because
two people ate an apple they shouldn't have.
Maybe I believe in God but not the Bible.
.

User: "Mark Earnest"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	25 Jun 2004 05:47:29 PM

"aka Saturday night in the Sahara desert" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:1y0Dc.24231$cj3.15052@lakeread01...

: creating it. But, since ultimately evil will not exist, when he finally
: vanquishes it--in this sense, the permanent one--God does not create

evil.

Mark, doesn't God create hell for all time?

It is my belief that God will save the world.
All of the scriptures would seem to indicate this, if they are read
correctly. That is, with full realization that some scriptures, like the
beast with seven heads of Revelation, is purely a symboled representation of
something else

It seems quite a problem for God to have
allowed the suffering and death for 1000s
of years among humans and animals because
two people ate an apple they shouldn't have.
Maybe I believe in God but not the Bible.

Remember the Bible is also a codebook, and many codes have yet
to be deciphered.
.

User: "aka Saturday night in the Sahara desert"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	25 Jun 2004 07:51:14 PM

"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cbi9sq$gd1@library1.airnews.net...
:
: "aka Saturday night in the Sahara desert" <no@email.com> wrote in message
: news:1y0Dc.24231$cj3.15052@lakeread01...
: >
: > "Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
: > news:cbfr9o$rlp@library1.airnews.net...
: > :
: > : "Gary Childress" <philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
: > : news:20040624193830.19398.00000510@mb-m17.aol.com...
: > : > 1. God created everything that exists.
: > : > 2. God does not create evil.
: > : > 3. Evil exists.
: > :
: > : God only allows evil, and that for only a little while, which is a
type
: of
: > : creating it. But, since ultimately evil will not exist, when he
finally
: > : vanquishes it--in this sense, the permanent one--God does not create
: evil.
: >
: > Mark, doesn't God create hell for all time?
:
: It is my belief that God will save the world.
: All of the scriptures would seem to indicate this, if they are read
: correctly. That is, with full realization that some scriptures, like the
: beast with seven heads of Revelation, is purely a symboled representation
of
: something else
:
: > It seems quite a problem for God to have
: > allowed the suffering and death for 1000s
: > of years among humans and animals because
: > two people ate an apple they shouldn't have.
: > Maybe I believe in God but not the Bible.
:
: Remember the Bible is also a codebook, and many codes have yet
: to be deciphered.
Doesn't it seem possible that the idea that all of the
misery on earth was caused by Adam and Eve's
mistake... doesn't it seem possible that that belief, if
held literally into adulthood, could cause serious
mental problems?
.

User: "Mark Earnest"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	25 Jun 2004 08:23:38 PM

"aka Saturday night in the Sahara desert" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:8M3Dc.25072$cj3.12590@lakeread01...

"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cbi9sq$gd1@library1.airnews.net...
:
: "aka Saturday night in the Sahara desert" <no@email.com> wrote in

message

: news:1y0Dc.24231$cj3.15052@lakeread01...
: >
: > "Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
: > news:cbfr9o$rlp@library1.airnews.net...
: > :
: > : "Gary Childress" <philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
: > : news:20040624193830.19398.00000510@mb-m17.aol.com...
: > : > 1. God created everything that exists.
: > : > 2. God does not create evil.
: > : > 3. Evil exists.
: > :
: > : God only allows evil, and that for only a little while, which is a
type
: of
: > : creating it. But, since ultimately evil will not exist, when he
finally
: > : vanquishes it--in this sense, the permanent one--God does not create
: evil.
: >
: > Mark, doesn't God create hell for all time?
:
: It is my belief that God will save the world.
: All of the scriptures would seem to indicate this, if they are read
: correctly. That is, with full realization that some scriptures, like

the

: beast with seven heads of Revelation, is purely a symboled

representation

of
: something else
:
: > It seems quite a problem for God to have
: > allowed the suffering and death for 1000s
: > of years among humans and animals because
: > two people ate an apple they shouldn't have.
: > Maybe I believe in God but not the Bible.
:
: Remember the Bible is also a codebook, and many codes have yet
: to be deciphered.

Doesn't it seem possible that the idea that all of the
misery on earth was caused by Adam and Eve's
mistake.

The misery was not caused by Adam and Eve, but started by them, like a
raging fire. Parents always did have some control over how their offspring
turned out.
... doesn't it seem possible that that belief, if

held literally into adulthood, could cause serious
mental problems?

Very possible. The Bible is not for the weak.
.

User: "Saturday night in the desert"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	29 Jun 2004 02:42:47 AM

"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cbij1i$dgm@library1.airnews.net...

"aka Saturday night in the Sahara desert" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:8M3Dc.25072$cj3.12590@lakeread01...

"Mark Earnest" <mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:cbi9sq$gd1@library1.airnews.net...
:
: "aka Saturday night in the Sahara desert" <no@email.com> wrote in

message

create

: evil.
: >
: > Mark, doesn't God create hell for all time?
:
: It is my belief that God will save the world.
: All of the scriptures would seem to indicate this, if they are read
: correctly. That is, with full realization that some scriptures, like

the

: beast with seven heads of Revelation, is purely a symboled

representation

The misery was not caused by Adam and Eve, but started by them, like a
raging fire. Parents always did have some control over how their

offspring

turned out.

.. doesn't it seem possible that that belief, if

held literally into adulthood, could cause serious
mental problems?

Very possible. The Bible is not for the weak.

The kingdom of heaven is for the children,
blessed are the meek, but the Bible is a
curse upon those of gentle nature, especially
those who are prone to take it literally.
I guess I'm not a fundamentalist.
.

User: "ta"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	24 Jun 2004 10:52:08 PM

Gary Childress wrote:

I think the story goes that God created free will, from which evil sprung.
So God created man, and man created evil.
It's all Adam and Eve's fault . . . and Judas Priest's.
"Judas Priest - Evil Fantasies Lyrics
We turn and face each other / my fingers pull your hair
You wince and jerk my wrist off / I bite my lip and stare
Your stance at once defiant / I'm rigid to your pose
You clench your teeth in anger / my loving swells and grows
You give me evil fantasies
I wanna get inside your mind
Come on and live my fantasies
I'll show you evil you can't hide
You're dragged into my vision / trapped, serving to my need
Maybe imagination / is where my dark side feeds
You slide your nails down in me / I raise my structure high
You pout, I snarl, you whimper / and wave compassion by
You give me evil fantasies
I wanna get inside your mind
Come on and live my fantasies
I'll show you evil you can't hide
Gonna take you, gotta get through
Gonna make you, do what I want
You're dragged into my vision / trapped, serving to my need
Maybe imagination / is where my dark side feeds"
http://tinyurl.com/yt34z
.

User: "Gary Childress"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	25 Jun 2004 07:02:46 PM

ta"

wrote:

I think the story goes that God created free will, from which evil sprung.
So God created man, and man created evil.

So in other words you are saying God did not create everything that exists.
Some things were created by us, including evil. That would also certainly seem
the case with things like chairs and triangles drawn on a chalk board, made by
us. That would explain "devious behavior" but how would that explain things
like earthquakes? Isn't it accurate to say that God created natural disasters
or the conditions for their possibility? And as "evils" these natural
disasters do exist?
On the other hand maybe earthquakes only truely harm those who deserve to be
harmed, those who have earned God's wrath. Therefore earthquakes are not
"evil" since they serve God's purposes. Earthquakes are only "evil" to us but
who says our view counts in the final analysis? Who says the world revolves
around our interpretations of it. God might well decide to replace his current
favorite species with some other species. Maybe the dinosaurs were God's
favorites for awhile until they screwed up.
So perhaps it would be accurate to say:
1. God does not create everything that exists (because some things are created
by us)
2. God does not create evil (since earthquakes are not really "evils")
3. Evil exists (because it is created by man's free will)
So the one change which would solve the problem of evil would be to deny the
axiom that God created everything that exists. Some things, like chairs,
computers, and wicked acts are created by humans. And things like earthquakes
are not really evil because what is "evil" to us may not be evil in an
objective sense.
Gary the Philologizer
Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in the state of Florida USA.
.

User: "Tron Furu"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	26 Jun 2004 07:59:08 AM

"Gary Childress" <philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM> skrev i melding
news:20040625200246.05881.00000703@mb-m05.aol.com...

ta"

wrote:

On the other hand maybe earthquakes only truely harm those who deserve to

harmed, those who have earned God's wrath. Therefore earthquakes are not
"evil" since they serve God's purposes.

Speaking of "Candide", IIRC Voltaire ends the book by letting his
protagonists witness the great earthquake in Lissabon, to evaluate the above
thesis. IIRC, God doesn't score very favourably.
T
.

User: "ta"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	26 Jun 2004 12:53:58 PM

Gary Childress wrote:

ta"

wrote:

I think the story goes that God created free will, from which evil
sprung. So God created man, and man created evil.

So in other words you are saying God did not create everything that
exists. Some things were created by us, including evil. That would
also certainly seem the case with things like chairs and triangles
drawn on a chalk board, made by us. That would explain "devious
behavior" but how would that explain things like earthquakes? Isn't
it accurate to say that God created natural disasters or the
conditions for their possibility? And as "evils" these natural
disasters do exist?

On the other hand maybe earthquakes only truely harm those who
deserve to be harmed, those who have earned God's wrath. Therefore
earthquakes are not "evil" since they serve God's purposes.
Earthquakes are only "evil" to us but who says our view counts in the
final analysis? Who says the world revolves around our
interpretations of it. God might well decide to replace his current
favorite species with some other species. Maybe the dinosaurs were
God's favorites for awhile until they screwed up.

So perhaps it would be accurate to say:

1. God does not create everything that exists (because some things
are created by us)
2. God does not create evil (since earthquakes are not really "evils")
3. Evil exists (because it is created by man's free will)

So the one change which would solve the problem of evil would be to
deny the axiom that God created everything that exists. Some things,
like chairs, computers, and wicked acts are created by humans. And
things like earthquakes are not really evil because what is "evil" to
us may not be evil in an objective sense.

To be honest, I don't believe in "evil", nor do I believe the notion of
"God" set forth in this thread. You're probably better off getting answers
to the above questions from someone who believes in these concepts
(Christians for example).
.

User: "Paul Bramscher"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	29 Jun 2004 09:17:16 AM

I grappled with this awhile
(http://www.tc.umn.edu/~brams007/thoughts.html#pos) and immediately
concluded that "evil" is too nebulous a term, and should be expanded to
include suffering in general.
The solution, I believe, is that one, more (or all) of the statements is
false. How do we know that God created everything? Many cultures have
multiple creator deities, some suggest or require none at all.
How do we know that God (in the Christian sense) does not create evil?
"He" created Satan, knew full well the outcome of the future (by virtue
of omnipotence). Hence, God creates evil. Also, recall Isaiah 45:7: "I
form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the
LORD, who do all these things."
Last, how do we know that evil exists? We know, certainly, that
suffering exists. But how do we separate "evil" from the general class
of suffering? Is there any absolute yardstick? In America today, for
example, what passes for good is sometimes evil, and vice-versa. The
Moral Majority likes Republicans. Bush is a Republican. Bush likes
Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld authorized operation Copper Green, which encouraged
torture such as that at Abu Ghraib. What's good today? What's evil?
So I conclude that all three of the statements you give are wrong, or
need to be qualified. Here's a better summation, which allows for a
non-contradictory and non-paradoxical set of statements.
1. The universe seems to exist. The Big Bang theory is one of many, and
requires a nonsensical singularity. So perhaps the universe has always
existed, and is creator-less, and has neither beginning nor end.
2. There is no God or gods. Evil is not satisfactorily defineable and
cannot be demonstrated to exist in a physical sense. And, hence, we
cannot speak of it being created or non-created.
3. We postulate that "evil" is an abstract moral label applied to a
certain class of suffering, specifically the human subset dealing with
greed, violence, and the like. Essentially it's about advancing your
wellbeing at the expense, like a carnivore taking meat, from unwilling
others. This is a special case of suffering. So we might examine the
so-called problem of evil in light of the problem of suffering in general.
The result: there is no problem of evil, or suffering, or an ultimate
cause of either other than simply being alive. The only answer is how
to respond to it, without adding to it. In other words, don't wage wars
to stop wars -- either on national, personal or abstract levels.
Gary Childress wrote:

1. God created everything that exists.
2. God does not create evil.
3. Evil exists.

All three of the above statements cannot seemingly be correct simultaneously.
So if God created everything that exists and does not create evil, how can evil
exist? Or did God not create everything? Or does God also create evil?

I've not yet seen an adequate solution to this problem. Does anyone know of
any?

Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in the state of Florida USA.

User: "aka"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	29 Jun 2004 11:59:05 PM

"Paul Bramscher" <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:cbrtli$2u6$1@lenny.tc.umn.edu...

I grappled with this awhile
(http://www.tc.umn.edu/~brams007/thoughts.html#pos) and immediately
concluded that "evil" is too nebulous a term, and should be expanded to
include suffering in general.

The solution, I believe, is that one, more (or all) of the statements is
false. How do we know that God created everything? Many cultures have
multiple creator deities, some suggest or require none at all.

How do we know that God (in the Christian sense) does not create evil?
"He" created Satan, knew full well the outcome of the future (by virtue
of omnipotence). Hence, God creates evil. Also, recall Isaiah 45:7: "I
form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the
LORD, who do all these things."

Last, how do we know that evil exists? We know, certainly, that
suffering exists. But how do we separate "evil" from the general class
of suffering? Is there any absolute yardstick? In America today, for
example, what passes for good is sometimes evil, and vice-versa. The
Moral Majority likes Republicans. Bush is a Republican. Bush likes
Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld authorized operation Copper Green, which encouraged
torture such as that at Abu Ghraib. What's good today? What's evil?

So I conclude that all three of the statements you give are wrong, or
need to be qualified. Here's a better summation, which allows for a
non-contradictory and non-paradoxical set of statements.

1. The universe seems to exist. The Big Bang theory is one of many, and
requires a nonsensical singularity. So perhaps the universe has always
existed, and is creator-less, and has neither beginning nor end.

2. There is no God or gods. Evil is not satisfactorily defineable and
cannot be demonstrated to exist in a physical sense. And, hence, we
cannot speak of it being created or non-created.

3. We postulate that "evil" is an abstract moral label applied to a
certain class of suffering, specifically the human subset dealing with
greed, violence, and the like. Essentially it's about advancing your
wellbeing at the expense, like a carnivore taking meat, from unwilling
others. This is a special case of suffering. So we might examine the
so-called problem of evil in light of the problem of suffering in general.

The result: there is no problem of evil, or suffering, or an ultimate
cause of either other than simply being alive. The only answer is how
to respond to it, without adding to it. In other words, don't wage wars
to stop wars -- either on national, personal or abstract levels.

Gary Childress wrote:

1. God created everything that exists.
2. God does not create evil.
3. Evil exists.

All three of the above statements cannot seemingly be correct

simultaneously.

So if God created everything that exists and does not create evil, how

can evil

exist? Or did God not create everything? Or does God also create evil?

I've not yet seen an adequate solution to this problem. Does anyone

know of

any?

Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university

philosophy

major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but

stable

on meds, living with parents in the state of Florida USA.

I've said the same things, quite a few times.
It's the realization that is an interesting trip.
.

User: "humanist"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	24 Jun 2004 11:05:13 PM

In article <20040624193830.19398.00000510@mb-m17.aol.com>,
philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM says...

IMHO, God aside, a "solution" to the problem of evil is to question its
existence. Evil is a human interpretation of actions that are merely sequences
of events. And this interpretation is relative (local) to the context (meaning)
produced by the observer (judge).
In other words, "virtual evil" exists.
But there may be "real" analog to this
It wouldn't be a case of God operating in mysterious ways,
it's a case of qualia fooling us for our overall benefit (but not for the
benefit of our intellect)

evil

exist? Or did God not create everything? Or does God also create evil?

I've not yet seen an adequate solution to this problem. Does anyone know of
any?

Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but

stable

on meds, living with parents in the state of Florida USA.

User: "Keynes"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	14 Jul 2004 08:54:30 PM

On 24 Jun 2004 23:38:30 GMT, philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM (Gary Childress) wrote:

1. God created everything that exists.
2. God does not create evil.
3. Evil exists.

All three of the above statements cannot seemingly be correct simultaneously.
So if God created everything that exists and does not create evil, how can evil
exist? Or did God not create everything? Or does God also create evil?

I've not yet seen an adequate solution to this problem. Does anyone know of
any?

Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in the state of Florida USA.

The problem is the defiition of evil. Evil is a relative term that has never
found a consensus of meaning among humankind. What one considers
good, others consider evil, so we have constant life and death conflicts
large and small. Can there be any ultimate thing called evil that all can
agree on? Everyone has firm opinions on what is good and what is
evil, but there is never agreement on which is which. Generally we all
base our values on our own personal interests. Is it any wonder that
there is no universal consensus?
.

User: "Immortalist"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	14 Jul 2004 09:56:12 PM

"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:3hobf0ldveisa4h06dhtmtn9oalcpk381k@4ax.com...

On 24 Jun 2004 23:38:30 GMT, philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM (Gary Childress) wrote:

evil

exist? Or did God not create everything? Or does God also create evil?

I've not yet seen an adequate solution to this problem. Does anyone know of
any?

(1) If the definitions of evil which people believe to be correct often differ,
then the definition of evil which is correct often differs for these different
people.
The above sentence is of the form;
(1a) If the x's which people believe to be correct often differ, then the x which
is correct often differs for these different people.
Many sentences of that form are plainly false. For example, many people differ in
their beliefs about the world around us, but this does not imply that in each
case a different belief is correct. If I believe that the correct number of
planets is eight and you believe that the correct number is ten, it is not that
one number is correct for me and another correct for you. Both you and I are
wrong, both of our beliefs are incorrect, because there is one and only one
correct number of planets, and that number is nine. In general, sentences of the
form of (1a) are false. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that beliefs
about definitions of evil are relevantly different from those beliefs for which
(1a) is false. We have, therefore, reason to conclude that (1) is false.

User: "Keynes"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	15 Jul 2004 10:36:55 AM

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:56:12 -0700, "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com>
wrote:

"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:3hobf0ldveisa4h06dhtmtn9oalcpk381k@4ax.com...

On 24 Jun 2004 23:38:30 GMT, philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM (Gary Childress) wrote:

evil

exist? Or did God not create everything? Or does God also create evil?

I've not yet seen an adequate solution to this problem. Does anyone know of
any?

(1) If the definitions of evil which people believe to be correct often differ,
then the definition of evil which is correct often differs for these different
people.

Meaning the term has no absolute definition.
It is a relative term, and to argue for it's absolute quality is a mistake.

The above sentence is of the form;

(1a) If the x's which people believe to be correct often differ, then the x which
is correct often differs for these different people.

If there is no consensus on the object in question, and in fact
disagreement to the point of torture and murder, it is not an absolute.
(It appears most of the egregious evil we see has always been done in
pursuit of the good. Hitler was trying to make a better world.)

Many sentences of that form are plainly false. For example, many people differ in
their beliefs about the world around us, but this does not imply that in each
case a different belief is correct. If I believe that the correct number of
planets is eight and you believe that the correct number is ten, it is not that
one number is correct for me and another correct for you. Both you and I are
wrong, both of our beliefs are incorrect, because there is one and only one
correct number of planets, and that number is nine.

Nope. 10. And more expected soon.
Your argument assumes the reality of absolute good and evil
but without any reason for such a belief. Do you have any?
(This appears to be a misleading rhetorical trick of the sort
epidemic among right wing blabber-pundits, the assertion of
'facts' not proven or even examined, but delivered from on
high as the very word of God.)

In general, sentences of the
form of (1a) are false. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that beliefs
about definitions of evil are relevantly different from those beliefs for which
(1a) is false. We have, therefore, reason to conclude that (1) is false.

Brave immortalist defending the good.
(By devious means if necessary. In defense of the good, if we
must do evil, it is only as God intended, for the good must prevail
by any means necessary, fair or foul. Let the Armageddon begin.)
Ha ha ha.
Evil has no absolute meaning. It is a relative term.
Therefore the question of the reason for the existence of such an absolute
as 'evil' (or it's opposite, absolute 'good') is not a valid question.
The questions of good and evil are mistaken from the start.
Both are relative terms that utterly depend on their opposites for
definition and meaning. Can there be such a thing as good without
also discovering evil? Necessarily they go together or not at all.
Abolutes they are not. Taken together, good and evil can be
experienced as a transcendent good, but only in comparison
to the painful general belief in the absolute reality of good and evil.
Since the good of one person is the evil of another, we're only
quibbling about personal bias, not any absolute or universal quality.
Christians and muslims all kill one another in the defense of good against evil.
Plainly the self-righteous good Godly folks are doing some evil thereby.
(Gotta be them, not us. We only do Evil in the necessary pusuit of the Good,
so forgive us, for we know not what we do.)
Evil-doers must be destroyed, particularly because they are of exactly
the same opinion as us, but with reversed polarity.
If you feel compelled to defend the good against the evil,
then join the crowd. Absolutely everybody is of that opinion.
Only the details of the biases differ.
Jesus said to 'resist not evil'. Maybe He was on to something?
.

User: "Immortalist"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	15 Jul 2004 10:52:25 AM

"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:dm5df0t4i86n7t11hh65knnbnldg0vfm9s@4ax.com...

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:56:12 -0700, "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com>
wrote:

"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:3hobf0ldveisa4h06dhtmtn9oalcpk381k@4ax.com...

On 24 Jun 2004 23:38:30 GMT, philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM (Gary Childress)

wrote:

(1) If the definitions of evil which people believe to be correct often

differ,

then the definition of evil which is correct often differs for these different
people.

Meaning the term has no absolute definition.
It is a relative term, and to argue for it's absolute quality is a mistake.

The above sentence is of the form;

(1a) If the x's which people believe to be correct often differ, then the x

which

is correct often differs for these different people.

The argument merely illustrates that you cannot argue for relativism, the
argument for absolute good or evil does not replace your error although it leaves
us free to look for the good and it is not prescribing it by refuting you my man.

Many sentences of that form are plainly false. For example, many people differ

their beliefs about the world around us, but this does not imply that in each
case a different belief is correct. If I believe that the correct number of
planets is eight and you believe that the correct number is ten, it is not

that

one number is correct for me and another correct for you. Both you and I are
wrong, both of our beliefs are incorrect, because there is one and only one
correct number of planets, and that number is nine.

Nope. 10. And more expected soon.

Your argument assumes the reality of absolute good and evil
but without any reason for such a belief. Do you have any?

Because both arguments supporting ethical relativism are unsound, we have found
no reason to accept it. Moreover, because it is clearly contrary to our ordinary
conception of morality, we have some reason to reject it. When we claim that
lying, cheating, and killing are wrong, we do not claim that these prohibitions
are derived from standards that correctly apply to some of us but not to others.
We think that an ethical standard is either correct or incorrect for one and for
all, and, because we have found no reason to deny this, we can continue to accept
it.
.

User: "Keynes"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	24 Jul 2004 11:03:00 AM

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:52:25 -0700, "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com>
wrote:

"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:dm5df0t4i86n7t11hh65knnbnldg0vfm9s@4ax.com...

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:56:12 -0700, "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com>
wrote:

"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:3hobf0ldveisa4h06dhtmtn9oalcpk381k@4ax.com...

On 24 Jun 2004 23:38:30 GMT, philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM (Gary Childress)

wrote:

(1) If the definitions of evil which people believe to be correct often

differ,

then the definition of evil which is correct often differs for these different
people.

Meaning the term has no absolute definition.
It is a relative term, and to argue for it's absolute quality is a mistake.

The above sentence is of the form;

(1a) If the x's which people believe to be correct often differ, then the x

which

is correct often differs for these different people.

Many sentences of that form are plainly false. For example, many people differ

that

Nope. 10. And more expected soon.

Your argument assumes the reality of absolute good and evil
but without any reason for such a belief. Do you have any?

Good and evil are meaningless terms used interchangeably by the guilty.
Even monkeys have a sense of justice and fair play (as shown by experiments).
Kant was right in that instinctive moral imperatives should apply universally.
But they don't. The best example of universal application of true morality
was Jesus. How many 'moral' human beings ever approach that standard?
Turning the other cheek is regarded as insanity. Rather we employ,"Do unto
others before they do unto you." Human morality is the morality of the jungle.
Might makes right, and the right must be the good. The mighty do evil to the
weak, and the weak respond evil for evil as much as is in their power to do.
All Evils done in the name of justice and pursuit of the Good.
It all depends on whose ox is being gored. People do the uttermost evil and
call it good in every case. Self defense and self interest are always pursued
as the good, in spite of the fact that they employ the most evil of methods.
In practice, good and evil are nothing more than personal biases. We justify
the greatest of evils by calling them pursuit of the good. The ends can never
justify the means. The means are in fact the ends.
We kill the killers, and it should logically follow that we must kill ourselves,
but our logic mercifully does not ever proceed so far.
That's how 'good' we can be.
.

User: "Immortalist"
Title: Re: The Problem of Evil	24 Jul 2004 09:15:54 PM

"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:bn05g012agg4veap29tublp3ckq18vo3cb@4ax.com...

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:52:25 -0700, "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com>
wrote:

"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:dm5df0t4i86n7t11hh65knnbnldg0vfm9s@4ax.com...

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:56:12 -0700, "Immortalist"

<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com>

wrote:

"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:3hobf0ldveisa4h06dhtmtn9oalcpk381k@4ax.com...

On 24 Jun 2004 23:38:30 GMT, philologizer@aol.comNOSPAM (Gary Childress)

wrote:

The problem is the defiition of evil. Evil is a relative term that has

never

found a consensus of meaning among humankind. What one considers
good, others consider evil, so we have constant life and death conflicts
large and small. Can there be any ultimate thing called evil that all

can

agree on? Everyone has firm opinions on what is good and what is
evil, but there is never agreement on which is which. Generally we all
base our values on our own personal interests. Is it any wonder that
there is no universal consensus?

(1) If the definitions of evil which people believe to be correct often

differ,

then the definition of evil which is correct often differs for these

different

people.

Meaning the term has no absolute definition.
It is a relative term, and to argue for it's absolute quality is a mistake.

The above sentence is of the form;

(1a) If the x's which people believe to be correct often differ, then the x

which

is correct often differs for these different people.

The argument merely illustrates that you cannot argue for relativism, the
argument for absolute good or evil does not replace your error although it

leaves

us free to look for the good and it is not prescribing it by refuting you my

man.

Many sentences of that form are plainly false. For example, many people

differ

their beliefs about the world around us, but this does not imply that in

each

case a different belief is correct. If I believe that the correct number of
planets is eight and you believe that the correct number is ten, it is not

that

one number is correct for me and another correct for you. Both you and I

are

wrong, both of our beliefs are incorrect, because there is one and only one
correct number of planets, and that number is nine.

Nope. 10. And more expected soon.

Your argument assumes the reality of absolute good and evil
but without any reason for such a belief. Do you have any?

Because both arguments supporting ethical relativism are unsound, we have

found

no reason to accept it. Moreover, because it is clearly contrary to our

ordinary

conception of morality, we have some reason to reject it. When we claim that
lying, cheating, and killing are wrong, we do not claim that these

prohibitions

are derived from standards that correctly apply to some of us but not to

others.

We think that an ethical standard is either correct or incorrect for one and

for

all, and, because we have found no reason to deny this, we can continue to

it.

Good and evil are meaningless terms used interchangeably by the guilty.

This ethical argument of yours is probably meant to apply to all?

Even monkeys have a sense of justice and fair play (as shown by experiments).
Kant was right in that instinctive moral imperatives should apply universally.
But they don't. The best example of universal application of true morality
was Jesus. How many 'moral' human beings ever approach that standard?

Accourding to the Christians anyone who believes in him in a certains way and
that is their claim that no one is perfect.

Turning the other cheek is regarded as insanity. Rather we employ,"Do unto
others before they do unto you." Human morality is the morality of the

jungle.

Might makes right, and the right must be the good. The mighty do evil to the
weak, and the weak respond evil for evil as much as is in their power to do.
All Evils done in the name of justice and pursuit of the Good.

It all depends on whose ox is being gored. People do the uttermost evil and
call it good in every case. Self defense and self interest are always pursued
as the good, in spite of the fact that they employ the most evil of methods.
In practice, good and evil are nothing more than personal biases. We justify
the greatest of evils by calling them pursuit of the good. The ends can never
justify the means. The means are in fact the ends.

We kill the killers, and it should logically follow that we must kill

ourselves,

but our logic mercifully does not ever proceed so far.
That's how 'good' we can be.

You have a perception of humans as if they have totally escaped from the jungle.
You are right though since there are really two groups; those who have moral
rules and those who believe they don't. Luckily the ones with the moral rules
have the power to kill those without them.
........................
- Ethics and Human Nature
There is one more response to relativism we may consider. According to this
response, there is some essential nature that human beings have, and that
essential nature determines what a good person is. That is, human beings
naturally have certain sorts of ends in life, and the universally valid morality
is the one that leads to those ends. A human being's function, then, is a part of
the natural human endowment.
Many philosophers have held this view, although they have not always agreed on
what the function of a human being is. Two of the most influential proponents of
this view are Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900).
It was Aristotle's belief that everything in nature has a goal toward which it
naturally strives. This goal constitutes the proper function of that thing. What
is the proper function of human beings? Aristotle's answer is eudaimonia.
Following standard practice, I will translate eudaimonia as "happiness." But we
must understand that, for Aristotle, happiness is not just a psychological state,
but total well-being.
What is happiness? It is, Aristotle says, an activity of the soul in conformity
with virtue. But what is virtue? Virtue is the excellence appropriate to a
particular type of thing. Since rationality is, for Aristotle, the unique
defining characteristic of human beings, human virtue is activity in accord with
reason. But reason plays two roles in human life. First, it has a practical role.
That is, it guides our behavior in our daily lives. Second, it has a purely
intellectual role. That is, it strives for understanding for its own sake.
There are, Aristotle claims, two types of virtue corresponding to these two
functions of reason. Corresponding to the first, there are the moral virtues. A
morally virtuous person is one whose passions are guided by practical reason.
Thus, a morally virtuous person is one who is moderate in his actions, or, in
Aristotle's terms, chooses the mean rather than the extremes. Corresponding to
the second function of reason are the intellectual virtues. An intellectually
virtuous person is one who leads a life of contemplation.
In contrast to Aristotle, Nietzsche claims that the essential element of human
beings is what he calls the will to power. When this will is not thwarted in
people, they strive to enlarge their strength and power over themselves and
others. They do not concern themselves with pity for the weak, but recognize
obligations only to those of equal strength and power.
Since human beings are healthy only when the will to power is not thwarted, the
only acceptable morality is one in accordance with that will. Such a morality was
the morality of the ancient Romans, stressing as it did the virtues of courage,
nobility, and conquest. Their morality was, as Nietzsche put it, a master
morality. In contrast, Christian morality, which advises us, among other things,
to turn the other cheek, is viewed as a slave morality. Rather than strength, it
celebrates weakness. But to celebrate weakness is to thwart the will to power
and, consequently, the will to life itself. Thus it is to be rejected by the
healthy.
In contemporary times, the connection between morality and human nature is being
advanced by Edward Wilson, a leading figure in the controversial field of
sociobiology, which attempts to explain social behavior in terms of evolutionary
biology. Among Wilson's most controversial claims is that social and cultural
institutions among all humans are in part the product of heredity. Just as our
physical characteristics developed through eons of evolution, so did our social
behavior. The genes that predispose us to forms of social organization beneficial
to the species survived through a long process of natural selection. Culture, to
be sure, plays a role in the determination of social institutions, but the
importance of genetic determination is not to be underestimated. Thus, Wilson
claims, morality is not purely a cultural institution, but has a genetic base as
well. He supports this view by pointing to certain universal features of
morality, such as the incest taboo and altruism, and arguing that such features
are advantageous to the survival of the species. Of course, he does not claim
that all cultures prohibit precisely the same interfamily sexual relations. Nor
does he claim that all types of altruism can be found in all cultures. His claim
is that some incest prohibitions and altruistic norms can be found in all
cultures. We are, then, genetically predisposed to ban incest and behave
altruistically. Our various cultures determine how these dispositions are worked
out in daily life.
If Wilson is right, we are on our way to a deep understanding of the origin of
morality. But does his theory take us any closer to a universally valid morality?
Wilson thinks that it does. From the standpoint of evolutionary biology, human
beings are vehicles for DNA, our genetic material, to reproduce itself. In that
case, the function of morality is the furtherance of that goal. Thus, continued
study in sociobiology will provide the basis for a universal morality.
We have looked at three views of human nature and the ethical implications that
have been drawn from them. What stands out is the radical disagreement among
them. Indeed, there may very well be less agreement concerning the essential
nature of human beings than t