Major Complications w/ the Problem of Evil

[dekoi]

i disagree wif dekoi.
evil and good did not always exist. it only came to b when the first human came to b and perceive the world around him.
a sheep a goat a caterpillar do not wat is good or evil: there is no such things to them, onli survival matters to them
Besides, the colour blue is dependent on a wavelenght, a number, a constant.it can be defined
on the other hand evil n good and not constants, they cannot be defined...u r comparing the wrong things...

Not quite Evil.

Actually animals use their *instinct* to do what is good for them or for their offspring -- therefore, even if they eat to survive, that is considered good. Survival is good is it not? Existance is good for us is it not?

As in comparison to human beings -- we use *morality* (not instinct) and have something called free will. These two things, morality and free will allow us to make good and/or evil choices.

You said the colour blue depends on its wavelength and so on. I understand where you're going with this. However, you are far to empirically-viewed. The attributes of a particular wavelength are contingent upon it actually existing at that instant; however, its essence (which is what really matters) remains. Therefore, the essence of blue will always exist.

The essence of good and evil will thus also exist, not contingent upon humanity.

 

[Evil]

what makes u tink the colour blue you see is the same as the colour blue someone else is seeing?:p

besides, if all the animals eat, and survive we would face another whole set of problems that would threaten their survival such as overpopluation, dwindling food supply...going by your defination there would be deaths...in fact greater number of deaths in this case...wont that mean that for that animal to survive it might imply the death of many? won't that be a greater 'evil'

my point is evil and good cannot be defined... each of us c evil and good in their light there is no one standard

 

[dekoi]

what makes u tink the colour blue you see is the same as the colour blue someone else is seeing?:p

besides, if all the animals eat, and survive we would face another whole set of problems that would threaten their survival such as overpopluation, dwindling food supply...going by your defination there would be deaths...in fact greater number of deaths in this case...wont that mean that for that animal to survive it might imply the death of many? won't that be a greater 'evil'

my point is evil and good cannot be defined... each of us c evil and good in their light there is no one standard

It doesn't matter whether me and you see the colour blue as the exact shade of blue. The essence of blue remains. You have to read up on Aristotle's "forms" and "matter" arguments.

You return to your animal 'argument' which does not really state much. It doesn't matter if all animals eat or not. There is still a fundamental difference between "Good" and "Bad" in the animal world. The eating example was just a random example.

About evil and good being defined. Read up on "natural law". Everything in the world follows a standard, or a natural law. We live according to this natural law (otherwise called "nature" or "essence"); once we go against it, we suffer .

Evil and good are standards. Everything in the world is in accordance to a specific standard. Please give me an example of something that is not.

If you disagree, please define "good" and "evil".

 

[Evil]

my point is you can't define good or evil.
you may say that they are standards..but by whose standards??
these standards r come up wif by us humans
therefore it is more of a perception rather than a reality

 

[dekoi]

my point is you can't define good or evil.
you may say that they are standards..but by whose standards??
these standards r come up wif by us humans
therefore it is more of a perception rather than a reality

Not quite. Standards are discovered, not created. They are produced, not created.

Natural law is constant. Therefore, the standards which we produce according to the natural law are also constant.

 

[Evil]

Quote: Standards are discovered, not created. They are produced, not created.
a bit of contradiction here?

anyway, we percive natural law to b a constant and it is our faith in it that we hold it to b a constant.nothing is constant in this world , onli wat we perceive to be.

on a lighter note, what are u currently doing now?
uni education?

 

[dekoi]

Quote: Standards are discovered, not created. They are produced, not created.
a bit of contradiction here?

anyway, we percive natural law to b a constant and it is our faith in it that we hold it to b a constant.nothing is constant in this world , onli wat we perceive to be.

on a lighter note, what are u currently doing now?
uni education?

About the contradiction. No, that was not a contradiction. What we produce are our discoveries. We can not create anything, since all our "creations" (productions) are just deformations or formations of earlier matter (aka Law of Conservation of Matter). Therefore, our productions are our discoveries.

Regarding faith: I'm glad you mentioned "faith". It is an important aspect of life. If we have faith in that natural law is a constant, there must also be a foundation for belief.

About nothing being the same -- you seem to have similar views to Heraclitus. Heraclitus believed everything is in a state of flux. Aristotle later said, "If everything is in flux, and nothing is permanent, then how do we know the words you are stating and i am hearing at this instant, are the same words which you thought of?"

I am only Grade 12. I am studying Physics, Discrete Math and Geometry, Philosophy, and other Sciences.

 

[Evil]

Quote:About nothing being the same -- you seem to have similar views to Heraclitus. Heraclitus believed everything is in a state of flux. Aristotle later said, "If everything is in flux, and nothing is permanent, then how do we know the words you are stating and i am hearing at this instant, are the same words which you thought of?"
exactly wat i mean by the colour blue to me may not be the same colour blue to you!":p
hey at least u get a fun subject combination...my school doesn't offer philosophy at all...

 

[dekoi]

Quote:About nothing being the same -- you seem to have similar views to Heraclitus. Heraclitus believed everything is in a state of flux. Aristotle later said, "If everything is in flux, and nothing is permanent, then how do we know the words you are stating and i am hearing at this instant, are the same words which you thought of?"
exactly wat i mean by the colour blue to me may not be the same colour blue to you!":p
hey at least u get a fun subject combination...my school doesn't offer philosophy at all...

Evil. You just proved yourself wrong. You stated that you do not believe "blue" is a constant (and thus in flux), while aknowledging ARistotle's statement against Heraclitus' idea of everytyhing being in flux.

Aristotle also had objections to the idea of permanence. He stated that if everything is permanent, then how do humans and animals die?

The idea then, is to aknowledge both ideas: permanence and flux. Our souls are permanent, while our bodies are in flux.