Atheism, Gnosticism & the Problem of Evil

[The Grand Nudger]

Humans that act in ways contrary to what is naturally advantageous, that engage in pathological behavior, can be said to be acting unnaturally, and we are by no means the only species to engage in pathological behavior.

This is evil.

Is it?  Let's run with it and see how you feel.

We consider two murders.  One is naturally advantageous to the murderer - the victim has something he wants and the crime will produce no adverse consequences.  The other is not.  It's impulsive and in full view of many witnesses who will punish him severely.

Is the one murder good because it is natural by your description, and the other murder evil because it is not?

[Angrboda]

Humans that act in ways contrary to what is naturally advantageous, that engage in pathological behavior, can be said to be acting unnaturally, and we are by no means the only species to engage in pathological behavior.

This is evil.

Is it?  Let's run with it and see how you feel.

We consider two murders.  One is naturally advantageous to the murderer - the victim has something he wants and the crime will produce no adverse consequences.  The other is not.  It's impulsive and in full view of many witnesses who will punish him severely.

Is the one murder good because it is natural by your description, and the other murder evil because it is not?

Which sense of the word 'good' are you using here? You seem to be emphasizing good in the sense of utility over that of morals.

As a general principle, mens rea is considered to make the offense worse.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just the bare bones of seax's proposal that evil is whatever is unnatural, and a thing being good is an issue of it being naturally advantageous. I suppose we don't really have to use good. We could ask if the impulsive murder is evil and the premeditated but advantageous murder is not-evil to allow for a middle space.

[Nay_Sayer]

The square, which you are misinterpreting as a four-sided triangle disagrees.

A square is not a triangle.

Not with that attitude it isn't.
nazi.

[Ferrocyanide]

God is like a thug. "I can torture you. So, better obey me". And according to the bible he proposes such existence for as long as he like. And its natural that many people get rebellious.

"That's a nice eternal soul youse got there.  It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it."

Essentially, the jewish god/Jesus is like a mafia man.
He comes into your store offers protection. He demands 500$ a month.
He calls himself the savior. Save me from what? Death. This world?
He created this world.

Imagine if I suspend you over a lake of molten iron. I tell you that I am going to save you but only if you pay me.
Am I really saving you?
I'm the one who put you over the lake of molten iron in the first place.
I'm also extorting you, forcing you to obey my every command.

--Ferrocyanide

[Ferrocyanide]

Is it?  Let's run with it and see how you feel.

We consider two murders.  One is naturally advantageous to the murderer - the victim has something he wants and the crime will produce no adverse consequences.  The other is not.  It's impulsive and in full view of many witnesses who will punish him severely.

Is the one murder good because it is natural by your description, and the other murder evil because it is not?

Which sense of the word 'good' are you using here?  You seem to be emphasizing good in the sense of utility over that of morals.

As a general principle, mens rea is considered to make the offense worse.

May I step into this conversation?
So, I am going to take the 2 murder example provided by The Grand Nudger. Actually, I only need the first one.
This line
"One is naturally advantageous to the murderer - the victim has something he wants and the crime will produce no adverse consequences."

I will now insert me and Grand Nudger into the sentence.
Version #1:
Ferrocyanide has something that the Grand Nudger has. Ferrocyanide murders Grand Nudger and the crime will produce no adverse consequences for Ferrocyanide.

Here is version #2
Grand Nudger has something that the Ferrocyanide has. Grand Nudger murders Ferrocyanide and the crime will produce no adverse consequences for Grand Nudger.

HERE ARE MY QUESTIONS:
Which version is good for Ferrocyanide?
Which version is good for Grand Nudger?
Which version is good for the rest of the people in the society?
You guys are talking about morals, right? How should we build our moral framework for our society?
Which version is moral for Ferrocyanide?
Which version is moral for Grand Nudger?
Which version is moral for the rest of the people in the society?


--Ferrocyanide

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that we may have lost the poster who could have answered those questions for us.

[Ferrocyanide]

I think that we may have lost the poster who could have answered those questions for us.

I hope he comes back. My door is always open.

--Ferrocyanide

[vulcanlogician]

I actually got to thinking. In that other thread some people were asking if his avatar was a neo nazi symbol... it may be.

Remember that guy from waaaaay back who made that "gang of jerkoffs video"? He was into the Creativity Church which espouses some kind of white supremacist doctrine and is also based on a pantheistic worldview. I'm not saying that's what's up with this guy. But who uses a symbol like that for an avatar? Plus he didn't seem all that philosophically interested in pantheism. He was more like "here's the basic tenets of pantheism and pantheism is what I believe." Like some kind of doctrinal pantheist or something.

Anyway, hopefully I'm way off.

[Seax]

Humans that act in ways contrary to what is naturally advantageous, that engage in pathological behavior, can be said to be acting unnaturally, and we are by no means the only species to engage in pathological behavior.

This is evil.

Is it?  Let's run with it and see how you feel.

We consider two murders.  One is naturally advantageous to the murderer - the victim has something he wants and the crime will produce no adverse consequences.  The other is not.  It's impulsive and in full view of many witnesses who will punish him severely.

Is the one murder good because it is natural by your description, and the other murder evil because it is not?

This argument was already refuted thousands of years ago by Plato in the early part of the Republic during his dialogue with Thrasymachus.

You are very kind, I said; and would you have the goodness also to inform me, whether you think that a state, or an army, or a band of robbers and thieves, or any other gang of evil-doers could act at all if they injured one another?

No indeed, he said, they could not.

But if they abstained from injuring one another, then they might act together better? Yes. And this is because injustice creates divisions and hatreds and fighting, and justice imparts harmony and friendship; is not that true, Thrasymachus?

I agree, he said, because I do not wish to quarrel with you.

How good of you, I said; but I should like to know also whether injustice, having this tendency to arouse hatred, wherever existing, among slaves or among freemen, will not make them hate one another page and set them at variance and render them incapable of common action?

Certainly.

And even if injustice be found in two only, will they not quarrel and fight, and become enemies to one another and to the just?

They will.

And suppose injustice abiding in a single person, would your wisdom say that she loses or that she retains her natural power?

Let us assume that she retains her power.

Yet is not the power which injustice exercises of such a nature that wherever she takes up her abode, whether in a city, in an army, in a family, or in any other body, that body is, to begin with, rendered incapable of united action by reason of sedition and distraction; and does it not become its own enemy and at variance with all that opposes it, and with the just? Is not this the case?

Yes, certainly.

And is not injustice equally fatal when existing in a single person; in the first place rendering him incapable of action because he is not at unity with himself, and in the second place making him an enemy to himself and the just? Is not that true, Thrasymachus?

TL;DR, justice makes a group strong and cohesive, while injustice weakens a group & is therefore disadvantageous. A unjust individual may be able to parasite off a group for some time, strengthening himself at its expense though selfishness, but if this were more advantageous than just behavior natural selection would have led to the extinction of those with a sense of justice in favour of sociopaths. This is why humans have evolved a sense of justice, of fairness & right & wrong.