The Nature of Evil

[Interbane]

What I asked Landroid is if you believe genocide is evil how do you explain human evil based on your worldview?

Flann, what are you asking exactly? Evil is a subjective judgement, like that of beauty. But the judgement concerns behavior rather than appearance. All behaviors fall somewhere on this spectrum. Some behaviors we label good, others we label evil, and others are simply amoral, in between, gray.

Are you asking if there is more to evil than this, or why we judge actions? Or, why is it that we do things that are judged evil in the first place? I went into detail in a couple of posts regarding the naturalists perspective. What's left unsaid?

[Flann 5]

Flann wrote:
What I asked Landroid is if you believe genocide is evil how do you explain human evil based on your worldview?




Flann, what are you asking exactly? Evil is a subjective judgement, like that of beauty. But the judgement concerns behavior rather than appearance. All behaviors fall somewhere on this spectrum. Some behaviors we label good, others we label evil, and others are simply amoral, in between, gray.

I think evil as a subjective judgement is problematic,Interbane. Do you have a synopsis of the naturalist perspective,as I'm a bit hazy on it and it might be helpful.
I'll have a look at Geo's linked article. So when I see a synopsis and read Geo's contribution I'll respond then, if that's o.k.

[Interbane]

I think evil as a subjective judgement is problematic,Interbane. Do you have a synopsis of the naturalist perspective,as I'm a bit hazy on it and it might be helpful.
I'll have a look at Geo's linked article. So when I see a synopsis and read Geo's contribution I'll respond then, if that's o.k.

That's what my previous post was, a quick synopsis. That which is evil is a behavior, judged negatively. While this is a truism, there isn't much more to it. To say that there needs to be more is like saying beauty must be supernatural to make sense. But beauty, like evil, is a subjective judgement.

[Flann 5]

That's what my previous post was, a quick synopsis. That which is evil is a behavior, judged negatively. While this is a truism, there isn't much more to it. To say that there needs to be more is like saying beauty must be supernatural to make sense. But beauty, like evil, is a subjective judgement.

I had a look at Michael Shermer's article on the prison experiment which was interesting.
I think there are a few things here. First there's a naturalistic explanation for the moral nature of man which was what my question was looking for.
Shermer's article touched on this with the evolutionary ingroup outgroup thesis. It's this I'm hazy on and it's an attempt to explain human nature in biological and cultural evolutionary terms.
Environmental factors were big in Shermer's example.

Then there's the question of whether there is such a thing as real moral evil based on naturalism. Quite a few naturalists like Dawkins and Ruse expressly deny this.

And then whether it is a subjective judgement or whether it realistically can be, given history where societies change their moral values and standards.
In history there's no universal agreement and some societies call good what others call evil at different times. The problem of conflicting subjective judgement.
So it's a very complex subject and I'm wondering if there is a coherent naturalistic explanation which can be derived from what explanations are provided and how they address these three elements.

[LanDroid]

What God does in judgement on human wickedness is not comparable to what a Saddam Hussein does though you might like to think so.

As I mentioned before, the God of the Old Testament frequently ordered wholesale slaughter of entire cities and countries. These war crimes are comparable or even worse than the actions of Saddam Hussein. I don't see how you can think of it otherwise.

And then whether it is a subjective judgement or whether it realistically can be, given history where societies change their moral values and standards. In history there's no universal agreement and some societies call good what others call evil at different times. The problem of conflicting subjective judgement.

Indeed. This is part of my question about how theists explain evil given the Saddam-like actions of God, the Creator of Morals. In response you posted a video by Peter J. Williams, PhD. As I mentioned before, he referenced moral problems in the bible, then immediately mentioned those were "different cultures and different times." Evidently Williams believes Divinely sanctioned genocide was indeed moral in those cultures and times. Do you agree? I believe starhwe used the euphemism "correction" recently in this regard. God employed genocide not for pleasure or revenge but for the correction of the people who had strayed and needed to get back on the straight and narrow path. What a peculiar system of discipline.

Most people agree genocide is no longer a valid means of Divine punishment or correction. This indicates, as you and my signature line imply, that even moral systems supposedly based on Eternal Divine standards "evolve" over time.

However many Christians still seem to hold onto these Old Testament standards, frequently citing the sinful nature of the local population when a natural disaster stikes.

What I asked Landroid is if you believe genocide is evil how do you explain human evil based on your worldview?

To be clear, I consider evil or wickedness as "extremely bad behavior" with no hint of magical or supernatural causes. If humans had evolved in a stable cooperative environment, we might interact like manatees or sloths, without evil or bad behavior. Looking at our closest ancestors, obviously that did not happen therefore it is not surprising that humans can exhibit extremely bad behavior.

[Interbane]

I had a look at Michael Shermer's article on the prison experiment which was interesting.
I think there are a few things here. First there's a naturalistic explanation for the moral nature of man which was what my question was looking for.
Shermer's article touched on this with the evolutionary ingroup outgroup thesis. It's this I'm hazy on and it's an attempt to explain human nature in biological and cultural evolutionary terms.
Environmental factors were big in Shermer's example.

I’m still not clear where you’re looking for clarification. So maybe by commenting we can get closer. Are you wondering why there is any such thing as morality in the first place?

Shermer does a good job explaining it, but maybe a different example will help. Consider a world where only a single human lives. Disregard issues of mating and progeny. This single person, in order to survive, will need to gather resources, kill other animals for food, protect his territory, etc. Nothing he does is either good or evil. There is no one to judge his actions. Looking at this hypothetical scenario, you might judge them. But you are another person, doing the judging.

Not only that, but there is no one to harm. (Considering animals at the moment will be confusing, so consider morality as only applying to other people.) With no one to harm, there is no chance to do evil. With no one to help, there is no chance to do good. An animal that eats our lone human would not be an evil animal, it would merely be trying to survive.
As soon as another person enters the picture, moral judgements become relevant. Suddenly, the way these two people act towards each other is subject to judgement. If one person impedes the other person’s chances at survival in any way(harm is done), it is judged as “wrong” or evil. If one person helps the other in any way, it is judged as “right”. It is a simple behavioral algorithm that is made infinitely more complex by the addition of more people, other tribes, and culture.

Then there's the question of whether there is such a thing as real moral evil based on naturalism. Quite a few naturalists like Dawkins and Ruse expressly deny this.

Real evil? This is like asking if there is real beauty. I say yes. Dawkins and others might say no, but only because the the supernatural baggage attached to the word.

You and I could stand side by side, and look at all the same acts, and agree on whether they are good or evil(sanctity aside). The difference between us is the reasons we give for “why” it’s evil. I would agree that the judgement of evil is real, like the judgement of beauty. But I would disagree that there is some supernatural unseen force at play. It’s simply a judgement, made by men.

And then whether it is a subjective judgement or whether it realistically can be, given history where societies change their moral values and standards.
In history there's no universal agreement and some societies call good what others call evil at different times. The problem of conflicting subjective judgement.

Yes, the judgements change depending on societies(the subjects). Moral judgements are subjective. Were you agreeing or disagreeing? I’m confused.

[youkrst]

If I am correct then it's true, and if it's true you should believe it.

but didn't you say

if you are correct you have nothing to worry about.

wouldn't the proper correlate be

if you are wrong you have everything to worry about

take no anxious thought eh

[Flann 5]

Flann 5 wrote:
What God does in judgement on human wickedness is not comparable to what a Saddam Hussein does though you might like to think so.



As I mentioned before, the God of the Old Testament frequently ordered wholesale slaughter of entire cities and countries. These war crimes are comparable or even worse than the actions of Saddam Hussein. I don't see how you can think of it otherwise.

There are a couple of separate discussions going on here so I'll try to respond to them separately,so first I'll take the moral objections to the God of the bible.
You couldn't be bothered Landroid, to hear Williams out on his response to your objections and criticisms. You just know that it's obvious that no real moral distinctions can be made between the actions of Saddam Hussein and God. So you dismiss Williams after how many minutes of listening?
There is clearly a difference between Saddam Hussein and God to start with, by definition. You may not believe in a creator God but any critique of the biblical God must at least do so in the framework of that which you are critiquing.

You obviously consider the actions of Saddam Hussein to be "bad behaviour."
Many would agree I think that the allies were morally justified in opposing and fighting against Hitler's genocidal regime on the grounds their actions were morally wrong and needed to be opposed, by force if necessary. Not only that but their surviving leaders were tried for crimes against humanity.
Now you ignore the grounds given in the bible for the command to destroy the Canaanites which includes their burning of their children to death in sacrifice to their gods and moral issues such as bestiality,religious prostitution and others.
On what grounds is God the creator and therefore judge of humanity and the giver of life not justified in judging and even taking their lives?
We hear all the time complaints from some atheists about God's lack of intervention to prevent evil actions by such as Saddam.

As I mentioned before, he referenced moral problems in the bible, then immediately mentioned those were "different cultures and different times." Evidently Williams believes Divinely sanctioned genocide was indeed moral in those cultures and times. Do you agree?

He wasn't justifying the judgement of the Canaanites on a cultural basis or because it's what those cultures did at that time. No the biblical history is of God choosing the people of Israel and miraculous deliverances and an agreed covenant on this basis.
So it is rooted in historical time and Israel had good reason from their experiences to conclude it was divinely sanctioned.
William's give's a multifaceted response and I think it's fair to consider what these responses are as a package before concluding there can be no reasonable response.
I haven't given them all here but the video is linked on this thread.
I suppose the most difficult problem is the inclusion of children in this judgement. I don't have a good answer for that except that God may have justifying reasons based on omniscience and future knowledge.
As giver of life he can take life as Job put it. And children from a biblical perspective have an eternal existence and there is every reason to believe that would be overwhelmingly good so there's a weighing of these things required.
Paul Copan argues that there is the use of hyperbolic language in the text so that the actual event was not the destruction of everything that breathes.
There is some good basis for this such as the command to drive them out of the land and the threat to Israel that if they practiced the abominations of the Canaanites "the land would vomit them out" in the same way, which we find for Israel in the Babylonian captivity.
I think God can be justified in punishing evildoing and don't use the driving them out as a claim to say that he wasn't justified, but perhaps this was less severe in judgement than appears at first glance.

Here's Copan's talk on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60iXt47VfJE Does God command Genocide?

Most people agree genocide is no longer a valid means of Divine punishment or correction. This indicates, as you and my signature line imply, that even moral systems supposedly based on Eternal Divine standards "evolve" over time.

However many Christians still seem to hold onto these Old Testament standards, frequently citing the sinful nature of the local population when a natural disaster strikes.

Divine standards evolving? As Williams points out you have God's ideal at the beginning and end. God deal's with Israel as fallen people and Jesus even said that it was because of the hardness of their hearts that they had their divorce laws.

And again sanctioning revolution by Roman slaves was not a good idea for obvious reasons and the principle of the kingdom of God is essentially inner and moral in contrast to the old covenant.
I'm not so sure we are talking about evolving standards. God intervened and judged evil behaviour in the past also as an example that he does do this and will ultimately hold mankind accountable..
So God is not attempting to impose a theocratic system of laws on all humanity. We have commands,the gospel and the promise of future accountability for our chosen actions.
I think all legitimate means are good to improve society and while some 'Christians' sought to use the bible as justification for the horrors of antebellum slavery I think this tells you more about selfishness and callousness in some humans than anything else.
There were Christians who opposed it too.
You can find the same kind of phenomenon in Stalinist Russia with their grim enforced labour in Siberia etc.
We simply can't say anything about natural disasters and I would agree with you that those Christians who do this are often clearly mistaken, and it's unwarranted.

[Interbane]

I think God can be justified in punishing evildoing and don't use the driving them out as a claim to say that he wasn't justified, but perhaps this was less severe in judgement than appears at first glance.

You you believe in the flood?

[Flann 5]

Flann wrote:
I think God can be justified in punishing evildoing and don't use the driving them out as a claim to say that he wasn't justified, but perhaps this was less severe in judgement than appears at first glance.




You you believe in the flood?

Hi Interbane, I'm considering your explanation on morality and how it's judged and will attempt a response to it.

I do believe in the flood. I won't put words in your mouth but let you say what I expect you will.