Problem of good and evil for an atheist

[Minimalist]

H L Mencken : Morality is the theory that every human act must be either right or wrong, and that 99 % of them are wrong.

[lrh9]

There is no morality. There are only values and power.

Most people don't kill babies because they don't want to kill babies.

There are people that do want to kill babies and there are people that want to do other things destructive to society.

Sometimes they do those things.

Sometimes they get away with it.

If 'morality' does nothing to stop them then it is valueless to me. You can keep it to yourself.

I'll keep my values and my guns and if someone comes after me or my family I'll shoot the people coming dead because I value my family.

It's as simple as that.

[Edwardo Piet]

[History]It's there for us to look back on and learn from.

Of course. And it still would be if it was changed, it would just be a different history to look back and learn from. The question is "Would that history be better than the one we have now, or not?". If you say "The history we have now is better by default", as I said, that is saying that what we naturally have is better, that's committing the naturalistic fallacy.

To change it would lead to a timeline that would be very unrecognisable to us.

How would our alternative selves have any harder a time recognizing an alternative timeline than our current selves recognizing this one?

No one has the right to decide who gets to live or not.

Maybe not, but there's nothing wrong with the hypothetical philosophical ethical question of "Would X alternative history be better?" or at least "Could it?"

Which is why the past must remain untouched.

I don't see any must about it, because I have no proof of whether an alternative history would be better or not.

Do you consider the equivalent of not being born or coming to existence equally immoral to being killed?

It depends. If you exist in this timeline along with many others, and I went back in time to alter the future by removing a very evil past that ends up preventing you and many others from existing, does that count as killing?

I don't see how it's any more killing than the fact that our alternative selves haven't existed. I don't see how we have any more of a right to exist than our alternative selves. It would have been as if we'd never existed. That's completely different to the act of killing IMO.

I couldn't do it, because I have no right to decide who gets to exist or not.

Nor do our parents. We don't ask to be born. If our mother had given birth to an alternative version of ourselves would they be any less worthy? My answer would be: Of course not. Why would they? Does it matter who exists or who doesn't other than what harm or benefit they may cause to themselves and others in the future?

changing the past could create a reality where the present and future is far worse than the one we had.

It could do. Or it could be changed for the better right? Why not? Are you saying we live in the best of possible worlds? How do you know this?

I personally would be against any meddling unless it could be guaranteed to be better. But my reason is different to your own: You seem to think it's impossible for any alternative future to be better, I don't, I just don't think it's worth taking the risk.

The damage that could be done by altering the past is beyond comprehension. Which is why I'm glad we cannot interfear with the past.

(my emphasis).

I completely agree with that statement. I certainly don't think it's worth taking the risk of meddling with the past. But, I have bolded the word "could" because that's a very important word in your statement to me. Because I don't deny the possibility that an alternative future could be better. In other words, if you changed the word I bolded to "would", I wouldn't agree.

It doesn't matter how good or bad the alternate reality would be.

This is where we disagree because it obviously matters how good or bad it would be to me, because: We're talking about morals here. So how good or bad an alternative past would be is IOW, how moral it would be. What value it would have. So what else could matter? If it's better it's better, if it's not it's not. The question is can it be better? I don't see why it's impossible is all!

Even if our intention was good, the out come could be a very evil one.

Yes, which is why it isn't worth risking. How it plays out in practice and the principles of it are a different.

History must play out as it has, changing it could be devistating.

Okay, let's put it this way:

No one changes it. There is just an alternative history.

Can no alternative history be better than the current one? If so, that's the naturalistic fallacy because you are saying what has naturally came to be is better than any hypothetical by default.

If, however, you agree with me that there could be an alternative history that's better. Then that's all I'm saying, that an alternative history could be morally preferable if possible. I'm not saying that we could know it, or that we should take the risk of meddling with our past if we could. I'm not saying that.

Taking away someone's existance.
Is that right or wrong?

Well if the timeline was changed so they never existed in the first place... then I don't see how that's right or wrong, moral or immoral. Because they would have never existed to feel good or bad about existing.

If you killed someone while they were still alive who isn't terminally ill and wanting to be euthanized , then I'd say, yes, that's of course wrong and immoral.

What has happened must remain so or an alternate future you will create in it's place.

Are you saying though, that an alternative can't be better? That what has naturally came to be is automatically preferable by default? Surely that's the naturalistic fallacy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[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?

[The Omnissiunt One]

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.

No, it is not evil. Whilst I would always hesitate in killing somebody, doing it for the greater good is not evil. It may be unpleasant, but that's just moral squeamishness. Equally, killing Hitler as a baby would be unpleasant, but ultimately a good act. That's my view, anyway. Clearly you and I see morality differently. Like you, I do think that moral judgements are meaningful, and that morality is more than just society's values, but I am a utilitarian. The end justifies the means. Nothing is wrong in and of itself, only in terms of its consequences.

I never thought, 'what if that was me.' or something else. I was the guy with the gun liberating the women and children.

Most likely, that sense of compassion was just self-interest operating on a sub-conscious level. Putting ourselves in the position of others, and seeing that we wouldn't like to be in that situation, is surely the basis of morality.

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

Nor am I.

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.

Kill the baby. Unpleasant though it is, it's still the right thing to do. Anyone who says otherwise is a coward. Whether I could bring myself to do it, I don't know, but I still think it's the better thing to do.

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?

Many people today are against the death penalty, me included, so we probably wouldn't want to burn witches to death. Besides, what you say is clearly wrong. Even our most basic moral values have changed drastically. Most people today think that animal welfare, for instance, is important to some extent, whereas before they were treated as objects, despite their obvious pain and distress. Similarly, children were sent up chimneys or made to work in dangerous conditions even as recently as a hundred years ago, something which we now regard as abhorrent. This wasn't based on ignorance, but callousness.

[Rev. Rye]

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.

Are you sure? Did you ever read Todd Strasser's "The Wave", or at least watch one of the two film adaptations of the book? The American version's below, courtesy of Youtube. The German Remake is not available with english subs, though. They're all based on an experiment spurred on by a remark one student made almost exactly like the one quoted above. Needless to say, it did not end up that well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVRXXbU-z7U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXi71XBdh1o

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?

I remember that line from Lewis. What really undermined the point that he was trying to make for me was the fact that as long as we're imagining real witches exist, why wouldn't it make sense to assume that they could easily get away at the first sign of trouble, or, if they didn't, they could at least neutralize any punishments given to them (like raining out a burning, or changing everybody in the courtroom into animals.)

[ABierman1986]

Whether you like it or not. There ARE things which are absolutely evil and things which are absolutely good.
I know most atheists atempt to discredit this idea (There is a huge problem if there is such thing).

So what is one example of something absolutely evil?
Killing a baby, an innocent baby for any reason is evil. (please dont derail this thread with attacking the Bible)

If you think killing a baby is ever justified, I think it is safe to say, that you are sick and perveted.

Some cultures did practice killing babies, however, we would call them 'immoral'.

There were several societies that killed feeble, frail or disabled children. Was it more immoral to kill the children than to allow them to grow up and handicap already hard pressed civilizations? Maybe you believe so but both sides have valid arguments and that's the point. Anytime you speak in absolutes its treacherous ground, there is absolutely no act you can come up with that has not been acceptable at one point or another in human culture. From cannibalism to sacrifice to mutilation to slavery it's all been done, and accepted as morally acceptable or even required sometimes. By the way, I am NOT sick and perverted and I can see the side of the argument that justifies killing "innocent children" for the sake of continuing survival (ever read Pillars of the Earth? Great opener on this topic!).

Since we are the only creature on this planet, who has the ability to do evil and good and not just to respond to external stimuli. This notion of good and evil had to come from somewhere.
Evolutionarily speaking why should I care if a child was killed in Africa?
There is no natural explanation for the concept of good and evil. So where did it come from?
I personally think it came from a cosmological battle between good and evil, although I cant conclude and prove that it, it explains things much better than anything else.

That's just a false statement through and through. There have been demonstrated cultures of morality within dozens of species of animals, Chimps and Dolphins most notably. The notion of good and evil had to come from somewhere....sure. Ok, I buy that argument, we all seem to have this sense. But WHY do we leap to God?! Why why why why why why why why why do you give up on the problem so easily?

First the easy one, why should you care if a child was killed in Africa. Evolutionarily speaking we are prone to be protective of our own, to propagate our genes and ensure our survival. We feel the strongest attachment to those who share the most of our genetic material. Dawkins has a fascinating and well researched book on this, "The Selfish Gene" and it's well established among evolutionary biologists. We tend towards less attachment as we get further away from our own genetic likeness, but at the end of the day a human is a human. Our natural instinct is to care when a human is suffering. I would also bet dollars to donuts most of us DON'T care if a child was killed in Africa, unless we were exposed to the individual for some reason, then we feel that instinctual attachment to help an innocent in need; is it so much of a stretch to believe there is evidence supporting that instinct? We find animals cute for the same reason. Cute animals tend to be cute for the attributes they share with human infants. Large head/body ratio, big eyes, symmetric faces, expressive/emotive, etc... We have a natural urge to care for these creatures because they beckon to our evolutionary sense of preservation.

There is an absolutely fascinating field of study called Game Theory, most famous for its role in "A Beautiful Mind" where John Nash (Crowe) develops his famous Nash equilibrium. Enough plugging. Game theory and more broadly sociological experiments on morality can provide numerical, testable, and statistical models for moral behavior and several theories of development are in progress based on these. For example a recent study on generosity between rich and poor globally revealed that the rich have less desire to be generous (this would probably be considered less moral, yes?) while the poor have more desire to give. This crossed religious and geographical boundaries and suggested remarkable findings about how morality is embedded through environmental factors. Also game theory predicts in evolutionary biology that there are conditions of equilibrium and progress within species that require degrees of cooperation and systems of reward and punishment (basic concepts of good and evil). Within species, individuals do trend to behave in ways that provide optimal survival conditions. This same approach reveals the same traits and trends within human modes of thinking. The only papers on this subject I know aren't free to distribute but I'll dig some and post them, they are fascinating.

Another perspective on origins of morality come from the field of evolutionary biology as well, known as "in-group/out-group" mentality. Communities that relied on each other for survival tended towards behavior that promoted group welfare and cooperation to overcome outsiders to the group. So actions that went contrary to this were considered bad and actions supporting this were considered good (actions for or against the church as an example of one hell of a powerful in-group). In reality that is ALL we are doing today, currently. Perhaps our mind has developed this natural cooperative state to a sense of intrinsic good and evil, but this growth has substantial theory and evidence supporting its role in evolution, its neuronal development, and empirical support of instinctual "moral" behavior.

When you stop questioning you stop learning. Just because a person doesn't know where something came from doesn't mean something fanciful created it! I didn't know where the bread went when I made toast as a child, but I never, even then, imagine a fairy had come in and swapped the toast for my bread! I'm perfectly fine with being corrected or challenged, but if we can't escape "Gaps" arguments we won't progress very far.

[fr0d0]

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.

Why does killing = evil?

Surely it can be either just OR evil?

As in Adrian's example above, killing baby Hitler could be morally defensible. The only problem is our knowledge of all of the effects of our action. That is, if we're denying some good that may come about from the holocaust (washes mouth out) then our action wouldn't be morally 'pure' and in part evil.

Of course God doesn't have this issue because he knows everything, and therefore can judge.

Therefore: God killing = just

(that went well)

[The Omnissiunt One]

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.

Why does killing = evil?

Surely it can be either just OR evil?

As in Adrian's example above, killing baby Hitler could be morally defensible. The only problem is our knowledge of all of the effects of our action. That is, if we're denying some good that may come about from the holocaust (washes mouth out) then our action wouldn't be morally 'pure' and in part evil.

Of course God doesn't have this issue because he knows everything, and therefore can judge.

Therefore: God killing = just

(that went well)

It's hard to see how killing the Midionites was ultimately okay, but if that's what you want to believe...

[fr0d0]

What knowledge do you posses to make that judgement OO? I don't have to believe it, it logically follows: You don't have the information to judge.