RE: Your personal take on “The Problem of Evil?”
September 4, 2014 at 3:24 am
(This post was last modified: September 4, 2014 at 3:49 am by Michael.)
Hi Esquilax.
You ask me to consider a hypothetical that is contrary to both our beliefs. I'm not sure where we can go with that because we're then discussing something that neither of us believe in, and that never seems to have much value to me. But I'll say what I can within what I do actually believe. I would say that whenever the situation is the same there is always one better path. I don't think two situations can be identical, and one day one action be best and the other day another action be best. I'm happy to acknowledge that I accept that as an axiom, I accept it as a basic presuppositional belief. For the best action to vary by day and not by setting, would seem to require the abandonment of any moral standard of right and wrong. But certainly choices are specific to the setting; I might tell a child not to hurt another child, while fully accepting that a doctor is going to hurt me with a needle. Or I might tell a young child that they must be back by 6pm, while I now tell my grown up children simply to be quiet if returning late.
On your defence of happiness as the moral standard, are you now saying happiness is not actually the aim, but is subservient to length of life? So happiness is not good in and of itself, but because it achieves something else (length of live in this first instance). If so we can abandon happiness as the aim and clearly state that the aim is for longer life (but what if that costs society, for example keeping people alive after their 'productive' life?). Or you say happiness has an aim of securing a mate. But if happiness is subservient to mating why not ditch happiness and embrace rape? Surely the rapist is much more valuable, morally 'better', than the homosexual in this line of thought that makes morality subservient to mating success? Do you see how you've moved away from happiness being the goal, and are now in a rather awkward place? I believe that if you follow this path then you are going to have to defend some things that are pretty reprehensible to our consciences. Again, there is no moral 'right' here - if we choose to adopt the behaviour of animals who kill and rape each other, and are successful in passing on our genes, then why not? Why shouldn't our genes win victory through these means? It seems to me you're simply back to behaviour with no moral standard. Actions speak louder than words here, I think, and I see few people living by that philosophy, and those that do are usually subject to our just opprobrium.
You ask me to consider a hypothetical that is contrary to both our beliefs. I'm not sure where we can go with that because we're then discussing something that neither of us believe in, and that never seems to have much value to me. But I'll say what I can within what I do actually believe. I would say that whenever the situation is the same there is always one better path. I don't think two situations can be identical, and one day one action be best and the other day another action be best. I'm happy to acknowledge that I accept that as an axiom, I accept it as a basic presuppositional belief. For the best action to vary by day and not by setting, would seem to require the abandonment of any moral standard of right and wrong. But certainly choices are specific to the setting; I might tell a child not to hurt another child, while fully accepting that a doctor is going to hurt me with a needle. Or I might tell a young child that they must be back by 6pm, while I now tell my grown up children simply to be quiet if returning late.
On your defence of happiness as the moral standard, are you now saying happiness is not actually the aim, but is subservient to length of life? So happiness is not good in and of itself, but because it achieves something else (length of live in this first instance). If so we can abandon happiness as the aim and clearly state that the aim is for longer life (but what if that costs society, for example keeping people alive after their 'productive' life?). Or you say happiness has an aim of securing a mate. But if happiness is subservient to mating why not ditch happiness and embrace rape? Surely the rapist is much more valuable, morally 'better', than the homosexual in this line of thought that makes morality subservient to mating success? Do you see how you've moved away from happiness being the goal, and are now in a rather awkward place? I believe that if you follow this path then you are going to have to defend some things that are pretty reprehensible to our consciences. Again, there is no moral 'right' here - if we choose to adopt the behaviour of animals who kill and rape each other, and are successful in passing on our genes, then why not? Why shouldn't our genes win victory through these means? It seems to me you're simply back to behaviour with no moral standard. Actions speak louder than words here, I think, and I see few people living by that philosophy, and those that do are usually subject to our just opprobrium.
