Evil

[TheRocketSurgeon]

A Moral Lawgiver is required when raising the question of evil.  If there is no moral lawgiver, then there is no good, no evil.  If we are created in the imago dei, then our very being/essence has intrinsic worth. 

If our intrinsic worth is not exterior or from God, and it has instead evolved without God, then the value or worth of each individual is forever changing. It is therefore not permanent but ever changing. And if it is changing, then who will give it value, what value, and when? Is it a person or persons that gives each person intrinsic value? Is it a creed? Is it a king? Is it a nation or government? If this is so, then anyone at any age may change the meaning as they please. This is then crucial. Intrinsic human value has to come from God, God who transcends us. Only then will our value be eternal and never up for the whims of change, the winds of change. Only then will it be anchored. Evolution cannot give value to human beings because it is always changing and that means no absolutes, no anchor. Essential worth means not conveyed worth or secondary worth. We are all created equal.

No, a Moral Lawgiver is NOT required when raising the question of evil. See my editing of your previous post.

You are quite correct, when you say, "If our intrinsic worth is not exterior or from God, and it has instead evolved without God, then the value or worth of each individual is forever changing. It is therefore not permanent but ever changing." This fact is trivially easy to prove, simply by pointing to the fact that we now have changed from the Biblical position, found in Leviticus 25:44-46, which says that it's okay to own human beings, to recognizing that each person has individual worth, making it not okay for one person to own another human being.

There are dozens of other ways in which our values have changed, "by the whims" of different leaders over time, and in which secularist morality is demonstrably superior to that of your alleged "Moral Lawgiver". A quick visit to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible or The Evil Bible Website can give you a couple of hundred references to demonstrate this.

Because our perspective on the worth of human beings is so easy to change, and has so obviously changed over time, it's essential that we develop a secular (and thus agreeable to all, regardless of their faith-traditions) concept of the inherent worth of mankind. That's what the Founders of the United States did, when they told King George III of England that our rights did not stem from the "Divine Right of Kings", but were inherent to our nature and that our worth did not come from the government or any other ruler, but from the will of the people and their inherent, "unalienable" rights.

Evolution has made us into a social animal, what some call the "moral animal", because of our ability to see our own inherent worth and to fight for same, even if various leaders (both governmental and religious) would have us believe that they hold the keys to the only definition that is valid, that only they can determine our worth, and some have succeeded in that endeavor by force or coercion.

[Mudhammam]

A Moral Lawgiver is required when raising the question of evil.  If there is no moral lawgiver, then there is no good, no evil.  If we are created in the imago dei, then our very being/essence has intrinsic worth. 

If goodness or intrinsic worth exist as abstract states of being which are knowable by the intellect, then it would seem to follow that reason dictates such laws. Whether or not we're created in the image of a deity is irrelevant to the question of intrinsic worth as far as I can tell. Either it is something we have on account of our nature partaking in it, or not. Any quality to which it relates, which you would rather declaim as derivative from God, precludes the same burdens to be met.

If our intrinsic worth is not exterior or from God, and it has instead evolved without God, then the value or worth of each individual is forever changing.

Why is that? If there is something intrinsically valuable about life, or sentience, or rationality, or all of the above, perhaps existing on an ascending scale of greater or lesser quality, then it doesn't merely change on account of the fluctuating nature of matter; we are, after all, talking about being strictly in the abstract.

It is therefore not permanent but ever changing. And if it is changing, then who will give it value, what value, and when? Is it a person or persons that gives each person intrinsic value? Is it a creed? Is it a king? Is it a nation or government? If this is so, then anyone at any age may change the meaning as they please. This is then crucial. Intrinsic human value has to come from God, God who transcends us. Only then will our value be eternal and never up for the whims of change, the winds of change. Only then will it be anchored. Evolution cannot give value to human beings because it is always changing and that means no absolutes, no anchor. Essential worth means not conveyed worth or secondary worth. We are all created equal.

The world is always changing. That doesn't mean truth changes, though our understanding certainly does. Why is it different with respect to intrinsic value or goodness? Do you mean eternal with respect to time? How would that work? Once "I" die, so would any intrinsic value "I" possess, no?

[Kingpin]

Great discussion guys, I have to head out for the weekend, but will try to find some time to respond. Please don't take my extended absence as a dodge. I enjoy our conversations.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I had figured you were ultimately referring to the purpose of God. 

I'd say you're analysis is correct in the more traditional sense of the word evil, although I'd argue there's also a more informal usage associated more closely with our value judgements on actions and behavior that doesn't necessarily assert a source for those values, just their application. For example, your definition would probably be more relevant in the case of somebody asking another "do you believe evil exists?" On the other hand, I don't think the narrator of a criminal documentary on TV is asserting the existence of a moral lawgiver on TV when they offer us to "delve into the mind of evil" when they begin talking about a serial killer.

I see what your saying, but I think it really is the same thing, but approached from a different perspective.  "to delve in to the mind of evil" is to signify the "person" who embodies this mind of evil has committed evil actions in order to be described as such.  But in order to have has actions defined as evil, we need to define evil and thus back to the "does evil exist?" which requires a moral law giver.

Of course, I was just pointing out that as is often the case, words adopt more diluted definitions that are used in more informal contexts. Evil's definition in the context of theories of ethics undoubtedly assigns the existence of objective moral laws and the existence of a moral lawgiver, but just because somebody uses the word evil outside of that context doesn't mean its being used in its traditional sense. It's not a word as inescapably entrenched in a religious framework as something like "sin" is.  

Wasn't disagreeing with you anyway, that's just my contribution on what I think of evil.

[Kingpin]

A Moral Lawgiver is required when raising the question of evil.  If there is no moral lawgiver, then there is no good, no evil.  If we are created in the imago dei, then our very being/essence has intrinsic worth. 

If our intrinsic worth is not exterior or from God, and it has instead evolved without God, then the value or worth of each individual is forever changing. It is therefore not permanent but ever changing. And if it is changing, then who will give it value, what value, and when? Is it a person or persons that gives each person intrinsic value? Is it a creed? Is it a king? Is it a nation or government? If this is so, then anyone at any age may change the meaning as they please. This is then crucial. Intrinsic human value has to come from God, God who transcends us. Only then will our value be eternal and never up for the whims of change, the winds of change. Only then will it be anchored. Evolution cannot give value to human beings because it is always changing and that means no absolutes, no anchor. Essential worth means not conveyed worth or secondary worth. We are all created equal.

No, a Moral Lawgiver is NOT required when raising the question of evil. See my editing of your previous post.

You are quite correct, when you say, "If our intrinsic worth is not exterior or from God, and it has instead evolved without God, then the value or worth of each individual is forever changing. It is therefore not permanent but ever changing." This fact is trivially easy to prove, simply by pointing to the fact that we now have changed from the Biblical position, found in Leviticus 25:44-46, which says that it's okay to own human beings, to recognizing that each person has individual worth, making it not okay for one person to own another human being.

There are dozens of other ways in which our values have changed, "by the whims" of different leaders over time, and in which secularist morality is demonstrably superior to that of your alleged "Moral Lawgiver". A quick visit to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible or The Evil Bible Website can give you a couple of hundred references to demonstrate this.

Because our perspective on the worth of human beings is so easy to change, and has so obviously changed over time, it's essential that we develop a secular (and thus agreeable to all, regardless of their faith-traditions) concept of the inherent worth of mankind. That's what the Founders of the United States did, when they told King George III of England that our rights did not stem from the "Divine Right of Kings", but were inherent to our nature and that our worth did not come from the government or any other ruler, but from the will of the people and their inherent, "unalienable" rights.

Evolution has made us into a social animal, what some call the "moral animal", because of our ability to see our own inherent worth and to fight for same, even if various leaders (both governmental and religious) would have us believe that they hold the keys to the only definition that is valid, that only they can determine our worth, and some have succeeded in that endeavor by force or coercion.

How do you define something as evil without personifying.  Person-hood is inherent to the question, so a moral law giver is required to raise the problem of evil.  Where we differ is who that moral law giver is.  Secularism will define it as subjective morality and thus the moral law giver is the person themselves who is raising the question about evil as they define the act in their own moral standard as evil.

I bolded a few statements above.  Humanity cannot seem to agree on any one thing, there will always be dissenters and detractors so how do you propose a determining a secular concept of inherent worth of mankind?

I also bolded the the founder's part because you are correct in what you state, but you left out (not sure if intentional or not) the part where these inherent rights were endowed by our Creator.  We do not make our own worth, as its impossible for all to agree on a secular version of inherent worth.  Humanities worth is determined by its Creator and that isn't Mother Nature.

[robvalue]

Kingpin: Who cares what God's purpose is? What if his purpose is being a dick? How can we evaluate his purpose without any standard of our own?

Nestor: No worries I've been bouncing what you've said around in my head trying to get a grip at what you're driving at.

You agree that what morality actually is gets discussed a lot and no one can agree exactly what is important within it, and to what extent. To say it is objective is to suggest there is a "right answer". But in what way is it right?

I wonder if you are thinking of objective morality being the final limit of what our human experience will approach. This however still doesn't make it "right". I have no idea what you mean by "right".

If morality is objective, you could somehow measure every interaction in the universe and give it a "morality rating". But what would this mean? How can you rate something until you've said what the standard is? I hold that morality is a judgement of an action, not an objective measurement such as velocity.

You talked before about morality being "what is expected". This requires someone to do the "expecting". Is this a human? If so, why? What about a vastly more intelligent alien, who might expect us to act in a totally different way? Expectation is entirely subjective, even once a vague goal such as "wellbeing is good, harm is bad" has been laid out. And then, wellbeing of what? Humans? Animals? Plants? Rocks? We have no idea what wellbeing means to rocks, if it means anything. But this alien race might do, and so expect a totally different set of actions from us, even with our same goal.

This comes back to knowledge. We may be acting the best way we could be expected to with our knowledge, but it's still not the "most moral" because we lack vital information.

Gonna do that fucking video soon

[TheRocketSurgeon]

How do you define something as evil without personifying.  Person-hood is inherent to the question, so a moral law giver is required to raise the problem of evil.  Where we differ is who that moral law giver is.  Secularism will define it as subjective morality and thus the moral law giver is the person themselves who is raising the question about evil as they define the act in their own moral standard as evil.

I bolded a few statements above.  Humanity cannot seem to agree on any one thing, there will always be dissenters and detractors so how do you propose a determining a secular concept of inherent worth of mankind?

I also bolded the the founder's part because you are correct in what you state, but you left out (not sure if intentional or not) the part where these inherent rights were endowed by our Creator.  We do not make our own worth, as its impossible for all to agree on a secular version of inherent worth.  Humanities worth is determined by its Creator and that isn't Mother Nature.

I left it out on purpose, because I didn't want to have to explain to someone, again, that Jefferson (who wrote that phrase) was not a person who believed in the Creator in the same way that you do, and that "Nature and Nature's God" was a Deist phrase that amounted to saying "we are born with these rights, not given them by a King by Divine Fiat, as you claim, Mr. King George III". Atheism wasn't really a thing, in 1776.

All societies, including ours, define a secular morality, based on an agreed cultural value-set (some inject God-concepts in there, but I've observed that it's almost without fail that "God" agrees with the social majority, so it's obviously still subjective and cultural).

However, in light of the fact that we did a pretty good job in 1789 of defining "personhood" and the rights that accompany this idea, yet have continued to expand it ever since... "Black people, too? Well okayyyy." (1865, 1868, and 1964-64) ; "Women, too? Well, okayyyy." (1920) ; "Mixed couples, too? Well, okayyyy." (1967) ; "Really, women too? Fiiiiine..." (1973 and 1992) ; "Now we have to recognize the inherent personhood of gays, too!? Okay, fine..." (2003 and 2015)... I'd say that we humans are still refining our secular ideas about personhood, but it's clear that they come from us, determined by ourselves.

[Mudhammam]

You agree that what morality actually is gets discussed a lot and no one can agree exactly what is important within it, and to what extent. To say it is objective is to suggest there is a "right answer". But in what way is it right?

In the way that it is true. The culture that ISIS, for an obvious example, wishes to impose - a theistic morality by the way - is inferior to any of those that does not treat its "enemies" (who, for the most part, are only viewed as such due to petty theological disputes), or adulterers, or homosexuals, or freethinkers, etc., in the most cruel and barbaric manner, stripping their neighbors of all human dignity and inflicting rape, human trafficking, death by crucifixion, beheading, stoning, etc. To say that "judgment of these actions as morally wrong and worthy of repercussion is a right judgment" is to say that the preceding statement is actually, i.e. factually true - that these are crimes and that these people ought to be confronted and stopped, regardless of the spinelessness and moral confusion of some on the left.

I wonder if you are thinking of objective morality being the final limit of what our human experience will approach. This however still doesn't make it "right". I have no idea what you mean by "right".

I'm not sure what you mean by the final limit but if you mean something like a peak in happiness, creativity, productivity, etc., then I do not know how one could deny it to be right to say that this would be good - or that the opposite states (misery, starvation, stagnation, etc.) are neither better nor worse.

If morality is objective, you could somehow measure every interaction in the universe and give it a "morality rating". But what would this mean? How can you rate something until you've said what the standard is? I hold that morality is a judgement of an action, not an objective measurement such as velocity.

Whenever you say racism is wrong or that some act or value system is better than another, you're using a sort of "moral rating"; in terms of knowledge of the standard, it's not as if I'm claiming that we can know what the Good actually is apart from its apparent (and vague) reflection in rational thought and action - but so what? Why does one need to apprehend the whole in order to make a distinction between its parts, or have in view the object directly to grasp its effects?

You talked before about morality being "what is expected". This requires someone to do the "expecting". Is this a human? If so, why? What about a vastly more intelligent alien, who might expect us to act in a totally different way? Expectation is entirely subjective, even once a vague goal such as "wellbeing is good, harm is bad" has been laid out. And then, wellbeing of what? Humans? Animals? Plants? Rocks? We have no idea what wellbeing means to rocks, if it means anything. But this alien race might do, and so expect a totally different set of actions from us, even with our same goal.

I don't think reason is subjective, so, to the extent that any being possesses reason, and uses it rightly, I don't think there will be disagreement about what constitutes value and ought to be treated as possessing such. It's our inability to know all of the facts, and to reason infallibly, that causes most disagreements. As Socrates allegedly said, I think in much truth, "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." You even answer that question yourself here:

This comes back to knowledge. We may be acting the best way we could be expected to with our knowledge, but it's still not the "most moral" because we lack vital information.

Gonna do that fucking video soon

Looking forward to it! :-)

[robvalue]

When I say someone is "wrong" to do something, I mean it is wrong according to my morality and belief system, nothing more. I can never say it is objectively wrong. Right and wrong mean nothing until defined, that's the whole problem with objective morality. Since no two people would ever completely agree on what "right" and "wrong" mean, any objective standard is useless.

No, I don't think the morality of ISIS is inherently inferior, because I don't think it means anything to say that. It is only inferior once we agree such basic things as human life and wellbeing are of prime importance. They may say serving their God is of more importance. Who gets to say what is "more important"? It comes down to a societal agreement. So they say we are wrong, because our priorities are backwards. If we can't agree on what is important and valuable, we can't compare values. And since ISIS clearly don't agree, we're only judging them from our point of view.

It would be nice to say Western morality is objectively better than Isis, but without first defining exactly what morality means and how it is measured, this is a meaningless statement. My whole point is that these moral values are up for debate, there are no "correct" ones without simply begging the question.

I've said in another thread, I think owning animals and killing them for food is immoral. Society generally says it is not. Who is correct? It depends on how you define morality, and clearly it depends on how treatment of animals figures into it as compared to humans. What is the "correct" way to do this? What is the correct way to value them? I hold that there isn't one.

I realized that morality is primarily concerned with intent. The intention to do the right/wrong thing. If someone thinks what they are doing is right, it is subjectively a moral action, even if we would disagree with them on what is right and wrong. If we simply objectively measure the consequences, we would end up saying machines are moral or immoral because they are helpful/harmful.

[Captain Scarlet]

A Moral Lawgiver is required when raising the question of evil.  If there is no moral lawgiver, then there is no good, no evil.  If we are created in the imago dei, then our very being/essence has intrinsic worth. 

If our intrinsic worth is not exterior or from God, and it has instead evolved without God, then the value or worth of each individual is forever changing. It is therefore not permanent but ever changing. And if it is changing, then who will give it value, what value, and when? Is it a person or persons that gives each person intrinsic value? Is it a creed? Is it a king? Is it a nation or government? If this is so, then anyone at any age may change the meaning as they please. This is then crucial. Intrinsic human value has to come from God, God who transcends us. Only then will our value be eternal and never up for the whims of change, the winds of change. Only then will it be anchored. Evolution cannot give value to human beings because it is always changing and that means no absolutes, no anchor. Essential worth means not conveyed worth or secondary worth. We are all created equal.

This is a terrible argument.  It fails to validate the existence of Objective Morality, if there is Objective Morality we know that the 'lawgivers laws' are immoral or amoral (just read the only part of the bible written directly by this supposed lawgiver).  Lastly it sticks the theists on the horns of a dilemma, which they attempt to escape (and cannot) with the defence "morality is part of gods nature".  This defence is fundamentally flawed: 1) we descend into non-cognitivsm, 2) god has no nature he is supenatural 3) the theists is still on the horns anway.

So what is it?.  Is god good because of an external standard (and therefore he is not the lawgiver) or does goodness exist because god wills it (making morality subjective)