The Riddle of Epicurus

[Pythagras]

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

I disagree with this presumption.

It could be that he respects the free will he endowed us with. We chose God, God does not force his way onto us.

[robertliguori]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**If a man told me that he and I might have two different understandings of what suffering is, I would be ashamed then to ask of him why he believed suffering to be “insignificant”, as though his difference with me must be nefarious in its conception since I alone hold the proper view. I hope that I would suppress my inclination to pelt him with such questions as whether he has stopped beating his wife, and whether he supports the tyrannical U.S. government. Just yes or no, please.
**

No, I have not stopped beating my wife. Because to stop, I would need to start beating my wife. And get married.
Alright, let’s get terms straight. If a heavy weight were to quantum-tunnel its way above your head and fall on you, then…actually, I’d think it would be pretty funny, provided you weren’t injured, but I make no claim of loving you. Regardless, I would try to push you out of the way, because I believe that the atoms in the chemical receptors in the nerves travelling from scalp to brain, while morally neutral, would still hurt like hell. Do you claim that if you were hit on the head with something heavy, you wouldn’t suffer?

**
Likewise, if a man had explained to everyone in the community forty ways from Sunday, and as many times besides, that while the atoms are amoral, the spirit is not, I would do whatever is necessary to restrain my primal propensity — born, apparently, of an irresistible urge to ridicule him for his heretical views — to run out onto the street, frothing at the mouth, and growling at him about whether this manifestion of the atoms is morally superior to that one.

**

Lib, is the manifestation of atoms of me exhibiting love nothing compared to the actual love that is being felt? If so, does that mean that a person who loves someone but doesn’t do anything
to act on that love is just as good, in God’s eyes, as those who act on their love?

[quietly, lest Godwin’s extended family flay and rend me]
What about the love pedophiles claim to feel for their victims?
[/quietly]

**
If a man had said before — once, twice, and even a hundred times — that a moral enactment is not the movement of atoms through time and space, but the movement of goodness through the conduit of love, then I would be embarrassed to display in front of everyone that I cannot discern whether in general goodness is better facilitated by chopping heads off with axes or by hugging people.

**

I don’t get embarrased. And, positing that you are correct: Would it not follow that if someone loved someone else and wanted them to be happy, they would send them to a state of eternal, infinite love? And, if the configuration of atoms of person minus head is morally equal to the configuration of person plus snuggles, then why is my decision to enact one choice or the other a moral one?

[/QUOTE]
**

**
If I could not understand that an amoral mis-en-scene might provide a context for making moral decisions, I would just keep my mouth shut.

**
First, I’m not you, and I’m not keeping my mouth shut. I don’t understand how if two outcomes are both amoral, choosing one becomes moral. Either people - heads = bad, and God is a mofo for leaving all sorts of edges around where they can go and decapitate people, or people - heads != bad, which implies that me chopping off your head is not a moral decision.

Lib, if I stole someone’s live savings to see if they would starve or steal, I would be a mofo. Even if that it was somehow my money, and I had the right to take their money, I would have to be a real bastard to do so for the express purpouse of making the poor guy choose between theft and starvation.

So, why is God vindicated when he does this?

**

Or failing that, rather than ask monumentally bizarre questions, I would put forward a theory of my own. Of course, if I did that, I would have to defend it. But then crouching in the shadows and throwing rocks at passers-by is not my preferred style. **

Alright. “In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.” (-Pterry) Then there was lots of space and quantas of energy floating around, which coalesced into subatomic particles, hydrogen, etc.

Stir and wait billions of years.

Note the natural formation of one planet where static discharges from atmospheric friction end up binding basic common elements into amino acids. Stir these acids with tidal action, UV light, and microspheres of lipids, and you get a long molecoule that has the odd property of making a replica of itself when exposed to more amino acids.

Wait a little longer, and you get what we call life.

Oh, yeah, since we are all there is is us, it is not immoral to whack someone over the head with an ax. It is damn stupid to do so, however.

[welby]

*Originally posted by astorian *
**A highly imperfect analogy:

A father allows his child to pour himself a glass of milk. The child can’t handle it, and ends up pouring milk all over the table and the floor.

Now, did this HAVE to happen? Of course not. The father could have poured the milk FOR the child, and the whole mess need never have happened. So, was the father malevolent? Was it his “will” that the child spill his milk? No! It was the father’s will that the child pour the milk into the glass without spilling a drop. But the father allowed the child to try something he knew that child might not be able to do. Epicurus could argue, then, that the father “allowed” this accident to happen. But would that make him a cruel sadist? Hardly.**

It would depend. Did the father punish the child for spilling the milk? If no, then I agree. If yes, then he’s a sadist.

Accoridng to most religions, I’d go to hell for spilling the milk.

[toadspittle]

Human-induced suffering muddies things considerably. But what about earthquakes, tornadoes, droughts, malaria, etc.? These are not human-induced.

Unless we blame ALL misfortune on Adam & Eve … i.e., if they hadn’t f’d up in the garden, we’d still all be living in paradise–but that begs the question of exactly how much punishment God is justified in heaping out on their descendents for eating that fruit. Isn’t it ever enough? Or do billions have to suffer and do just because of that one act? Seems God would have been more merciful to have killed those two swiftly and painlessly immediately after the act rather than tormenting (for He created the conditions of the harsh world they were cast into) their kids for ever and ever and ever.

[Liberal]

Lib, is the manifestation of atoms of me exhibiting love nothing compared to the actual love that is being felt? If so, does that mean that a person who loves someone but doesn’t do anything
to act on that love is just as good, in God’s eyes, as those who act on their love?

Love is the facilitation of goodness. Sometimes goodness is facilitated by action, and sometimes by inaction.

[robertliguori]

Define goodness, please.

If it is good for you not to have something heavy dropped on your head, then God would be ungood for not shoving it/you out of the way. Conversely, if it is good for you to have something heavy dropped on your head, then God is ungood for not bashing you on the head. Is physical harm therefore neither good nor bad?

Re: the amorality of the universe: A gun is amoral. Shooting someone with a gun is (maybe) immoral. Shooting an infant with a gun for no reason is certainly immoral. So, even if Sudden Infant Death syndrome is itself immoral, is God not therefore immoral for shooting us with it?

And if we cannot say that God’s actions can be judged on our moral scale, how can we call him moral, or loving, or anything at all?

[Liberal]

Goodness is the aesthetic most valued by God. My dictionary says, “The quality of being good in any of its various senses; excellence; virtue; kindness; benevolence; as, the goodness of timber, of a soil, of food; goodness of character, of disposition, of conduct, etc.” — Webster’s Unabridged

(Do you think they should prove their definition? ;))

[robertliguori]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**Goodness is the aesthetic most valued by God. My dictionary says, “The quality of being good in any of its various senses; excellence; virtue; kindness; benevolence; as, the goodness of timber, of a soil, of food; goodness of character, of disposition, of conduct, etc.” — Webster’s Unabridged

(Do you think they should prove their definition? ;)) **

Goodness: The quality of being good
[snort]

Well, is it excellent, virtuous, kind, or benevolent to drop heavy things on people? God does quite a lot of that, you know.

Lib, can you look at the empirical data presented about the universe and conclude that its creator and sustainer values goodness?

Well, you can, actually. You could point out how things like the black plague and smallpox kill off people to prevent overpopulation. To which I would reply: An omnipotent God could make there be less people in ways which don’t involve agonizing death. The fact that God created a universe with the foreknowledge that the Black Plague would kill off vast numbers of people, and failed to twiddle its DNA into something harmless when it did appear, would therefore imply that it was, as the flagellists stated, the will of God, would it not?

It seems to me that God values leaving the universe alone more than He values goodness.

[Liberal]

The universe is amoral.

[robertliguori]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**The universe is amoral. **

• Originally posted by robertliguori before Lib posted *
  **
  A gun is amoral. Shooting someone with a gun is (maybe) immoral. Shooting an infant with a gun for no reason is certainly immoral. So, even if Sudden Infant Death syndrome is itself immoral, is God not therefore immoral for shooting us with it?
  **

[X_Slayer_ALE]

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

It IS actually this one but with one qualifier. God is also infallible, which means God can do no wrong which means God can not be maelvolent. God is not willing to prevent evil because he respects mankinds free will. In the universal scheme of things, what is evil in the scale of one lifetime compared to the eternal span of the soul?

[robertliguori]

If God respects free will, then why did he tell Adam not to eat the apple?

[Liberal]

I don’t know. I don’t understand that whole story.

[X_Slayer_ALE]

If God didnt respect free will, he wouldve made adam incapable of eating the forbidden fruit.
BTW, when did forbidden fruit = apple?

[Liberal]

Does anyone know the origin of the “riddle”?

[armedmonkey]

There is a VERY basic flaw in the riddle of epicurious and in these type of discussions in general. It cannot be assumed that we know what “evil” is. Talk of “empirical data in the universe” is ridiculous because we can’t define evil without the extra dimmension provided by the divine. We are trying to measure density in cubic centimeters. The task is impossible without the extra dimmension. God gives mass to morality.

And since we poor hairless apes can’t take the measure of God, we cannot know what “evil” is, but only what is “bad” or “unpleasant”.

To throw another imperfect analogy on to the pile. A dog would consider you “evil” if he knew you were taking him to the vet to get his testicles lopped off. You are not doing it out of malevolence - but you also aren’t really doing it for the benefit of the dog, either. You are doing it for the benefit of all dogs and you do not expect the dog to understand it. He very well may ask himself:
Was Master willing to prevent the lopping off of my balls, but not able?
>Then he is not particlualrly poweful.
Is he able, but not willing?
>Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
>Then why the pain?
Is he neither able nor willing?
>Then why call him God?

Fido would ask these questions only because he does not understand, and doesn’t even have the capacity to understand.

*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) *
**BTW, when did forbidden fruit = apple? **

It’s a plot by the pear industry.

[armedmonkey]

Er, that last one should be “Why call him Master?”

[dalovindj]

According to this (and one or two others) website, it was “Epicurus, quoted from Erik Hoepfinger, personal note to Cliff Walker, July 9, 2001.”

DaLovin’ Dj

[robertliguori]

If I had the power, I would keep the dog population at a reasonable level, and let Fido screw to his heart’s content.
Master does not claim to be omnipotent. God does.

[dalovindj]

It cannot be assumed that we know what “evil” is.

True enough, but can we assume that evil (whatever it is) exists at all? If you posit that evil exists, then god is malevolent if he is able and not willing to destroy it. I could be convinced that there is no such thing as evil, but that would certainly run contradictory to most religious worldviews who maintain that evil certainly does exist.

DaLovin’ Dj