What has that to do with the question asked-Do you have actual evidence for your belief?
I’m just using a broad line. I’ll say that the line of evil exists somewhere between altruistically risking your life to save another and slowly torturing children to death for the joy of hearing their screams.
We can debate the particulars of where that line between evil and not evil exists, but I am placing random atoms colliding into one another in the primordial soup as not evil. If you can come up with a definition of evil where such a thing is evil, I’ll gladly debate it with you. I’m letting you have the floor, let’s see if your sophistry is as good as mine. My problem is that any definition of evil that I present will likely take us into the realm of the transcendent and I’d rather not go there. I’m assuming that you’re a non-transcendent, so if you believe in evil, then I’ll let you give me a non-transcendent definition that we can debate or agree on. If you don’t believe in evil, then you’re admitting that the world ‘in the beginning’ contained no evil simply because there is no such thing and then we simply have to debate whether it contains evil now.
I’ll just ask then, do you believe that the universe let’s say a week after the Big Bang contained actions that were evil? If you do, tell me those actions.
We have an assertion that it was chaotic which I don’t disagree with. I don’t think that chaos is inherently evil. I presented an example where chaos might be good. Do you disagree or do you think chaos is inherently evil? I would say that the sun is pretty chaotic, but I think that overall, it brings more happiness than suffering to humanity, so I have difficulty saying that the sun is evil.
- Your “line” is too wide to have a debate about.
- What do you suppose the first “injustice” was? Can you at least define “injustice”?
When does chaos become evil, in your eyes?
Just to move the conversation, I cannot conceive of a world without consciousness in which evil exists. Without motive to act or ability to perceive that things are acted on, I do not believe that evil can exist. So, I’ll offer as at least a partial condition of evil that consciousness must be included in some way with the action whether as an actor, an observer or that which is acted on.
Just to make sure the conversation actually moves in a particular direction, I will accept that evil as most use the term requires a conscious decision…but this brings us no closer to a definition of the term itself. If someone asks “What does a rose smell like?” responding with “You must have a nose to smell a rose” clarifies nothing.
senoy: evidence?
Defense against evil is not evil. The same actions used aggressively to cause harm can be justified when used to counter those actions. The idea of simple morality where any act is considered purely wrong despite circumstances is often the precursor of what we consider evil, it promotes hypocrisy, ignorance, and ‘big lies’. Morality is not simple, it requires more understanding of circumstances and results to decide what is moral, the isolated individual acts of ‘good’ or ‘evil’ cannot be separated from their overall effect.
- Evil cannot exist without consciousness
- Shortly after the big bang nothing was conscious
- Evil did not exist shortly after the Big Bang
So the only requirement for your “ideal state” world is that it is sans consciousness?
Wesley Clark: I think your examples are either completely or mostly to do with force and coercion. Even your technological-change category can be viewed as people being coerced to keep up with new technology rather than use older methods.
Is that intentional? Does this question really turn out to be specifically about using coercion (and potentially force) on each other?
Is that what evil is?
For example, you didn’t concentrate on lying, cheating, or stealing.
My ideal state world is only ideal in regards to the existence of evil since this is ultimately a defense of the claim that we are fallen. I offer no conjecture as to what some sort of ‘sum of all perfections’ utopian Big Bang would look like. I don’t have a clue.
IF consciousness is what makes us what we are, then we are not “fallen”. We are where we always were.
Like Hell it is. We know quite well the forces involved in making each molecule of water and ion or molecule of solvate go where it does; we humans don’t have either any reason nor probably the resources to compute it, but Mother Nature sure does.
“I don’t understand it” doesn’t equal “it’s a mess”.
But we are not the universe. The claim velocity made that I am attempting to defend is that we live in a fallen world. We are simply one part of that world (I’m taking world to mean universe, but it might apply to just our particular corner.)
What I am saying is that evil exists now. This means that one of two things happened, either evil has always existed, or there was a point at which evil began. There was a ‘first evil act.’ Maybe that was eating an apple, or maybe it was a T-Rex playing with his food. Regardless, at some point we went from a universe without evil to a universe that had evil in it. I further claimed that without consciousness, there can be no evil. It’s certainly possible that the universe had some form of consciousness acting on it in the beginning, but I think that if we keep this in the physical realm that is unlikely at best. Therefore, at some point evil entered the world. We went from a world without evil to a world with evil and that seems to me to meet the definition of fallen.
So far that’s not a question, nor is it a statement that I would ratify. Continuing…
[ul]
[li]If there are potential attackers out there that you have to worry about, you don’t have peace.[/li]
[li]I vehemently disagree that rough cops make polite interactions more likely[/li]
[li]Social cohesion is created by people reaching accord; what you get when you suppress the insights and understandings that don’t ratify some kind of anointed official truth is not social cohesion but its opposite: a world in which no sanity exists, and in which individuals get to choose between conformity to beliefs that are not true or lack of integration with the others in their society, which in turn tends to result in individuals of each of those two types.[/li]
[/ul]
… then you’ve made the wrong assumption right there. You’ve made the Orthodoxy assumption, the assumption that the framework’s contents don’t exist for a reason, that what is held to be true isn’t true so much as it is held. And that it requires defending and coercively imposing or it will rot and decay.
I’ll certainly concede that. I would also then claim that by that definition chaos doesn’t truly exist and we’re free to ignore it for the purposes of this argument. Qadgop may disagree though.
Acknowledging that a waterfall is not chaotic is not the same thing as claiming that chaos doesn’t/can’t exist.
My own ideas about the nature of evil and/or sin kind of echo those Robert Heinlein:
“Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other “sins” are invented nonsense.”
And also “Sin is cruelty and injustice, all else is peccadillo. Oh, a sense of sin comes from violating the customs of your tribe. But breaking custom is not sin even when it feels so; sin is wronging another person.”
I realize though that my personal definitions are just that-personal. I might think that a certain action clashes with the ethics I have chosen for myself, while another might view the same action as both necessary and justified.