Evil

[Shaker]

I'm afraid I've given a rationale behind all my assertions.

You keep using that word: I do not think it means etc.

For example, you've asserted no fewer than four times (#3; #5; #8; #13) that taste and morality are different but have offered no 'rationale' for this assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You keep using that word: I do not think it means etc.

Put up or shut up.

[Shaker]

Put up or shut up.

I'll take the first if you take the second.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as I can see that's all there is to it.
Why not?

If you say I like Marmite that might be true.

If you say ''This or that are Good'' there is no way of telling whether that is true or not in your philosophy Shaker since good and bad are ultimately not defined.


That is one difference between Morality and taste Shaker and where there is a difference there cannot be equation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll take the first if you take the second.

With mouth shut, I'm all ears.

[wigginhall]

Well, if there is an absolute by which good and bad are defined, how do we discover it?  After all, moral injunctions seem highly contextual, e.g. killing people is wrong, except when it isn't.    In fact, sometimes, (as in war), it can be seen as valorous, and you might get a medal for it.   So where is the absolute here?

[Rhiannon]

Hitler behaved very badly. Right...

[Shaker]

Hitler behaved very badly. Right...

The more I hear about the chap ...

[Nearly Sane]

Hitler behaved very badly. Right...

Never off the naughty (goose)step

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, if there is an absolute by which good and bad are defined, how do we discover it?  After all, moral injunctions seem highly contextual, e.g. killing people is wrong, except when it isn't.    In fact, sometimes, (as in war), it can be seen as valorous, and you might get a medal for it.   So where is the absolute here?

Well certainly not in anyway which equates morality with reason, science, maths, taste etc.

Crikey we work on stuff like absolute zero, Dark matter etc, and we are still only on the ''on paper'' stage and yet somehow that's an OK.


Christianity proposes a general malfunction in moral guidance systems somewhat linked to relationship to God.

[Nearly Sane]

Well certainly not in anyway which equates morality with reason, science, maths, taste etc.

Crikey we work on stuff like absolute zero, Dark matter etc, and we are still only on the ''on paper'' stage and yet somehow that's an OK.


Christianity proposes a general malfunction in moral guidance systems somewhat linked to relationship to God.

So your god chose to make humans malfunctioning? This of course means that when you were avoiding your god's responsibility for the skin cancer that killed my friend at 28, but saying the Nazis were to do with humans, you didn't actually believe that either. And you think that there is a malfunction that your god being omnipotent and omniscient chose so all human evil is down to him as well. You really do worship a thug.

[wigginhall]

Well certainly not in anyway which equates morality with reason, science, maths, taste etc.

Crikey we work on stuff like absolute zero, Dark matter etc, and we are still only on the ''on paper'' stage and yet somehow that's an OK.


Christianity proposes a general malfunction in moral guidance systems somewhat linked to relationship to God.

Well, Christians burned people for centuries.  Was this morally good then, but not now?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So your god chose to make humans malfunctioning? This of course means that when you were avoiding your god's responsibility for the skin cancer that killed my friend at 28, but saying the Nazis were to do with humans, you didn't actually believe that either. And you think that there is a malfunction that your god being omnipotent and omniscient chose so all human evil is down to him as well. You really do worship a thug.

Veer from God and mayhem results.

All I can say is there are natural processes which have unavoidably led to human success, some atheists think nature is getting better and better...Pinker, Dawkins etc but nature does produce tragedies for which it seems we have progressive mastery over.

As a Christian I believe there is the prospect of God making all things well and to bring resolution.

You worship though something you think is better than what there is here and now.I wonder what grounds do you have for that commitment and really have you got anything more virtuous than I have?


You see a world with no death and justice post dated and life for the dead. So do I.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, Christians burned people for centuries.  Was this morally good then, but not now?

No. I understand politics might have been involved too.

[Nearly Sane]

Veer from God and mayhem results.

All I can say is there are natural processes which have unavoidably led to human success, some atheists think nature is getting better and better...Pinker, Dawkins etc but nature does produce tragedies for which it seems we have progressive mastery over.

As a Christian I believe there is the prospect of God making all things well and to bring resolution.

You worship though something you think is better than what there is here and now.I wonder what grounds do you have for that commitment and really have you got anything more virtuous than I have?


You see a world with no death and justice post dated and life for the dead. So do I.

Nope I neither worship anything, nor do I 'see a world with no death and justice post dated and life for the dead'

You do hwever worship your god, you do think it is omnipotent and omniscient therefore you worship the creator of skin cancer and your god's choice to kill my friend at 28, and you do worship its creation of malfunctioning humans that it must by your logic know and choose that they will kill. You worship something that by your logic created anything you regard as evil

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope I neither worship anything, nor do I 'see a world with no death and justice post dated and life for the dead'

You do hwever worship your god, you do think it is omnipotent and omniscient therefore you worship the creator of skin cancer and your god's choice to kill my friend at 28, and you do worship its creation of malfunctioning humans that it must by your logic know and choose that they will kill. You worship something that by your logic created anything you regard as evil

I thought Leukemia killed your friend?

[Nearly Sane]

I thought Leukemia killed your friend?

It might help if you read posts. I have made it clear on several posts that the friend I have been talking about died of skin cancer. There were previous posts on the problem of suffering where the concept of childhood leukaemia was raised. You were obviously to busy evading the issue that your god by your logic is a thug, to even care about what happened to my friend.

[Maeght]

Hitler behaved very badly. Right...

He, and others, didn't think so.

[Nearly Sane]

He, and others, didn't think so.

I think that's better addressed to Littleroses, who I think Rhiannon was picking up here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It might help if you read posts. I have made it clear on several posts that the friend I have been talking about died of skin cancer. There were previous posts on the problem of suffering where the concept of childhood leukaemia was raised. You were obviously to busy evading the issue that your god by your logic is a thug, to even care about what happened to my friend.

Apologies for getting the cause of your friends death wrong.             

[Nearly Sane]

Apologies for getting the cause of your friends death wrong.           

Accepted, thank you. Now your thug god???

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Accepted, thank you. Now your thug god???

Ah, on that we will have to agree to differ.

[Maeght]

I think that's better addressed to Littleroses, who I think Rhiannon was picking up here.

Maybe. It wasn't a direct response to anything more a general addition to the conversation.

[Nearly Sane]

Ah, on that we will have to agree to differ.

It's you disagreeing with the logic of your position.

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe. It wasn't a direct response to anything more a general addition to the conversation.

Ah ok. Then I think it's an interesting contribution. I think there is a tendency for us to think that those who carry out what society deem as evil are either aware that is evil but choose to do it anyway, or are some how mentally ill in not thinking it as evil. Hence the Nazis that were tried were deemed to be evil and aware of it. To relate back to sriram's blog, I think many of the circumstances that he has talked about 'evil' in such as adultery would not be deemed by most non affected as evil, whereas the Holocaust would be. There seems to me in the use of the term something that is about an extreme but that extreme is derived in society by the zeitgeist.