Atheism, Gnosticism & the Problem of Evil

[Seax]

No, but humans (and other cognitively advanced animals) are capable of acting in unnatural ways.

By unnatural, I mean contrary to what is naturally advantageous. There are things that are completely impossible in nature, like a four sided triangle, and then there are things that are impossible in the long run because they are conflict with the laws of nature; because they are against the Will of God. This includes everything from the elements that rearly occur naturally and decay quickly, to behaviors or actions. Humans that act in ways contrary to what is naturally advantageous, that engage in pathological behavior, can be said to be acting unnaturally, and we are by no means the only species to engage in pathological behavior.

This is evil.

So, if evil doesn't exist in nature, and evil is the result of acting in way that are not naturally advantageous, then evil HAS to exist in nature.

Let's say that a volcano erupts and spews billions of tonnes of toxic gases and burning ash into the air. The resulting contamination kills millions of plants and animals, including some that filled unique and necessary environmental niches. The deaths of these organisms creates a cascade effect that causes even more widespread damage to the biosphere, eventually cutting off food, water and harbourage for hundreds more species. According to any common, sensible interpretation of the term, such an eruption would qualify as 'natural evil', since the volcano had no moral intent to cause harm.

Boru

No, that is not evil. Volcanos are not evil in any objective sense. They are subjectively evil to the things they kill, but from a detached, objective perspective they play an important & beneficial role by creating landmasses, fertilising soil and emplacing mineral resources. In the deep sea volcanic activity even supports the only known ecosystems totally independent of the sun, that could continue to exist even if the sun disappeared tomorrow & the rest of life on earth froze to death.

[downbeatplumb]

I'm a bit late to this but for me to get angry at something I must first have a reasonable knowledge of what I should be angry at.

So define god.

[Ferrocyanide]

So, if evil doesn't exist in nature, and evil is the result of acting in way that are not naturally advantageous, then evil HAS to exist in nature.

Let's say that a volcano erupts and spews billions of tonnes of toxic gases and burning ash into the air. The resulting contamination kills millions of plants and animals, including some that filled unique and necessary environmental niches. The deaths of these organisms creates a cascade effect that causes even more widespread damage to the biosphere, eventually cutting off food, water and harbourage for hundreds more species. According to any common, sensible interpretation of the term, such an eruption would qualify as 'natural evil', since the volcano had no moral intent to cause harm.

Boru

No, that is not evil. Volcanos are not evil in any objective sense. They are subjectively evil to the things they kill, but from a detached, objective perspective they play an important & beneficial role by creating landmasses, fertilising soil and emplacing mineral resources. In the deep sea volcanic activity even supports the only known ecosystems totally independent of the sun, that could continue to exist even if the sun disappeared tomorrow & the rest of life on earth froze to death.

Volcanic eruptions can create landmasses, fertilize soil which I suppose you are classifying as good.
Volcanic eruptions can also kill off lifeforms.
So, they are both evil and good.
I think that quite a lot of evil cases, possibly all evil cases, can be argued to be both evil and good.

Example:
If I kill you, is that evil or is it good?
For you, that might be evil but your body decays and returns chemicals to the soil making it possible for new life to grow.

Keep in mind Boru's example and the response that you gave. You said that volcanoes are not evil in an objective sense and you proceeded by talking about the benefits.

--Ferrocyanide

[The Architect Of Fate]

No, that is not evil. Volcanos are not evil in any objective sense. 

Depends on what you mean by objective 

They are subjectively evil to the things they kill,

It's objective fact they kill things 

 but from a detached, objective perspective they play an important & beneficial role by creating landmasses, fertilizing soil and emplacing mineral resources.

They destroy oceanic environments to create that land, Destroy previously green lands and those minerals are all beneficial to life  

 In the deep-sea volcanic activity even supports the only known ecosystems totally independent of the sun, that could continue to exist even if the sun disappeared tomorrow & the rest of life on earth froze to death.

Which damages those same environments and the idea wacky idea a god would need to put such a destructive method is to make any of the above happen is silly

[no one]

[The Grand Nudger]

Is it?  Let's run with it and see how you feel.

We consider two murders.  One is naturally advantageous to the murderer - the victim has something he wants and the crime will produce no adverse consequences.  The other is not.  It's impulsive and in full view of many witnesses who will punish him severely.

Is the one murder good because it is natural by your description, and the other murder evil because it is not?

This argument was already refuted thousands of years ago by Plato in the early part of the Republic during his dialogue with Thrasymachus.

You are very kind, I said; and would you have the goodness also to inform me, whether you think that a state, or an army, or a band of robbers and thieves, or any other gang of evil-doers could act at all if they injured one another?

No indeed, he said, they could not.

But if they abstained from injuring one another, then they might act together better? Yes. And this is because injustice creates divisions and hatreds and fighting, and justice imparts harmony and friendship; is not that true, Thrasymachus?

I agree, he said, because I do not wish to quarrel with you.

How good of you, I said; but I should like to know also whether injustice, having this tendency to arouse hatred, wherever existing, among slaves or among freemen, will not make them hate one another page and set them at variance and render them incapable of common action?

Certainly.

And even if injustice be found in two only, will they not quarrel and fight, and become enemies to one another and to the just?

They will.

And suppose injustice abiding in a single person, would your wisdom say that she loses or that she retains her natural power?

Let us assume that she retains her power.

Yet is not the power which injustice exercises of such a nature that wherever she takes up her abode, whether in a city, in an army, in a family, or in any other body, that body is, to begin with, rendered incapable of united action by reason of sedition and distraction; and does it not become its own enemy and at variance with all that opposes it, and with the just? Is not this the case?

Yes, certainly.

And is not injustice equally fatal when existing in a single person; in the first place rendering him incapable of action because he is not at unity with himself, and in the second place making him an enemy to himself and the just? Is not that true, Thrasymachus?

TL;DR, justice makes a group strong and cohesive, while injustice weakens a group & is therefore disadvantageous. A unjust individual may be able to parasite off a group for some time, strengthening himself at its expense though selfishness, but if this were more advantageous than just behavior natural selection would have led to the extinction of those with a sense of justice in favour of sociopaths. This is why humans have evolved a sense of justice, of fairness & right & wrong.

That's an awfully long winded way to say that, no, you don't actually use the metrics you offered.

[Foxaèr]

I cannot see that there's a point to this thread any more.

[The Grand Nudger]

Harsh, lol. Threads like these could help us to more clearly and accurately communicate our moral positions, and better understand other moral positions.

For example, we've learned that Seax doesn't actually believe that naturally advantageous things -are- the set of morally good things - rather the other way around. Goods things can be naturally advantageous. That this explains some portion of our moral development and positions on good which can be ascribed to the effect of selection.

However, assuming that morally good things can be naturally advantageous - and that societies and breeding populations will privilege and police the boundary of that advantage.... as they see it, we've multiplied the original problem, not resolved it. Now we have to contend with moral relativism and subjectivism, as well, at least descriptively.

The criteria of benefit, as employed in defense of volcanoes, may not help us here - as we can conceive of some benefit to any item of moral import deemed good or bad by any criteria (and just about everything not of moral import, too - we're endlessly creative at finding a use for things).

One killing benefits, another does not.... whether that's the individual, a breeding population, or society. Is there a moral difference between these two killings, and if so, what?

A broader version of the same question might be - suppose that one breeding population or society determined, accurately, that it would be beneficial to them to eradicate the other? If we contend that this would be bad in some sense that other breeding populations or societies would strike us down - then it seems to be the case that failing to eradicate the other society is the bad making property? If they rise up and beat you down that just goes to show that misdeeds are punished.....but if you secure the benefits and prevent any hope of reprisal, then a Very Good Deed has been accomplished. Carthago delenda est.

[Seax]

Harsh, lol.  Threads like these could help us to more clearly and accurately communicate our moral positions, and better understand other moral positions.

For example, we've learned that Seax doesn't actually believe that naturally advantageous things -are- the set of morally good things - rather the other way around.  Goods things can be naturally advantageous.  That this explains some portion of our moral development and positions on good which can be ascribed to the effect of selection.  

However, assuming that morally good things can be naturally advantageous - and that societies and breeding populations will privilege and police the boundary of that advantage.... as they see it, we've multiplied the original problem, not resolved it.  Now we have to contend with moral relativism and subjectivism, as well, at least descriptively.

The criteria of benefit, as employed in defense of volcanoes, may not help us here - as we can conceive of some benefit to any item of moral import deemed good or bad by any criteria (and just about everything not of moral import, too - we're endlessly creative at finding a use for things).

One killing benefits, another does not.... whether that's the individual, a breeding population, or society.  Is there a moral difference between these two killings, and if so, what?

A broader version of the same question might be - suppose that one breeding population or society determined, accurately, that it would be beneficial to them to eradicate the other?  If we contend that this would be bad in some sense that other breeding populations or societies would strike us down - then it seems to be the case that failing to eradicate the other society is the bad making property?  If they rise up and beat you down that just goes to show that misdeeds are punished.....but if you secure the benefits and prevent any hope of reprisal, then a Very Good Deed has been accomplished.  Carthago delenda est.

I think that there is a natural order to the universe, a natural morality if upon which the universe operates, if you like, & then a separate, relative human morality that is derived as a consequence of the natural order of nature. I probably should have explained this better. 

Things like volcanos are outside the scope of human morality, but they serve nature's purpose; God's purpose. God or nature is beyond the scope of our human morality, so we don't really need to concern ourselves with it other than to recognise that our morality is an evolved trait created out of, & subordinate to the natural order. I don't accept the 'naturalistic fallacy' as a valid critique, because human morality is an evolved instinct. But it is important to understand that while nothing in nature is objectively immoral, there is much that is subjectively immoral from a human standpoint. Survival of the fittest is the law of nature, and it serves nature's purpose. But trying to apply it within a society, say by eliminating all labour & safety regulations & social safety nets so 'only the strong survive' would not be moral or serve nature's purpose because man is a social species that increases his fitness through cooperation. It would be outright maladaptive and pathological. There are things that are very advantageous for other species, that are disadvantageous to us.

Take rape, for example. Fowl (both galliformes & anseriformes) reproduce mostly through violent sexual coercion. Though it makes us uncomfortable, because we've evolved a very different mating strategy, it works for them and has kept ducks & pheasants thriving for millions of years. But rape reduces fitness in humans, which is why it's immoral & all healthy men have a visceral reaction to the thought of their female friends or relatives getting raped. So while in nature there are things that are relatively or subjectively immoral, there is nothing objectively immoral in nature, and it's foolish to try to apply our human morality to the nonhuman.

[Seax]

Harsh, lol.  Threads like these could help us to more clearly and accurately communicate our moral positions, and better understand other moral positions.

For example, we've learned that Seax doesn't actually believe that naturally advantageous things -are- the set of morally good things - rather the other way around.  Goods things can be naturally advantageous.  That this explains some portion of our moral development and positions on good which can be ascribed to the effect of selection.  

However, assuming that morally good things can be naturally advantageous - and that societies and breeding populations will privilege and police the boundary of that advantage.... as they see it, we've multiplied the original problem, not resolved it.  Now we have to contend with moral relativism and subjectivism, as well, at least descriptively.

The criteria of benefit, as employed in defense of volcanoes, may not help us here - as we can conceive of some benefit to any item of moral import deemed good or bad by any criteria (and just about everything not of moral import, too - we're endlessly creative at finding a use for things).

One killing benefits, another does not.... whether that's the individual, a breeding population, or society.  Is there a moral difference between these two killings, and if so, what?

A broader version of the same question might be - suppose that one breeding population or society determined, accurately, that it would be beneficial to them to eradicate the other?  If we contend that this would be bad in some sense that other breeding populations or societies would strike us down - then it seems to be the case that failing to eradicate the other society is the bad making property?  If they rise up and beat you down that just goes to show that misdeeds are punished.....but if you secure the benefits and prevent any hope of reprisal, then a Very Good Deed has been accomplished.  Carthago delenda est.

I just wrote up a great response, then clicked something wrong & lost it. 😭😭[url=https://emojipedia.org/loudly-crying-face/][/url] I'll try & rewrite it as best I can, but I'm rather crestfallen so this probably won't be as good a response as it ought to be. I'll just briefly restate the points I made in the original.

There is the natural order of nature, a natural morality, if you like, and then there is our human morality. I reject the so-called 'naturalistic fallacy' argument because our morality is an evolved trait, a product of what is. Our morality is subordinate to, and a product of nature. It serves a natural purpose. When I say that volcanos are not immoral I mean that they serve a natural purpose, and that is is foolish to try and apply human morality to the nonhuman. This also means that we cannot necessarily apply things that might serve nature's end on the grand scale within a smaller microcosm; like survival of the fittest. Darwinian struggle is a natural and good thing, because it serves nature's purpose; God's purpose. But trying to apply it to human society by eliminating all safety & labour regulations destroying all social safety nets so only the strong survive would be a mistake, as humans are a social species that maximises fitness through coöperation and social cohesion. It would be pathological, maladaptive, immoral and would not serve nature's purpose.