The Problem of evil, on Newstalk

ScumLord

Max Wig, I think at this point it would be helpful if you'd define what you think evil is.

Is evil a force that's been with the universe since it started? As in, the universe has good and evil, that evil is a force as real as gravity.

Or,

Is evil something that only exists in humans?

Is evil in humans a behavioral trait much the same as the behavior of trusting people of authority, like in the Milgram experiment? Is it something that can be explained by science? The same way addiction can be explained by science.

Is evil a paranormal force that only exists in humans that corrupts people into doing bad things? Or a paranormal force that controls humans and we need tools like religion to suppress it.

MaxWig

ScumLord wrote: »

Max Wig, I think at this point it would be helpful if you'd define what you think evil is.

I can try to explain my view, sure.

Is evil a force that's been with the universe since it started? As in, the universe has good and evil, that evil is a force as real as gravity.

No I don't believe that. It's a human construct/concept.

Or,

Is evil something that only exists in humans?

I think it only exists in human's perception of the world around them, but does not only apply to the actions of humans.

Is evil in humans a behavioral trait much the same as the behavior of trusting people of authority, like in the Milgram experiment? Is it something that can be explained by science? The same way addiction can be explained by science.

Well, I'd query what you mean when you say addiction can be explained by science. I'm not sure it can - not neatly anyway. But that's another story.

No, I don't think evil is a human 'trait' - I think evil is borne of all manner of human motivations. If we leave aside psychopathic sadism and the like, I think we can say fairly that evil is borne of neutrality.
When two conflicting sides war for instance, not only do each side not see their actions as evil - they believe they are 'good' - 'righteous' acts. This is as true of the Nazis as it is of any other army. (Wo)man believes him/herself to be good, but lives always under threat of evil.

Evil is always 'out there' - 'over there' - in 'them' - in the 'other'.
Save a couple of years, people have been at war somewhere for as long as you care to go back. Always in each case trying to rid the world of the 'evil' - the scourge - of the other.

Is evil a paranormal force that only exists in humans that corrupts people into doing bad things? Or a paranormal force that controls humans and we need tools like religion to suppress it.

Evil is the ubiquitous threat to all that is 'good'. Threats to one's way of life - to one's ideologies and beliefs - to one's life and culture and all that that entails.

Culture then is (wo)man's attempt to overcome evil (death) by making a mark upon the earth that will outlast the flawed body that will fade away when the mind still burns for life.

Evil to the child is all around - and it must be protected from it relentlessly for the first years of life. Everything is a threat. From the main road to the tasty looking toilet duck. Evil, put simply, is the bad that happens to us, and how it destroys our ability to enjoy the world- and ultimately our demise.

As we develop and grow, we find ways to avoid death itself, and also the reality of death that haunts us from the shadows. We repress it.

Religion is the ultimate expression of (wo)man's desire to transcend the reality of their existence, but by no means the only one.

People, with or without faith, look for a cause or a culture within which they can be nurtured, and where they can find some means of heroism for which to be lauded. Something they can excel at. Something which makes them 'stand out' - become something more than flesh and blood and bones.
Evil is anything that stops them - what ties them too rigidly to their ultimate fate, or annihilates the illusion of transcendence.

That is why people find it so easy (essential) to hate ideologies that do not concur with their own. Their existence means that their own beliefs are threatened. That is, 'We both can't be right'!! And if this culture within which I have found a home - where I can be respected as something other - something more than just a human animal - is so fallible, well then where does that leave me?


Evil is, basically, death in all its representations. The cause is irrelevant really.

ScumLord

MaxWig wrote: »

ScumLord wrote: »

No I don't believe that. It's a human construct/concept.



I think it only exists in human's perception of the world around them, but does not only apply to the actions of humans.

So evil is something only humans can put into the world? By that I mean, a lion can't be evil, a rock can't be evil.

When two conflicting sides war for instance, not only do each side not see their actions as evil - they believe they are 'good' - 'righteous' acts. This is as true of the Nazis as it is of any other army. (Wo)man believes him/herself to be good, but lives always under threat of evil.

Evil is always 'out there' - 'over there' - in 'them' - in the 'other'.
Save a couple of years, people have been at war somewhere for as long as you care to go back. Always in each case trying to rid the world of the 'evil' - the scourge - of the other.

That's a huge oversimplification of what leads to war. Hatred of alternative cultures or religions are often used by war mongers to increase the size of their forces but for the most part humans go to war for the same reasons as any other creature that goes to war. Resources.

Evil is the ubiquitous threat to all that is 'good'. Threats to one's way of life - to one's ideologies and beliefs - to one's life and culture and all that that entails.

But giving women the vote was seen as a threat to the ideologies of men when it came in and it was. Culture changes constantly. Are you saying is the process of changing culture, which happens on a daily basis, is evil. There are lots of cultures and ways of life, just because they exist doesn't mean they're correct and have a right to exist.

Evil is, basically, death in all its representations. The cause is irrelevant really.

This just makes no sense to me. Death is a crucial part of life, without death, there can be no life. If a plant or animal doesn't die I don't eat. If a plant or an animal doesn't die the insects and bacteria can't eat and make food for the plants.

Without death there is no change, no evolution, no improvements. Death is not evil, we're one of the only animals that know it's waiting for us and the vast majority have come to terms with it by simply ignoring it the vast majority of the time.

Death is not evil.

Brian Shanahan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I wish Sarah pulled them up a bit harder on some points but it was a respectful discussion with more actual content than most of the inane chatter you're likely to hear on the radio.

I think that's part of the problem, Sarah Carey is to good robust and frank debate very similar to what Herod Antipater was to good childcare practises (well according to the bible anyway).

Most of her "debates" quickly descend to meaningless wishy washy platitudes.

MaxWig

ScumLord wrote: »

MaxWig wrote: »

So evil is something only humans can put into the world? By that I mean, a lion can't be evil, a rock can't be evil.

You wrote that in response to me saying - "does not only apply to the actions of humans". I'm not sure I can write in a language any more basic than that.
Evil is a label we give to our experience of the world, or parts of it.
If you are going to continue to ask do I think that a forest fire is objectively evil, then we'll just agree to ignore each other I'm afraid.
But I'll go through it again from my point of view (sometimes repetition works). A forest fire rages though a patch of woodland. Creating bountiful conditions for new life to begin, the sun to reach new ground yada yada yada. It also burns a young woman's family alive in a locked car. That young woman does not look at the car and think 'Ah, that's the circle of life'. She experiences the sheer terror of death, loss and the annihilation of her dreams and her reality. The fire, to her, was evil.
She will ask why? And what you are proposing you'd say is 'Loads of reasons. Let's start with the sun. Did you know the sun........' It's a bad joke. A sitcom trope. The character who literally does not understand humanity.
It does not make you a scientist to 'know' that the fire was caused by something other than evil. I t makes you the guy that repeats inane facts that everyone is quite aware of.

That's a huge oversimplification of what leads to war. Hatred of alternative cultures or religions are often used by war mongers to increase the size of their forces but for the most part humans go to war for the same reasons as any other creature that goes to war. Resources.

Yes it is often used by warmongers. So are you saying it's real, or it's not real?
But again you fall into this notion that the person who chops off another's head is somehow more benign for the fact that he was recruited by a warlord. A strange notion.

And while I take your rather small point, your suggestion that I am oversimplifying is odd. Resources do not begin to account for the glee with which humans dispatch other humans - often their own country men, sometimes neighbours (Kosovo, Rwanda).
A desire for resources does not explain rape; child murder; beheadings; burning alive; torture; ritual humiliation; disemboweling etc. etc. etc. etc. That list could go on ad nauseum.

But giving women the vote was seen as a threat to the ideologies of men when it came in and it was. Culture changes constantly. Are you saying is the process of changing culture, which happens on a daily basis, is evil. There are lots of cultures and ways of life, just because they exist doesn't mean they're correct and have a right to exist.

Again, we're back to the forest fire. No, I am not saying culture changing is evil. I'm saying that if I am a cultural hero one minute and that the next I am a laughing stock - a dinosaur of a previous era - my talents or views mocked and derided - then my experience of that is akin to evil. I have lost what made me special I have lost my place in the culture that up until that point found a space for me. It is very different to war, or death by fire - but it was one specific point I made that you picked up on. And my point was more directed at threats to the very culture itself that protects me, and less so to the forces that drive change. However I do not see them as opposed.

So again - should I repeat? I guess so. Evil is not an objective phenomenon. It is not a truth. In conflict, there are at least two evils and two goods. I clearly stated that in my last post, but you ignored that bit.
So I repeat again - evil (and good) is how we perceive the world.
Good and Bad - can't get more basic than that.

This just makes no sense to me. Death is a crucial part of life, without death, there can be no life. If a plant or animal doesn't die I don't eat. If a plant or an animal doesn't die the insects and bacteria can't eat and make food for the plants.

Yes, yes. Death is a crucial part of life. Not the part people look forward to though.
This is getting embarrassing. You accuse me of oversimplification and then you try to suggest that death, to humans, is a neutral valued phenomenon.
Death is a crucial part of life, yes.
Make you wonder why people get so upset about it, right?
Maybe they haven't seen David Attenborough.
I feel a little insultede responding to such thrash but I'll try.

Again, we are talking about an individual's experience of the world. The only place a perceived evil can exist. The only place taste and emotion can exist.
The only place 'want' can exist. The only place desire exists. And death is the end of that. It is the end of your experience of the world. Your loves, your desires, your wants, your dreams, your everything. Extinguished.
And yes of course, microbial life forms and insects will feast on your flesh - wahooo.
The circle of life.

Without death there is no change, no evolution, no improvements. Death is not evil, we're one of the only animals that know it's waiting for us and the vast majority have come to terms with it by simply ignoring it the vast majority of the time.

'Ignoring' and 'coming to terms with' are not even close to being compatible. But you are half right. We ignore it. We pretend it isn't there. I wonder why when it is such a great thing.
You only need a little sophistication of thought and some honesty to recognise what is at stake.
Your death is the end. It is not an evolution. Not a change. Not an improvement. At least - not to you. It is simply the failure of your body and the destruction of your mind.

Death is not evil.

I wsaw a lion kill a gazelle on TV last night. Fed the cubs.

Hakuna matata - the circle of life - yada yada yada.

Yes. Death is not evil.

Tell me - what, if anything, do you think was evil about Auschwitz?

Or was that just the circle of life too?

silverharp

I disagree that dying in a forest fire or natural scenario would be described by any party as evil. Evil tends to be doing particular harm to people for some kind of advantage .
If say an old lady has her car stolen in a shopping centre, while it would certainly be described as wrong , evil isn't the first word I'd use but it is on a scale of evil. Now take someone that tricks an old lady out of their savings , now evil takes on a more useful meaning as the criminal is breaking multiple human conventions for advantage . Now if the criminal tortures or kills the old lady we move up the scale of evil.

MaxWig

silverharp wrote: »

I disagree that dying in a forest fire or natural scenario would be described by any party as evil. Evil tends to be doing particular harm to people for some kind of advantage .
If say an old lady has her car stolen in a shopping centre, while it would certainly be described as wrong , evil isn't the first word I'd use but it is on a scale of evil. Now take someone that tricks an old lady out of their savings , now evil takes on a more useful meaning as the criminal is breaking multiple human conventions for advantage . Now if the criminal tortures or kills the old lady we move up the scale of evil.

Right. What about absent-mindedly throwing a cigarette butt out a car window during a hot dry spell near a woodland area.

Is that on the evil scale?

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

Right. What about absent-mindedly throwing a cigarette butt out a car window during a hot dry spell near a woodland area.

Is that on the evil scale?

No that is carelessness or ignorance , if someone died and the car was traced I'd expect them to be charged with something maybe not murder though.

MaxWig

silverharp wrote: »

No that is carelessness or ignorance , if someone died and the car was traced I'd expect them to be charged with something maybe not murder though.

I think we're talking about different things.

But if we take your position, then I would say that we project our fears (of those accidents and incidents that happen through no human agency) onto others.

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

I think we're talking about different things.

But if we take your position, then I would say that we project our fears (of those accidents and incidents that happen through no human agency) onto others.

I don't understand what that means. We might rage against fate for being in the wrong place at the wrong time if something random happens like a car accident

MaxWig

silverharp wrote: »

I don't understand what that means. We might rage against fate for being in the wrong place at the wrong time if something random happens like a car accident

As Scumlord mentioned in his last post, as humans we are aware of our impending demise. It is not a matter of if, but when.

We break the world down to good and bad.

Food - good / Hunger - bad

Health - good / Sickness - bad

Life is good and Death is bad

But death is the full stop. It is what lends the 'bad' to all those other things.

sbsquarepants

MaxWig wrote: »

Nature is cruel, in its hunt for balance. I think 'Survival of the fittest' in nature makes sense - but you then come to the question of whether we are 'in nature'. I'm not sure there's an easy answer to that.


.

I think there in lies the error - nature is not cruel, nature is not kind. Nature is just nature. I view it as kind of like a computer program or a maths equation.
E=MCsquared lead us to Hiroshima, it could potentially lead us to our entire destruction - does that make it an evil equation or a cruel equation? Of course not.
Nature is just a set of rules and interconnected systems - it doesn't have a goal or an end it just exists. When good things happen it's not cos natures kind and when bad things happen it's not cos nature's cruel - nature isn't sentient, it doesn't care one way or the other. The rules exist on independently whether there are people, animals, or anything else around to be helped or hindered by them.

Are we "in nature" - of course we are- where else could we be?

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

As Scumlord mentioned in his last post, as humans we are aware of our impending demise. It is not a matter of if, but when.

We break the world down to good and bad.

Food - good / Hunger - bad

Health - good / Sickness - bad

Life is good and Death is bad

But death is the full stop. It is what lends the 'bad' to all those other things.

Sure but it makes evil a subset of bad things And things can be bad or evil without it having a bearing on our mortality.

MaxWig

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think there in lies the error - nature is not cruel, nature is not kind. Nature is just nature. I view it as kind of like a computer program or a maths equation.
E=MCsquared lead us to Hiroshima, it could potentially lead us to our entire destruction - does that make it an evil equation or a cruel equation? Of course not.
Nature is just a set of rules and interconnected systems - it doesn't have a goal or an end it just exists. When good things happen it's not cos natures kind and when bad things happen it's not cos nature's cruel - nature isn't sentient, it doesn't care one way or the other. The rules exist on independently whether there are people, animals, or anything else around to be helped or hindered by them.

Sure. But then we just say there is no such thing as 'good' or 'bad', and we reach the end of the question.

Is it bad this (insert tragedy here) happened?
No, there's no such thing as bad.

It is our experience of these things I am talking about, rather than some ultimate truth.

MaxWig

silverharp wrote: »

Sure but it makes evil a subset of bad things And things can be bad or evil without it having a bearing on our mortality.

But it is our mortality that shapes our perception of the world.

Snakes, spiders, heights, germs, guns, the boogie man - these things are feared because we believe they might kill us.

Not because of any inherent quality they possess.

You can explain that the snake is not poisonous.
That the spider is harmless.
That the height is safe provided you don't jump off etc. etc.

It won't make any difference. People will remain afraid of them because they associate them with danger i.e death!

MaxWig

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Are we "in nature" - of course we are- where else could we be?

Everything taken so literally.

We have mastered nature.

We have developed systems that conquer it (except we still decay and die - there's the rub).

We no longer feel like animals (and yes, I know we are animals. I subscribe to evolution, I know it's ego-centric etc etc.)

But we feel utterly removed from the nature that a pig or a squirrel or a tiger or an elephant lives in.

Animals are our pets and food and servants.

We are half natural, half symbolic. (and yes, I know we are animals).

I am me!

sbsquarepants

MaxWig wrote: »

Everything taken so literally.

We have mastered nature.

We have developed systems that conquer it (except we still decay and die - there's the rub).

We no longer feel like animals (and yes, I know we are animals. I subscribe to evolution, I know it's ego-centric etc etc.)

But we feel utterly removed from the nature that a pig or a squirrel or a tiger or an elephant lives in.

Animals are our pets and food and servants.

We are half natural, half symbolic. (and yes, I know we are animals).

I am me!

We've mastered nature? When did this happen?

We are undeniably a step above pigs and tigers and we have gained a certain measure of control in that we can change our environments to suit us better, rather than have to move to suit the conditions by building shelter and by heating or cooling and so on, we have medicine and an understanding of our bodies and hygiene etc. that keeps us alive and healthy where before we would have died, but we have not mastered anything, not even close.
Every basic biological requirement still needs to be met or we will die just like anything else that exists within the rules of nature. When it comes right down to it, all the technology in the world is less than worthless if you don't have water to drink, or food to eat.

MaxWig

sbsquarepants wrote: »

We've mastered nature? When did this happen?

We are undeniably a step above pigs and tigers and we have gained a certain measure of control in that we can change our environments to suit us better, rather than have to move to suit the conditions by building shelter and by heating or cooling and so on, we have medicine and an understanding of our bodies and hygiene etc. that keeps us alive and healthy where before we would have died, but we have not mastered anything, not even close.
Every basic biological requirement still needs to be met or we will die just like anything else that exists within the rules of nature. When it comes right down to it, all the technology in the world is less than worthless if you don't have water to drink, or food to eat.

But you do have food to eat.

And you do have water to drink.

And you do have heat.

And you just press buttons for the privilege.

OK, you don't think we've mastered nature.

We'll agree to disagree on semantics.

We are stating the same thing. Calling it something different.

sbsquarepants

It's not semantics at all.

We are in a good position to gather up and distribute all the things that nature demands (and provides) in return for life to continue. That is not being it's master. Slave would be a much better description!

MaxWig

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not semantics at all.

We are in a good position to gather up all the things that nature demands (and provides) in return for life to continue. That is not being it's master. Slave would be a much better description!

Well there is a paradox.

We are utterly removed from nature - having a long time ago discarded our need to hunt or gather, or kill or be killed etc.

We travel to other celestial bodies - we look back in time to the big bang - we unlock the secrets of the universe.

We created mathematics that explains everything to us.

We build and create, and spend very little time worrying about what nature may or may not visit upon us. We simply have no need to. As we have mastered it's pitfalls and hidden dangers.

But you are right of course, as I've stated in the last several of my posts.

There is one aspect of nature that is not mastered.

Our corporeality. Our mortality. Our creatureliness.

sbsquarepants

MaxWig wrote: »

Well there is a paradox.

We are utterly removed from nature - having a long time ago discarded our need to hunt or gather, or kill or be killed etc.

.

There is no paradox whatsoever.

We are not removed from nature in any way - we still hunt and gather, just in a different way.
Cows don't volunteer to jump into mincers out of respect for their human overlords you know! Wild cabbages don't grow on supermarket shelves!

We have mechanised and streamlined a lot from the days of chasing dangerous beasts around forests with sharp sticks - but it's all just tweaks within the same framework. The basic rules have not changed and will not change - we have not stepped outside of anything in anyway whatsoever.

MaxWig

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There is no paradox whatsoever.

We are not removed from nature in any way - we still hunt and gather, just in a different way.
Cows don't volunteer to jump into mincers out of respect for their human overlords you know! Wild cabbages don't grow on supermarket shelves!

We have mechanised and streamlined a lot from the days of chasing dangerous beasts around forests with sharp sticks - but it's all just tweaks within the same framework. The basic rules have not changed and will not change - we have not stepped outside of anything in anyway whatsoever.

OK.

Like I said, I understand your point completely.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. Just how you view it.

You are communicating with me across an invisible network of communication in the absolute certainty that you will not have to think about your next meal, or if hunger, pestilence, infection, predators or anything else will hurt you today.
They might, but you are pretty certain they won't. Not a second thought.

You are living in your head. You are a symbolic being. You are language.

Like I said, I understand the point you are making.

I do not disagree with you.

I just find it irrelevant.

I think maybe you don't fully understand just how outside nature you are.

I'm not talking about the Jamie Oliver - people don't know where meat comes from - type of distance from nature.

I'm talking about the development of language, culture and science and symbolism type.

The enlargement of the world, the exploration of the world and the shrinking of the world.

The capture of knowledge.

N'mind.

Basically I hear you.

sbsquarepants

I'm not thinking about my next meal because it has already been captured and killed (similar to caveman days but basically I've subcontracted out the icky parts to minimum wage Brazilians). It's currently defrosting on my counter at home. But I am a slave to that meal and the one after - I can not under any circumstances decide to just stop eating.
No matter how invisible my communication device it still obeys the laws of nature, just like everything else.
Not living in a cave, drinking rainwater and eating grubs and berries is in no way the same thing as being "outside" nature. I'm just not bear grylls!

Everything every living creature NEEDS to do to survive - I need to do those things too, I just go about them in a slightly more co-ordinated fashion, but I cannot decide to not do them, not for any reason, not ever, no exceptions whatsoever. That is squarely inside just like everything else.

MaxWig

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There is no paradox whatsoever.

I should reiterate.

I do get what you are saying.

I understand that everything in the natural world is part of the natural world.

Everything we see in on Earth etc.

I am talking about our experience, our view of ourselves as much as anything else.

It is no coincidence that humanity separated itself from the animal world a long time ago.

It tried to depart with the animal.

MaxWig

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not thinking about my next meal because it has already been captured and killed (similar to caveman days but basically I've subcontracted out the icky parts to minimum wage Brazilians). It's currently defrosting on my counter at home. But I am a slave to that meal and the one after - I can not under any circumstances decide to just stop eating.
No matter how invisible my communication device it still obeys the laws of nature, just like everything else.
Not living in a cave, drinking rainwater and eating grubs and berries is in no way the same thing as being "outside" nature. I'm just not bear grylls!

Everything every living creature NEEDS to do to survive - I need to do those things too, I just go about them in a slightly more co-ordinated fashion, but I cannot decide to not do them, not for any reason, not ever, no exceptions whatsoever. That is squarely inside just like everything else.

Right.

Like I said - I'm not being dragged into a silly argument about whether the laws of nature apply to our bodies or not.

I've already repeatedly acknowledged this.

You need to eat or you will die.

Yes, we are 'slightly more co-ordinated' than the rest of the animal kingdom at sourcing our next meal.

We are 'slightly more co-ordinated' at avoiding predators.

And we are 'slightly more co-ordinated' passing messages to one another.

That about sums up the difference.

ScumLord

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not semantics at all.

It's pointless trying to discuss with someone who's being purposely obtuse. Everything said to Max wig is just twisted to suit his own world view and thrown back at you so mixed up it's impossible to even decyfer the position or intention of the post.

It's a rabbit hole sbsquarepants, run for your sanity.

MaxWig

ScumLord wrote: »

It's pointless trying to discuss with someone who's being purposely obtuse. Everything said to Max wig is just twisted to suit his own world view and thrown back at you so mixed up it's impossible to even decyfer the position or intention of the post.

It's a rabbit hole sbsquarepants, run for your sanity.

I dispute that Scumlord, but you probably expected me to

MaxWig

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Everything every living creature NEEDS to do to survive - I need to do those things too, I just go about them in a slightly more co-ordinated fashion, but I cannot decide to not do them, not for any reason, not ever, no exceptions whatsoever. That is squarely inside just like everything else.

Unless you're hooked up to a life support machine I guess.

I mean, I know that isn't 'mastering' nature.

It's pretty much how a little bird get's it's nutrients and oxygen but y'know....

different as well.

You might add brain surgery, antibiotics, organ transplants (including tissue fro other animals), pesticides, fungicides, electric blankets and the rest to that list, but basically, we are as much a slave to nature as the next creature.

Except in our ability to predict disease, treat it; predict natural disasters by photographing weather from space - eradicating entire viruses with large scale inocculation programmes - genetically modifying food crops to withstand microbial attacks - yada yada yada

Intensive agriculture - the rerouting of waterways for irrigation - fire for heat (biggie, that one) - the wheel - the yoyo - and house music!