The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[Mister Agenda]

The problem of evil is only a problem if you're trying to reconcile the universe we observe with the God of theodicy. It doesn't trouble the God of deism, or any non-theodic God or god, for that matter. For instance, it is not a problem for Drich's version of God, because his version is not Omni-benevolent.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Given our understanding of morality, there is no question that a person who was able prevent a child from being crushed to death as a result of an earthquake, or who could prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths from a tsunami, and failed to act, would be immoral.

What about if they invented tsunamis and earthquakes and then caused them on purpose?

[ignoramus]

I was under the impression that there's no such thing as good and evil.
No one in the animal kingdom sees it that way, do they?

When baby gazelle gets caught by the cheetah in the Savanna, the mother keeps running while the cheetah has a nice meal. That's nature 101.

We have developed social morals so we can live peacefully together.
We now define good and evil based on these current but ever changing artificial "laws".

Therefore good and evil are only relative terms based on when and where you are born.

[Jackalope]

I was under the impression that there's no such thing as good and evil.
No one in the animal kingdom sees it that way, do they?

Well, no - as we are part of the animal kingdom.

When baby gazelle get caught by the cheetah in the Savanna, the mother keeps running while the cheetah has a nice meal. That's nature 101.

Neither gazelles nor cheetahs are considered moral actors.

[Gemini]

Given our understanding of morality, there is no question that a person who was able prevent a child from being crushed to death as a result of an earthquake, or who could prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths from a tsunami, and failed to act, would be immoral.

What about if they invented tsunamis and earthquakes and then caused them on purpose?

Steven Law's Evil God argument!

[Gemini]

I was under the impression that there's no such thing as good and evil.
No one in the animal kingdom sees it that way, do they?

When baby gazelle get caught by the cheetah in the Savanna, the mother keeps running while the cheetah has a nice meal. That's nature 101.

We have developed social morals so we can live peacefully together.
We now define good and evil based on these current but ever changing artificial "laws".

Therefore good and evil are only relative terms based on when and where you are born.

I think what distinguishes humans from other primates isn't just our intelligence, but our ability to empathize with others. Those mirror neurons that activate and emulate the mental states of other people. We can know what it is like to be someone else. (So long as one is not a psychopath who is missing portions of their prefrontal lobes).

I think when we talk about morality, as laypeople, at an every day, practical level, this is what we're talking about. We treat people like people. We don't dehumanize them, and decide that they're animals, or crazy, or essentially wicked. We don't treat them in a way that would horrify us, if we were so treated.

As far as the philosophical debate on metaethics goes, I think it's worthwhile for philosophers to debate, but not that big a deal to me as a layperson.

[Foxaèr]

our ability to empathize with others.

Primates do empathize.

[Gemini]

our ability to empathize with others.

Primates do empathize.

As with intelligence, it's a matter of degree.

[Foxaèr]

As with intelligence, it's a matter of degree.

Or the interpretation of degree.

[Gemini]

As with intelligence, it's a matter of degree.

Or the interpretation of degree.

So let me lay upon you my understanding of hierarchical reductionism and combinatorial systems.

Language is a good introduction to combinatorial systems. The way it works is you have components, and rules for combining them to form expressions. In the case of language, the components are words. The rules for combining words are grammar. Syntax. The expressions are sentences.

You see this system operating in many other disciplines, however. Take chemistry. The components are chemical elements. The rules for combining elements are the laws of chemistry, e.g. ionic and covalent bonds. The expressions are molecules.

The part where this gets really interesting is that expressions formed by components of one combinatorial system can become components of a new combinatorial system. Which opens up a whole new expression space.

Take atomic physics. The components are electrons, neutrons, and protons. The various ways you can combine them form the basis for chemistry. And combinations of chemicals form the basis for biology.

When it comes to humans and empathy, degree matters. Because intelligence matters. The smartest primates other than humans are only about as smart as a human two-year-old. Which, if you've any experience with two-year-olds, is really, really stupid. 

Which goes for empathy as well. And children usually can't be diagnosed with psychopathy because they're all basically psychopaths. Until they mature a bit in their teens, they can't emulate the mental states of others to the same extent that adult humans can. 

So yeah, we're animals, but the introduction of intelligence and empathy to our constitution has opened up a vast new expression space for us. And this is where morality emerges.