One sentence that throws the problem of evil out of the window.

[The Grand Nudger]

Humans are animals too.

It is probably better to emphasize our obvious fit as a mammal since "man vs animal" would be a traditional use of the animal category.

How about Manimal?

[Catholic_Lady]

Wow I feel like I'm in the twilight zone, seriously I don't believe you guys believe child rape is a subjectively immoral act AT ALL. bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit. Only a seriously twisted evil person can think that and I know you guys don't really believe that, you're just saying that to give your point more weight, whatever, but still, not cool though. Don't agree with it at all but you're entitled to your opinion.

They don't think evil exists in the first place. So a person who rapes, tortures, and kills a child is not an evil person. And doing those things to a child is not an evil thing to do.

[The Grand Nudger]

.........................................................

[Whateverist]

It is probably better to emphasize our obvious fit as a mammal since "man vs animal" would be a traditional use of the animal category.

How about Manimal?  

Good in BBQ but only if you harvest them young.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Nope, not objectively wrong.  But, and this will look like exactly the same thing, it just so happens you will find near unanimity of agreement that those things are wrong subjectively.  The fact that it is only near unanimity accords better with the evil being a subjective phenomenon than an objective one.

I think the opposite. I think the fact that there is such a  universal consensus through all cultures and countries that certain things are wrong, supports the belief that morality is objective and that we have an inherent understanding of that. No other "opinion" is so universal as it is when it comes to these black and white moral issues.

IMO, after reading your post, it would seem that people are the primary source of "the universal consensus through all cultures and countries that certain things are wrong".  Thus, if people ultimately acquire their morality via human interactions/teachings, then why can't humans be the objective basis for human morality (religious, non-religious, or whatever).  Also, since context plays a key factor in any effective ethical/moral system, then why is it problematic for there to be a subjective component to morality? Regardless of the type of moral system that one adheres to, if the success of that system ultimately depends on the behavioral choices and actions of humans, then is it not logical for humans to own that system and tweak it as they continue to progress and evolve?

[Whateverist]

Wow I feel like I'm in the twilight zone, seriously I don't believe you guys believe child rape is a subjectively immoral act AT ALL. bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit. Only a seriously twisted evil person can think that and I know you guys don't really believe that, you're just saying that to give your point more weight, whatever, but still, not cool though. Don't agree with it at all but you're entitled to your opinion.

They don't think evil exists in the first place. So a person who rapes, tortures, and kills a child is not an evil person. And doing those things to a child is not an evil thing to do.

I think we do define it differently.  I don't view evil as having a mind of its own with which it conscripts the weak willed to do its bidding.  I simply find abhorrent certain acts.  The person who does an evil act isn't necessarily inherently evil, but the act would be and the consequence will be severe at any rate.

In the same way, I don't think the good has any existence apart from our acts.  I think Christians mostly think God is the embodiment of good, the evidence in the bible to the contrary be damned.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Wow I feel like I'm in the twilight zone, seriously I don't believe you guys believe child rape is a subjectively immoral act AT ALL. bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit. Only a seriously twisted evil person can think that and I know you guys don't really believe that, you're just saying that to give your point more weight, whatever, but still, not cool though. Don't agree with it at all but you're entitled to your opinion.

They don't think evil exists in the first place. So a person who rapes, tortures, and kills a child is not an evil person. And doing those things to a child is not an evil thing to do.

The hell... That's just bizarre. That's not right, that's not okay, I don't know but turning a blind eye to evil is just as bad as siding with it.. Like seriously, this is common sense I can only imagine they don't actually believe it in their hearts either at least I hope..

[The Grand Nudger]

IMO, after reading your post, it would seem that people are the primary source of "the universal consensus through all cultures and countries that certain things are wrong".  Thus, if people ultimately acquire their morality via human interactions/teachings, then why can't humans be the objective basis for human morality (religious, non-religious, or whatever). 

Because human beings are necessarily subjective agents.  That doesn't make it impossible for us to recognize or assess some portion of whatever objective basis there may be for morality, which might account for human morality having at least some persistent qualities, if there is such an objective basis......but it does present opportunity for error and rules us out as the objective basis thereof. Fundamanetally, we are subjects viewing x, is x an object, and what can be said about it if it is? Or, is x just an artifact of the subject, ourselves, which we project and then misapprehend -as- the object?

Also, since context plays a key factor in any effective ethical/moral system, then why is it problematic for there to be a subjective component to morality?

None at all.  There's a subjective component to objective morality regardless of how it's conceptualized, we're that subjective component.  This is why objective moral theorists use concepts like "super-rationality",  to account for and zero out human error that might otherwise contaminate the results of any objective moral calculation, insomuch as they can..as human beings themselves.

Regardless of the type of moral system that one adheres to, if the success of that system ultimately depends on the behavioral choices and actions of humans, then is it not logical for humans to own that system and tweak it as they continue to progress and evolve?

Exactly.  Whether a person thinks some thing x is objectively or subjectively wrong, the practical difference is nil.  We write our laws, we enforce our norms. Supposing that morality were subjective..it is and would then still be possible to make objective statements regarding the subjective framework. That the statement "rape is wrong" (just using the thread example) is true can be true of both objective and subjective moral frameworks. Metamorality ftw.

@Pool
Yall got all the crayons and juiceboxes you need over there in the corner table? Just making sure you're set.

[Cyberman]

But those things don't matter, as MK has taught us. All those children have to do is be patient and it will all be worth it. See, that's the trap of painting on a canvas so broad that the individual brushstrokes - the children in this example - get swallowed up.

To be fair, he didn't say it doesn't matter. He said a limited time of suffering is worth the eternal happiness that will come after it.

Yes I know, I acknowledged that. My "those things don't matter" was in response to you, not him. Clearly in the grand scheme of things human suffering doesn't matter to anyone but us. But could you look an abused child in the face and tell it with any degree of sincerity that its suffering is worth it in the end?

[Minimalist]

I honestly don't understand why people are so mean to MK. You may think what he says is looney, and his way of talking IS different... but he's never mean or disrespectful of anyone. Why be mean to him?

I am seriously concerned with his mental health.