Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: The Problem of Natural Evil
October 16, 2013 at 5:09 am
(October 15, 2013 at 8:07 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: So going back to Boru's aliens + 5 y.o. example, you *would* torture the 5 y.o? Answering "yes" would be going against Kant's reasoning.
Not quite. Kant's reasoning is that the 5 year old's agency should be considered off-limits as a Categorical Imperative. Meaning, it is unconditional and under no conditions would the answer be "yes". My reply is that under normal conditions - which is all I can assume right now - the answer would be "no". But the answer is not an unconditional "no". Suppose the 5-year old happens to have sufficient maturity to qualify for a fully functional moral agent and suppose he has himself violated the principle of "non-compromise of moral agency of others" many times in the past, in that case, my answer would be "yes".
Posts: 5598
Threads: 112
Joined: July 16, 2012
Reputation:
74
RE: The Problem of Natural Evil
October 16, 2013 at 5:40 am
(This post was last modified: October 16, 2013 at 5:47 am by Ryantology.)
(October 15, 2013 at 12:18 pm)John V Wrote: [quote='BrianSoddingBoru4' pid='524913' dateline='1381787164']
OK, I swatted a fly unnecessarily last night. Guess I'm evil. Judging by the meat and pest control aisles in the local store, I'm guessing most people are evil by this definition.
Omnicapable beings cannot cause unavoidable harm. Omnicapable beings who cause pain can, because of their omnicapability, inflict harm only because it brings that being pleasure to inflict suffering.
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: The Problem of Natural Evil
October 16, 2013 at 11:33 pm
(October 16, 2013 at 5:40 am)Ryantology Wrote: Omnicapable beings cannot cause unavoidable harm. Omnicapable beings who cause pain can, because of their omnicapability, inflict harm only because it brings that being pleasure to inflict suffering. For a human being, you seem to know quite a bit about what an infinite and eternal God can and cannot do.
Posts: 5598
Threads: 112
Joined: July 16, 2012
Reputation:
74
RE: The Problem of Natural Evil
October 17, 2013 at 2:40 am
(October 16, 2013 at 11:33 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (October 16, 2013 at 5:40 am)Ryantology Wrote: Omnicapable beings cannot cause unavoidable harm. Omnicapable beings who cause pain can, because of their omnicapability, inflict harm only because it brings that being pleasure to inflict suffering. For a human being, you seem to know quite a bit about what an infinite and eternal God can and cannot do.
"omni-" isn't prefix that allows for any wiggle room. You guys decided to use it and other maximally-superlative words to describe your god so that he's better than all the other gods, never taking the time to think about all the implications involved. If you described your god as imperfect and wishing to learn from mistakes, the problem of evil would not apply. Instead, you describe him as incapable of mistakes, making his every act of cruelty, spite and malice completely deliberate. Ironic how pride has screwed Christians in this debate.
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: The Problem of Natural Evil
October 18, 2013 at 11:19 am
(October 16, 2013 at 5:40 am)Ryantology Wrote: Omnicapable beings cannot cause unavoidable harm. Omnicapable beings who cause pain can, because of their omnicapability, inflict harm only because it brings that being pleasure to inflict suffering. An omni-just being must punish evil, but it doesn't follow that it must take pleasure in it.
Posts: 7140
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: The Problem of Natural Evil
October 18, 2013 at 11:31 am
(October 16, 2013 at 11:33 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (October 16, 2013 at 5:40 am)Ryantology Wrote: Omnicapable beings cannot cause unavoidable harm. Omnicapable beings who cause pain can, because of their omnicapability, inflict harm only because it brings that being pleasure to inflict suffering. For a human being, you seem to know quite a bit about what an infinite and eternal God can and cannot do.
Maybe Ryan was channeling his inner theist!
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 5598
Threads: 112
Joined: July 16, 2012
Reputation:
74
RE: The Problem of Natural Evil
October 18, 2013 at 11:43 am
(October 18, 2013 at 11:19 am)John V Wrote: (October 16, 2013 at 5:40 am)Ryantology Wrote: Omnicapable beings cannot cause unavoidable harm. Omnicapable beings who cause pain can, because of their omnicapability, inflict harm only because it brings that being pleasure to inflict suffering. An omni-just being must punish evil, but it doesn't follow that it must take pleasure in it.
A being who allows evil to take place when it could have prevented it must have allowed it for the sake of the pleasure afforded to that being.
Posts: 1537
Threads: 43
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
31
RE: The Problem of Natural Evil
October 18, 2013 at 11:48 am
How are we defining 'evil'? Is 'evil' necessarily something inherently wrong, or bad? Is 'evil' being described as justice, or vice versa? Perhaps, 'evil' is only the name we give to something we cannot understand; like saying a god exists, because it makes us comfortable to label our ignorance in grander terms. Perhaps ice cream is 'evil', it does cause brain freeze if you eat it too quickly 
|
