Problem of good and evil for an atheist

[solja247]

Ok. So you believe that an ongoing "cosmological battle between good and evil" is more likely than a typical evolutionary response to dead offspring? Awesome! However unlikely. [\quote]

Oh, then please tell me, i would be delighted to know.

[quote]One such question would be "A train is hurtling down the tracks, out of control. On its present course, it would hit and kill 5 people who are trapped on the line. However, you are at the switch, and can change the course of the train in time so it goes down a different set of tracks. Unfortunately, on this set, there is one man trapped on the line, and the train would hit and kill him. What do you do?"

These are always a lot of fun. However, the fact has never changed that you have just killed an innocent man. Situations can CHANGE our morals but we still think it is evil. The evil is not mitigated at all, its choosing the lesser of two evils.

Taking the "innocent baby" example, there are questions that can be formulated to show the ethical problems behind the statement "Killing an innocent baby, for whatever reason, is evil". Suppose you had a time machine, and you went back in time to when Adolf Hitler was born. You know that this innocent baby will grow up to kill more than 6 million people, and wage wars that kill far more. For the purposes of the scenario, you only have a limited period of time to do anything in the past, so you have no chance of removing him from his family in the hope that he will grow up differently. Your choice is whether to kill the baby who would grow up to be one of the most evil men of the 20th century, or to leave and let history pan out the way it has.

You have still killed a baby. Kill Hitler when he was a baby would of been good BUT it is still evil. A baby is a baby, whether it grows to be Hitler or Gandhi killing a baby is evil, you are still choosing the lesser of two evils.

So the problem isn't really one for the atheist; it is more one for the "ethical" believer. So what would your answers be?

I am in between a situationalist and a proportionalist.

So I probably couldnt kill Hitler when he was a baby.

Adrian makes a very good point. However, you also have to take into account that "good" and "evil" are two VERY subjective terms. What might be "evil" to me, might not be "evil" to you.

How so? How was Hitler evil? perhaps he was being morally good?

I’m afraid these terms are entirely subjective. What is considered “Evil” in one society may not necessarily be considered evil in another society.

Yes and No. If a society does kill innocent people, knowing they are innocent, we would call that an evil society. Some examples would be North Korea and Nazi Germany. Are you going to attempt to tell me and everyone else here that Kim Jong Il the second is not evil and he is actually a good man?

And you can prove this? You know the inner workings of the minds of ALL creatures on earth?

Until there is evidence that animals do evil acts, I think its rational to believe animals arent evil or good.

We visualise events not related to us by essentially emulating them in our heads. So if someone tells you about babies being murdered in Africa your brain with essentially recreate a simulation of how that would make YOU feel if it happened to your child. That’s just brain chemistry regarding processing abstract ideas.

When the Rwandan genocide was happening, I was too young to understand what was actually happening. However, when I was a little older I watched, 'Hotel Rwanda.' What made me cry during that film was:
1. Another human could do that to another human
2. No one did anything
3. So many innocent people died

I never thought, 'what if that was me.' or something else. I was the guy with the gun liberating the women and children.
Pedophilia is a great example of, 'I dont want my kids to be touched in that sought of way...' therefore we act firmly against pedophilia because we dont want that done to our kids. However, wanting to do what is right and only caring because you wouldnt like to be in that situation (or loved ones) are two different things...

Babies were once used as catapult ammo. Thrown into castle walls to demoralise the enemy forces. Even loaded into cannons. Our todays view on etheics didn't exist a few hundred years ago.

Any honest and rational person would say these people were immoral...

I guess God is immoral, too, since he killed innocent babies.

God gives Joshua the city of Jericho. All, including babies, are killed with swords, and the city is dedicated to the Lord. JOSHUA 6:21-27

You still had to attempt to derail this topic?

---

Absolutes aren't. We abhor killing baby humans because they're babies of our species. Humans also trigger that emotion in things that remind us of babies, extending to the 'cuteness' of other species as well, including dogs, cats, apes, horses, and so forth.
But do you feel guilty for murdering baby ants? Baby spiders? Baby anything that isn't 'cute'?

Yes I have, I am not very fond of killing anything.

I consider conscience to be the only arbiter of personal morality.IE: I recognise no external or transcendent moral authority. As far as I've ever been able to determine,societal morality is based on pragmatism and self interest.

There are many actions,which in context, I consider evil. There are no actions I consider evil in an absolute sense.

Suppose you have a choice, you have to kill one baby so that 5000 people can live, or you leave that baby alive so the 5000 people die a terrible death. Which one do you choose?

Either one is horribe. You are still at fault for allowing 5000 people to die and if you kill the baby, you have just killed an innocent baby. When these sought of questions are asked its choosing the lesser of two evils, not about choosing whats good and evil.

They are a moving target, what is unacceptable now was unacceptable in years gone by and vice versa.

Yes and No. C.S Lewis makes a great point in his book 'Mere Christianity' Although we would say that witch burning was evil back in the 16th century. They thought the alleged witches were real witches who were making people sick, affecting crops, killing people and tools of the devil. If such people did exisit would it not be fair that were brought to justice? (death or life improsonment) however, we know today that the people who were killed in the witch inquisition were innocent and it was based on misconceptions and superstitions. If these people were real and were doing what was alleged, we would still be judging these horrible people, would we not?