The Myth of the Problem of Evil
My thesis is simply this: There is no good. There is no bad / evil. There is only an event and the interpretation of that event. This destroys the idea of an absolute truth (god) and leaves us with simply an interpretation of an action founded upon the contextual needs of society. As far a religion goes, it is only a tool made either good or bad/evil by the faithful in that the living give life to past so-called deities who are demanded to have moral and ethical goodness. A living religion is kept good by the social needs of the living.
So in the religious context, is “God good”? Simply depends on the time the Biblical text was written and how society defines a “Good God”. Primary interest here is the Hebrew text of Numbers 22: 22 where (as in Job) God uses Satan to doing his bidding. The Hebrew of Numbers 22: 22 clearly reads “Elohim” used "Satan" block Balaam’s donkey. To keep God looking good, the English text follows the LXX (Septuagint) translating “Satan” as “Angel”. Scholars have noted that Yahweh’s messenger here is (as elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible) is basically a hypostatization of God or, as noted by R.S. Kluger (Satan in the Old Testament, 1967); the real Satan in Numbers 22 is none other than Yahweh (God) himself!
Thus, when the Judeo-Christian traditions needs “Good” or “Evil”, an earlier text of an infamous deity can simply be revitalized via theological relevancy as an ideological move towards some concept of “goodness”. This fact can be readily heard in the sermons of the radio and TV evangelist who beat to death several dozen Old Testament verses while staying away from such horrific texts as Numbers 31 or, put another away, the Biblical text is like a cow pasture; when its preached from (to kept the concepts of good and evil relevant) preachers must watch where they step (preach). God is only good because the preacher is good via selective reading and theological interpretation of the scriptural text.
So how do I know what is to be considered good or bad (evil)? The same as my dog! And one thing is for sure: He sure the hell is not religious!
Finally, my question to all the C.S. Lewis fans that need some standard of good to know what is evil and, as one of the “Lewis Christians” asked me once: Why are you not out killing, stealing and raping?
My reply: I’ll leave that to God, Moses and the Israelites in the Hebrew Bible!
35 comments:
I'll be in out of my office today. So I may have to return your replies later. Thanks, Harry
Very nicely said!
My thesis is simply this: There is no good. There is no bad / evil. There is only an event and the interpretation of that event. This destroys the idea of an absolute truth (god) and leaves us with simply an interpretation of an action founded upon the contextual needs of society.
The problem is that you're essentially saying there can be no absolute value judgements with morality, but you've made one yourself.
Pardon me!
I did not use a double negative in syntax or logic. There is only an event and the interpretation of that event. This destroys the idea of an absolute truth (god) and leaves us with simply an interpretation of an action founded upon the contextual needs of society.
Irishfarmer, you are trying to bring a use Classical and modern philosophical logic to deconstruct my thesis on evangelical’s use of the Bible and its god …that dog won’t hunt!
So, aside form Classical philosophical logic (which the Biblical writers knew nothing of), give me a “steady state” Hebrew god of good and I’ll quote you several Biblical texts to the contrary.
"In nature there are niether rewards nor punishments; there are consequences." Robert Green Ingersoll
And how exactly does your dog know? Your dog would kill another dog over a bone if it didn't have you to make a moral judgement for him. Your dog would run with the pack if it were allowed to be unto itself. Your dog doesn't interpret good or bad, it just does whatever brings it the most pleasure and avoids what brings it the most pain.
I agree that it is the interpretaion of events which determines whether they are good or bad in the mind of a person. The actual outcome is a different matter. In Iraq, it is not seen as "bad" for children to play in the garbage heaps. It isn't seen as "bad", by a large population, to kill a daughter if she has relations with a man before marriage. The outcome of both of those events is negative, naturally speaking.
Have you read Lord of the Flies?
irishfarmer- you say:
The problem is that you're essentially saying there can be no absolute value judgements with morality, but you've made one yourself.
I have already commented on some of the problems with your "absolute" morality here at DC, and on the general problems of drawing lines between "subjective" and "objective" here, at your blog.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
as usual irishfarmer is out sprinkling his red herring seeds because he can't harvest any good arguments against contextual morality.
He knows full well that morality is contextual, its just that if he admits that he loses ground on his "god equals absolute morality" or "absolute morality exists because there is a god" fertilizer.
Splitting the stomachs of pregnant women is moral in one context but not in another, eh Irish?
by the way harry, good job, the problem of evil is a myth in my opinion, but I need it for just another month or so to complete my new series of articles.
;-)
There is a debate on Atheism Sucks about this post.
Notice the present poll they have. Looks like I'm presently behind Richard Carrier. Ahhh well, at least I'm mentioned.
Just to be clear, Harry, when you say "There is no good. There is no bad / evil." you are saying that there is no independently existing good or bad, that good or bad only exists as a consequence of judgement by some agent(s).
Is that correct?
Thanks Lee. My topic was a reworked thesis based on a paper I read for the South Carolina Academy of Religion at Erskine College about a dozen years ago. As to the POE, I’m sure you’ll have some great input.
Now Jennifer stated: “And how exactly does your dog know? Your dog would kill another dog over a bone if it didn't have you to make a moral judgement for him. Your dog would run with the pack if it were allowed to be unto itself. Your dog doesn't interpret good or bad, it just does whatever brings it the most pleasure and avoids what brings it the most pain.”
Jennifer, I can go down the street and find the exact same actions from the bars and dance clubs every Saturday night since people are animals just as the Lord of the Flies illustrates. Just last month a drunken man was beaten to death in the parking lot of a club who happened to also be Christian.
Here’s where your Christian tradition falls apart and I’ll simply rephrase you.
A. How does your Christian tradition know morality and ethics…the Old Testament? Your Christian tradition has killed other Christians over doctrines / dogmas and it only stopped when the legal system made SECULAR LAWS to stop it. Just look at any county where a religion such as Islam rules and see what type of crimes people are stoned to death for.
Even so, the barbaric torture of the Hebrew Bible has simply been shifted by Jesus and the New Testament to Hell for now or an endless burning and torture for his and God’s hedonistic pleasure in a future Lake of Fire so this so-called God of “absolute” ethics and morality can still get away with it. Notice that Jesus NEVER EVEN ONCE said any of Yahweh’s actions in the Old Testament were wrong!
B. Your Yahweh / God did “run with the pack”…a pack of murderous nomads called Hebrews or Israelites who would kill 450 humans over a bone of animal meat (Elijah on Mount Carmel 1 Kings 18).
C. Your God does not interpret good or bad, Yahweh just does whatever makes him feel good and often seems out of control with a primeval urge (Yahweh just commissioned Moses than tries to kill him unless he get human blood: Exodus 4:19, 24; Kills those who try to help him 2 Samuel 6:6-7, Turns on and kills his own people Numbers 17:13, and so on).
D. Your God acts though the Israelites and does whatever brings him the most pleasure and avoids what brings him the most pain: Raping, killing and stealing (Numbers 31, 1 Samuel 15 and so on).
Jennifer, I’m very confused. With a God who is described in his own manual (the Bible) as having no morals or ethics, just how does Jennifer (as a functioning human being) make moral and ethical choices for her life?
PS: My dog is a miniature Dachshund which, though selective breeding, humans have made it totally dependant on us for survival.
@Jennifer - "Your dog would kill another dog over a bone if it didn't have you to make a moral judgement for him."
Dogs, like all other social animals, display signs of moral behaviour just as we do. They care for their young, defend their family and social group, and can be self-sacrificing (altruistic). In some cases dogs can fight to the death but then so can humans. If your argument really had any substance, it would show that humans didn't have any morals either, is that really what you wanted?
Next time, ask yourself how you would know that humans have morals if you had no way of communicating with them, since that's our challenge with other animals.
Shygetz I would say that “that good or bad only exists as a consequence of judgement by some agent(s).” Thus what is expressed our secular law codes from the federal to the municipal levels and as voted on by the people it was created to rule. This leave us with an evolutionary process where a once accepted standard of ethics and morality such as the holding of slaves and their treatment or lack of it is now a law interpreted as bad / wrong / evil.
In my opinion, the majority of the people I meet daily would make a better god for humanity than the one in the Bible since they interpret evens in light of our evolving legal system which has gone from crude and religious based law code to charitable institution.
The issue before the Supreme Court now is the death penalty. This “an event” that is being re-interpreted and one where most countries have banned it despite the pro-absolutes religion gives to it by God and the Bible.
For me, those who hold up God and the Bible for an absolute truth are like Disney’s “Dumbo the Flying Elephant” where Dumbo was convinced he had to have a feather held in his trunk to fly. By this analogy, the “Bible Believers” hold up a “God” as proof man can not make moral and ethical decisions on his own when, in fact, humanity does it all the time.
In the final analysis, when the ventriloquist show (Religion) is over and the morals and ethics have been given (and interpreted), the dummy (humanity) gets up and walks off while the supposed controlling ventriloquist (God) slumps over and ceases to act or talk.
Harry,
My dog is a miniature Dachshund which, though selective breeding, humans have made it totally dependant on us for survival.
How cute. I thought about that after my comment, but the analogy still stands for the average dog. In fact, the human intervention in breeding dogs supports my point to a degree.
Anyway,
Your idea of who God is based solely on reading the Bible is foreign to me. I don't think morality comes from reading the Bible and picking it apart like a manual, as you have alluded to. We don't see the same thing when we read it so I suppose I'm giving up. I can't change your heart, but I wish I could.
This, I do want to briefly address:
Even so, the barbaric torture of the Hebrew Bible...
Wow. This shows me either you know nothing about ancient cultures (which I doubt is the case!) or you just don't get it. Read The Gifts of the Jews:How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels by Thomas Cahill. Before dismissing Cahill because he is a Catholic, give it a shot and let me know if you still think the Jews were needlessly barbaric. (I am not condoning or defending every act of the nation of Israel past or present, but in the big picture, their mark is undeniable.)
Shygetz,
Yes, I'm with you on the culture of dog packs...and wolves. Have you heard of the Motilone people? A man named Bruce Olsen has spent his adult life with them and went to them when they were known as "savages". What he found, leaving out a lot of detail, was that they were peaceful with their own families, but didn't interact at all with other tribe members. Literally, a person sitting at the community table next to one family could be choking to death and because the person choking was not part of the family, the choker would be unattended unless they had a family member of their own.
Bruce noticed that the parents were so loving to their children and family relationships were peaceful so he didn't know what he had to offer. The only thing he could think of was the transformation that took place in him when he came to know God, so after years of living with them he found a way to share what he know of God and the whole village was transformed in a short time. They came alive and began reaching out to one another and desiring to reach out to make peace with others. Bruce is still there and has also helped give the Motilone a political voice.
That is the difference between the human animal and the fully human being, in my opinion.
I followed John's advice and went to the blog "Atheism Sucks" to read and post a comment, but I got the following block:
“Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author” and this sinner did not get into the Temple!
I must remember the absolutes of morality or god and religion applies to absolute control by the God fearers themselves via their blog. This is not the first time I’ve run in to trouble with the religious Mullahs.
So, to all who are interested, here is my reply to Mr. Hawthornes based on his Atheism Sucks post on me:
William Hawthorne stated: “Thus according to the thesis Harry is proposing, acts like torturing infants for fun are merely events; there is nothing really bad about them.”
Harry stated back:
I hear infants screaming in terror at the top of their lung in the pediatrician’s office, does that mean they are being tortured?
My thesis stands as stated in the original post. Thus the “event” (that of the screaming infant) is neither good nor bad / evil until it is interpreted.
To the infant, yes! The event is indeed an act or torture, just as its screams of pain and horror express. To the parents and doctor the event is an act of love and caring and the “event” is not understood correctly by the limited knowledge of the infant. Accordingly, who has interpreted the event of pain correctly: the infant or the adults?
The Bible and any “absolute truth” of morals and ethics are events drawn from the a past age and cultic society where slavery and killing a rebellious child is again an “event” that the post modern age now interprets as wrong / bad / evil.
I would suggest my complete thesis be read in context at the original posting site as noted above.
@harry - good post, especially if you introduce other species. Is a suffering death by Influenza good or bad? Bad for the person, good for Influenza. Is feeding the hungry good or bad? Good for the people, less good for the plants & animals which were killed to provide the food.
It reminds me of a great comic from the aptly named "Perry Bible Fellowship". I especially like the expression of the mother and her child, it seems to perfectly fit the faux righteous indignation expressed by Christians when you try to bring up somewhat sophisticated ideas like this.
The whole notion of "ABSOLUTE" good and evil is an interesting one, but I think we're rehashing arguments that Plato, Socrates and Aristotle debated millenia ago. Basically, the notion of an absolute good and an absolute evil that we measure actions against reminds me of Plato's idea of Forms. We see a table. Somewhere there is an incorporeal perfect table that exists from which we get the idea of a table to compare against.
I think this is an interesting but ultimately pointless idea. Absolute evil does not have to exist for something to absolutely be evil or to be absolutely evil, for that matter.
Things are good and things are evil. Requiring a perfection of either to exist on some other plane basically castrates the human capacity for critical thinking and judgement. I know evil and good actions when I see them. I know good and evil because, as a human being, I have both a brain and the ability empathize. What more is required?
Tyro,
The Shack Book would be along these lines. How can you not apply this concept of symbiotic "good and evil" to God?
What you are saying is what the Bible teaches. It isn't about black and white. If a person causes harm and then, because of guilt, changes the direction of their life and lives a "good" life which benefits many more than the one they hurt, the event was still bad but good came from it. The Bible teaches that God-in-us will work all things for good for those who pay attention to His purposes and go in His direction. The beautiful part is that He doesn't stop when a person turns direction. He heals and restores what was hurt and broken. He can take the guilt away.
www.theshackbook.com
Jennifer stated: “Wow. This shows me either you know nothing about ancient cultures (which I doubt is the case!) or you just don't get it. Read The Gifts of the Jews:How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels by Thomas Cahill.”
Thanks for the suggested reading, but Yale University professor William W. Hallo has traced back both our culture along with the Jewish culture to earlier times in: Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western Institution (EJ Brill 1996). In this context, cuneiform text from Sumer and Assyria / Babylon beats the Hebrew Bible any day of the week. But thanks anyway.
Tyro: Good reasoning! I think PETA and vegetarians are on to something. I understand that future law codes will office even more protection for animals.
Just AnotherAtheist: We use a concept of Plato’s “Forms” in modern times. It’s called the U.S. Bureau of Standards were a physical reference is kept of all our weights and measurements.
Jennifer - Is "The Shack" a book? I've read a lot of Christian Apologetics, but I haven't read that one. I'd love to hear relevant portions in your words.
"What you are saying is what the Bible teaches. It isn't about black and white. If a person causes harm and then, because of guilt, changes the direction of their life and lives a "good" life which benefits many more than the one they hurt, the event was still bad but good came from it."
I don't think that's what I'm saying. In general, I would argue for the Problem of Suffering and not Evil as Harry has done in this post since I agree that good and evil are fluid, depending on the person, and certainly depending on the species. I don't think the bible teaches that at all.
You may be right that some horrible things can eventually lead to positive consequences, but so what? Should we condone any method no matter how "evil" provided someone benefits? It reminds me of that monstrous movie series "Saw" where the psychotic Bad Guy believes he is doing good by torturing people since, should they survive, they feel lucky to be alive! With that kind of reasoning, even serial killers and torturers can be considered good and loving.
Come to think of it, perhaps the bible does teach that ;)
"He heals and restores what was hurt and broken. He can take the guilt away."
I can't help but notice how egotistical and insensitive this attitude is. Someone does something horrible and your focus is just on rationalizing it and making this person feel better. What about his victims, don't they count?
I see this with the Problem of Suffering, where Apologists discuss the starvation of Africans from the perspective of a successful, white American and never from that of an African. The victims never seem to count as human beings with rights and feelings, just as some sort of object to teach the Real Humans a lesson.
While your words sound nice, they just reinforce Harry's original point - if you're willing to shift perspective enough (and ignore the victims) then any act no matter how "evil" can appear good.
Tyro,
I wasn't in any way saying, 'ignore the victim'. I was responding to the notion that "good and bad" depends upon the event and the people involved.
About The Shack...it is not an apologetic book with an equation for religion. It is a unique insight into the whole message of the Bible. God is portrayed in a way you've never seen and for a good reason. The reason I mentioned it is because part of the story is about a man who loses his daughter in a horrific way and is invited by God to discuss it and other things. You may not like it, in fact it will probably make you angry, but it addresses this "evil" problem. I can't give too much away out of respect for the author, but I agree with the endorsement that says it could be the "Pilgrims Progress" of our time.
Just Another Atheist said...
Things are good and things are evil... I know evil and good actions when I see them. I know good and evil because, as a human being, I have both a brain and the ability empathize. What more is required?
You know evil and good actions because, as a human being, you have the ability to reason and to apply experience to the question. All that is required otherwise is the admission that because your reasoning ability and experiences differ (radically, in the majority of cases) from those of other human beings, that your conclusion can, and will, differ dramatically.
The claim that holds a monopoly on "absolute" values is conceited and delusional. There is no denying that we intuitively know good and evil (once we develop the capacity to make such a distinction), but the basis for this intuition is necessarily different from person to person, which necessarily causes the classifications to also differ.
Yes, I agree that torturing infants is evil, but it does not follow from this agreement that this action is "absolutely" evil. Because society-at-large currently views the torture of infants as evil and criminal, it is rare, and when it occurs, it is punishable, but it does not follow that five hundred years from now, for whatever reason, society-at-large will hold the same view.
Is sodomy evil, or at least morally repugnant? Society-at-large would likely have said 'yes' a mere fifty years ago, and indeed much of it would still squirm if the question were posed today. Up until 2003 (!) fourteen U.S. states (not including both Puerto Rico and the U.S. Military) had laws banning sodomy.
Does this mean that sodomy was "absolutely" morally repugnant up until 2003? Obviously not. Was it "absolutely" morally repugnant in 1950? Again, no.
Societal morality changes over time, and at one point in human history, infant torture was acceptable, if only in limited cases. At some point in the future, it may prove acceptable again, and someone like yourself may argue that it is "absolutely" acceptable, because he "know[s] evil and good actions when [he] see[s] them."
...and that's absolutely right.
--
Stan
Bruce noticed that the parents were so loving to their children and family relationships were peaceful so he didn't know what he had to offer.
This is misleading at best. Bruce went with the intention of being a missionary, to convert the natives to Christ. It is dishonest to imply that he only shared his faith in Jesus because "he didn't know what he had to offer".
I pointed this out to someone before who had the audacity to claim that peaceful society could only come about through exposure to Christ; have you met the Semai of the Malay peninsula? Their peacefulness and loving care towards one another puts Christians to shame. The idea of mutual assistance to non-kin FAR predates Christianity and Judaism, and Christ is not necessary (nor sufficient) to invoke it.
Shygetz,
Of course Bruce went to share Christ...when he got there he didn't know what to tell them because they didn't seem to need any "Christianizing".
I agree that reaching out to other then kin predates Christianity, but so does God. I'll read the article, thank you.
>>I know evil and good actions when I see them. I know good and evil because, as a human being, I have both a brain and the ability empathize. What more is required?
Surely you are trolling, or see the naiveté in that?
>>Societal morality changes over time, and at one point in human history, infant torture was acceptable
>>At some point in the future, it may prove acceptable again, and someone like yourself may argue that it is "absolutely" acceptable, because he "know[s] evil and good actions when [he] see[s] them."
...and that's absolutely right.
No, it isn't right at all, because you're confusing what we, at any one time, like or dislike, or do or don't do, with what is true. You even spell out the problem with your argument in the next paragraph when you say:
>>Does this mean that sodomy was "absolutely" morally repugnant up until 2003? Obviously not. Was it "absolutely" morally repugnant in 1950? Again, no.
Right. Because the truths of morality - and I certainly don't think any such truths exist - are not a matter of voting.
What we might ask is, why are you so desperate to have the notion of "truth" on your side?
>>> Surely you are trolling, or see the naiveté in that?
Actually, I don't. Tell me, what more is required for forming a moral and ethical base than those two things? Reason and Empathy. Scripture? An authority figure?
>>what more is required for forming a moral and ethical base than those two things? Reason and Empathy
Well, to start, I can use my reason towards many ends, so reason doesn't ensure a "moral" calculation given a problem. Secondly, empathize with whom exactly and to what degree, and why? Thirdly, who declared that the ends you are assuming to be "moral" are related in any way whatsoever to truth, or that there even are "moral" truths? Etc., etc., etc...
Excellent questions.
>>>Well, to start, I can use my reason towards many ends, so reason doesn't ensure a "moral" calculation given a problem.
You're right. It does not. But no calculation, moral or immoral, can be reached without the ability to reason. If we were lumps of rock, this conversation wouldn't even matter.
>>>Secondly, empathize with whom exactly and to what degree, and why?
In the context of the actions you are taking, the moral agent(s) affected by said actions. To the degree of realization that they are moral agents as well. Why? Well, in my opinion, there is one key concept that is morally foundational, the Golden Rule. And, that is based on empathy. But, if you can't empathize with another person, i.e. recognize their status as a moral agent, what's the point?
>>>Thirdly, who declared that the ends you are assuming to be "moral" are related in any way whatsoever to truth, or that there even are "moral" truths? Etc., etc., etc...
I did.
>>But no calculation, moral or immoral, can be reached without the ability to reason.
That ignores the relevant point that numerous conflicting calculations can result.
>>In the context of the actions you are taking, the moral agent(s) affected by said actions.
That doesn't make any sense at all. You've just said that the parties affected are the parties affected.
>>Well, in my opinion, there is one key concept that is morally foundational, the Golden Rule.
That is, as you said, merely your opinion, nothing more.
>>>Thirdly, who declared that the ends you are assuming to be "moral" are related in any way whatsoever to truth, or that there even are "moral" truths? Etc., etc., etc...
>>I did.
Exactly. Hence irrelevant :-)
>>>>But no calculation, moral or immoral, can be reached without the ability to reason.
>>That ignores the relevant point that numerous conflicting calculations can result.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. No conclusions or actions based on those conclusions, be they moral or immoral, can be reached without reason.
>>>>In the context of the actions you are taking, the moral agent(s) affected by said actions.
>>That doesn't make any sense at all. You've just said that the parties affected are the parties affected.
You asked who we empathize with and I said the other relevant moral agent, i.e. the person being acted upon. I might be using moral agent incorrectly in that statement. If I did, I apologize.
>>>>Well, in my opinion, there is one key concept that is morally foundational, the Golden Rule.
>>That is, as you said, merely your opinion, nothing more.
I'm not a biologist or philosopher, I'm just some dude at his computer. But I think the Golden Rule is a logical outgrowth of the Altruistic principle. I think empathizing is something evolution has hardwired us to do. I qualified that by saying it was my opinion because I am, as I'm sure none of us are, experts in socio-biological evolution.
>>>Thirdly, who declared that the ends you are assuming to be "moral" are related in any way whatsoever to truth, or that there even are "moral" truths? Etc., etc., etc...
>>I did.
Well, technically I was the one to declare that. Doesn't mean it is true. It just means I declared it. :)
>>No conclusions or actions based on those conclusions, be they moral or immoral, can be reached without reason.
I suppose I need lungs as well :-)
>>You asked who we empathize with and I said the other relevant moral agent
The question was, who are the relevant parties with whom to empathize. Your answer is, the relevant parties. See what I mean?
>>I think the Golden Rule is a logical outgrowth of the Altruistic principle.
Maybe, whatever that principle is, but that still assumes the difficult part: that it is true that certain actions are moral, and true that those actions are "altruistic" ones, etc.
>>I think empathizing is something evolution has hardwired us to do.
And hump. But that has nothing to do with truth either, it's just what we do around here. The answers are nowhere near as simple as 95% of "atheists" - especially the ones writing well-known books - make them out to be.
Solon, I like you man. And I agree that the answers aren't simple. Is there an absolute evil? Are there absolutes? Why is Dane Cook popular? you know, the hard questions.
When I became an atheist and put aside any kind of divine notions of punishment and reward, I told myself I would have to come up with reasons why the things I was always told were wrong (murder, theft, assault) were wrong. I wasn't going to just assume they were wrong.
What I came up with, and what still works for me, is one base truth: other people are humans like me. So, I derived from that a very libertarian sounding principle of people have the right to do what they want with themselves up the point that the right interferes with other people's right to do the same. This is how I justify for myself notions of right and wrong without need for a divine mandate.
Now, that may or may not be a solid philopsophical foundation to work from, but it has worked for me. Still, I love being challenged on those things I believe. I don't know if they are right or wrong. I don't know if the point of life is to live morally or to try and find out what living morally means (or something else entirely). A quick for instance, I mentioned our little debate to a colleague and my notion of reason and empathy. He said to me, you are forgetting compassion. And I said to myself, he's right. I've put a positive connotation on empathy that it doesn't really own.
As I said in my initial response to the post, I don't really believe in abstract notions of "absolutes." I believe that only those agents that have reason have the ability to make the choice to do good or evil. I believe most people choose to do good for others because we don't want others to feel pain because we understand what it is like to feel pain (empathy and compassion).
I believe there are laws in the universe, the law of gravity for instance. But, I don't believe morality is one of those things. The universe is impartial. Those things with the ability to reason place a value of moral or immoral based upon or own reasoning.
I hope to hear a response back. When I am challenged about what I believe, it helps me investigate those things I do believe. Things I can reason through, I hold on to. Things that make no sense, I let go of. I may not have the best semantic or rhetorical skills, but I always try!
Well, I don't believe in evil or rights (in more than a legal sense) because I don't except the mystical premises the notions are founded upon, but if Dane Cook married Celine Dion I would be hard pressed not to admit that any offspring would constitute an absolute evil and we should have the right to stop them.
Post a Comment