Everyone one has a conscience. It an essential element of our human nature, put there by God.
Belief does not create reality.
Jesus. “I am the way, the truth and the life”
Many incorrect judgements that lead to action, or inaction, are sins. Many are due to malformed consciences. Many are due to going against conscience.
Asserted without evidence.
These types of questions cannot be answered in a generic fashion. Each scenario must be analyzed on its own. Let’s use an example. Sometime a surgery is needed to help a patient. The surgery would be painful if no anesthesia would be applied. Since drugs are available for this purpose, NOT using them would create unnecessary pain.
The subjectivity cannot be avoided. But we must assume that there is a rational being who makes these judgment calls. Just because a child might be scared of a life-saving injection, we do not accept that irrational fear to be the arbiter.
If they are the only ones who are affected, let’s respect their wishes. The sooner they disappear from the gene-pool, the better.
Yes, and we should respect their stupidity.
That is the only way to form a conscience. It takes many years and a lot of effort. Since we are both individuals and “herd animals” we need to learn to balance these two sides of our nature.
Good example.
I see that in your religious affiliation you put: It’s All Greek To Me
davidv,
Analyzed by whom?? Logic and reason do not apply themselves. A “who” applies them. If your contention is that “logic and reason are not contingent upon who professes it”, then you are going to have to explain how logic decides without a “who”. Otherwise, I’m just going to assume you are being silly. In fact, the example you just gave was not reason and logic applying itself…it was YOU applying reason and logic.
Exactly. And, according to your definition of evil, evil just became a moot point, because “what is necessary” is subjective, and so is “evil”, according to your definition. It now means nothing at all.
If this is true, then “evil” doesn’t have meaning. It’s just one person’s opinion vs. another’s. There is no logical basis to call anything “evil” if it’s subjective. If “evil” is to mean anything at all, it must be based in absolute truth. Anything less is meaningless.
Ah, so you DON’T really believe that reason and logic decide anything. You DO believe there is a “who”, who must apply that reason and logic.
His/her parents might ALSO have a fear of the injection. And it might be due to actually studying the ingredients of the injection and they may know it to cause harm. The inoculation might really be harmful (some really are to some people…not to mention actual allergies to certain ones by certain people). Are you saying that people are not free to decide for themselves what is good vs. harmful to them?
Sure, I agree with you. But not every case is so cut and dry. Who decides when a fear is “irrational” in those cases? Who decides when a desire is disordered, or proper, etc.? On the one hand, you seem to say that there should be one person to decide all this…one rational being to apply reason and logic. But I bet that if that one person/being disagrees with your reason and logic, you will object, will you not? In other words, all your responses point to YOU being the arbiter of the truth of what is evil or not. I would say, rather, that God is.
And who decides who the “rational” people are? Who decides the “lunatics”? I know many people who profess themselves to be rational that I consider lunatics. I know even a couple people who are thought to be lunatics who are actually quite rational. Who gets to decide? You?
The sooner WHO disappears from the gene-pool? People who think and make their own decisions about what is/isn’t harmful??
You are begging the question again. Does it not bother you that you have to resort to fallacious reasoning (3rd time now, at least, for circular reasoning) in order to maintain your position? By what objective standard are they “stupid”?
Please do not take it as a verbatim expression. It was meant at least partially: “tongue-in-cheek”. But the truth is that all religions are the same from my perspective. None makes sense… but I do not assert that I am infallible.
Of course I agree that it is not ONLY our parents who play a very important role in forming our conscience. Our whole environment, parents, teachers, churches, friends, etc… all play a role in the process.
Except for the part of God being directly involved in the process, I agree with you. Our conscience is formed in a very complex way. We learn that certain actions are fine, others are wrong. And, yes… it is all relative to the culture. In the medieval Japanese society the samurai were the keepers of the “sacred sword”, they were considered to be the protectors of the emperor, who held the “mandate of heaven”. Whether they were right or wrong is beside the matter… everyone accepted that the samurai had the power to dispense justice. So in that particular society everyone accepted the status quo. This is how their conscience was formed.
Definitely. There is an on-going debate about nature and nurture… what part is due to our inherited traits, and what part is due to our upbringing?
Very kind of you to say it. I am honored.
I am only going to respond to this part - for the time being. Not because your other points do not merit a response, but it is late and I am tired.
There is no question that we are biological beings, and drinking acid would be detrimental to our health. Whether someone disagrees with this - is irrelevant. Let them drink acid, and see where it lands.Which still begs the question (4th time). According to whom?I am only going to respond to this part - for the time being. Not because your other points do not merit a response, but it is late and I am tired.
There is no “god” involved in the process, only the physical reality. If something is physically detrimental to your health and someone administers that substance to you (volitionally and knowingly) that is an “evil” act (unless you agree to this process).
Physically “beneficial” or “detrimental” are NOT subject to debate. Drinking acid is detrimental, no matter what the person “believes”. The only questionable part would be a non-physical effect on us. If someone asserts that taking a picture would “steal” their personality, that assertion is nonsense.
As of this morning’s conversation, no. There is a second. But evil is the topic of discussion for now.
Not always, though. We’re at risk, of course, since we’re imperfect beings. Yet, we continually work at forming habits of virtues and learning more about God’s plan for us… and therefore, we get better at having consciences that are able to help us make good judgments.
Perhaps. On the other hand, ‘being raised in the wild’ doesn’t imply ‘never learned the difference between good and evil’ or even ‘never had opportunities to form one’s own conscience.’ It just means that, perhaps, his conscience hasn’t had the chance to encounter the situations that he will encounter in civilization, so he’s not yet ready to make good judgments in situations there.
Yes; we all do. Serial killers might not listen to it; psychopaths (or, more accurately, ‘sociopaths’) might be unable to listen to it, for a variety of reasons tied to mental disorders. But, we all have that ‘little voice’, whether we listen to it or not.
We’re both doing what PA rankles at when I remind her about it – making claims without attribution: ‘freely asserted, freely denied’, as it were. How, then, are we to determine whether conscience is ‘nature’ or ‘nurture’?
In other words, they make a conscious decision to ignore the little voice. I agree.
Ahh… the big lie of the modern era – “truth is subjective.” Truth is truth; our perceptions of it might differ subjectively, but it cannot simultaneously be truth and be subjective (and therefore, assert mutually exclusive things to various people). Let’s rephrase, then: if one person’s truth and another’s are at odds, then it’s necessary to find where their perceptions are in error.
That’s right. What’s the problem with asserting that sin is based on making bad decisions? It makes the actions no less sinful, and does not inoculate the sinner from being responsible for his poor decisions…
Yes; they had a conscience, too: when they sinned, they knew they’d done wrong. Without a conscience, they wouldn’t have felt badly – they wouldn’t have made up excuses to God when He asked what they’d done. In fact, your appeal to Adam and Eve helps demonstrate that, from the start, humans have had consciences!
It may not work perfectly, but it works. And, it requires our cooperation in order to do so.
I have a nice set of workout videos and weights in my apartment. I’m not big on working out, though, so they sit unused in the corner of a room. Would you really assert that “Gorgias has no exercise equipment”? Or, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “Gorgias has the tools at his disposal, but chooses not to use them?” That’s precisely what we’re saying about those who choose to sin – they have the tools, but they don’t put them into use.
Yes, this is a great point.
Wait! I’m either too tired (also too tired to answer gorgias right now) and didn’t read right, or you better reread what Rhubard said before you speak to your friend.
First of all, who rejects God? In order to reject someone you must be fully aware - not just BELIEVE - of the person’s existence. That immediately excludes all the non-Christians, especially atheists.
Yes, I saw that. The “good point” I was referring to was to begin at showing that God is at least a logical possibility. I would further argue that is doesn’t follow that if God is all 3 of those things (and He is) that therefore evil could not exist…because that conclusion [would be a non sequitur]. Evil can still exist because we still have free will. And God can still be all good because He can make good come from evil situations. And it’s a non sequitur to claim that God isn’t all-powerful just because He chooses not to exercise His power when we think He should.
I’m still waiting on you to decide how you are going to define evil, decide whether every man has a right to decide what is harmful to him, figure out how you are going to reconcile your own definition of evil with the fact that you won’t allow it to apply when someone believes something that you disagree with, and address the circular reasoning you committed 4 times (at least).
Not, “who”, “what”.
The “who” applied to whomever would decide on the "what’. And unless you only accidentally misrepresented my position, I believe this would add a strawman to the now 5 circular reasonings. But hey, why would anyone care about that if everything is subjective anyway?