(March 13, 2021 at 3:10 pm)Seax Wrote:(March 8, 2021 at 4:54 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 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
