Epicurus' question

[WarriorAngel]

I think the point you were driving at originally is that we don’t have a sense of right and wrong. I believe we do, though that doesn’t mean that these ideas can’t be persuaded to believe something else.

That’s been one of my points for quite some time.
If there were no God or Justice, mankind wouldnt know good from evil because there wouldnt be a set way for us to know that - neither in our hearts nor in our laws. In fact - laws wouldnt even exist if they didnt emulate the laws of God.

How else would we ever know right from wrong - since it isnt an instinct to know. Certainly animals dont rationalize right from wrong. They are driven purely by instinct and if there were not a God, nor His Good to immitate from, we would all be like animals.

I could make a list [tired again lol]
List would or might include;
Eating our babies [altho technically i have heard this is done in a certain country now from aborted…nm]
Killing the folks who wouldnt survive anyway, oops i see that beginning to occur too]
Killing randomly because who would say if that was bad or good.
Stealing would be non issue, because after all we covet and so we take.

etc etc etc

Just wanted to give another point of interest.

 

[Shike]

but i have a distinctly catholic view of right and wrong, people not following that standard are living immoraly, i know thats not popular but i dont care about political correctness, i care about how G-d sees me.

      I'm busting in the convo, I read all the posts.  I can see where Petey (I hope it's okay to call you this) is coming from.  It seems like he is saying there is no natural law, something built into human nature totally distinct from revelation.  But if there is no natural law, it would be pretty easy to dismiss the original problem of evil in the OP.  One would just say the OP is wrong and leave it at that.  On the issue of abortion, one would just say that they're wrong and leave it at that.  It seems that although there is an objective right and wrong, people who don't have access to revelation can't know it; and if someone without revelation does something good, well, that's only by accident.  I disagree.

I apologize if that’s not what you’re saying Petey, but that’s what I took away.

This is a long shot, but are you perhaps saying what you say based upon Aquinas? If you are, it would seem that you’re not giving the whole story. His view was that every choice we choose we do so because we think we see good in it, whether implicitly or explicitly. That doesn’t necessarily preclude from knowing that what one is choosing is wrong.

Not conscience of the perceived good, and do the objectively wrong action anyway:
One implicitly sees good and knows it’s wrong- Perhaps the passions? Free-will is still involved to a greater or less degree (for instance, addiction). Attributed to nature.
One implicitly sees good and doesn’t know it’s wrong- Perhaps the passions. Free-will is still involved to a greater or less degree. Attributed to ignorance and nature. Perhaps formed through bad habit as well.

Conscience of the perceived good:
One explicitly sees good and knows it’s wrong - Or one can choose it anyway, being confused by the doctrine of utilitarianism (but they still know the action is wrong). Free-will is still involved. Ignorance.
One explicitly sees good and doesn’t know it’s wrong – What you seem to be saying. Free-will is still involved. Although one might have known at one point something is wrong, through habit one can mold his conscience to not bother him anymore.

But there is overwhelming evidence for natural law… it’s there right when we pop out of the womb. That isn’t to say it’s not changeable to a certain degree through habit. And original sin might have to do with the fact that we don’t seem to infallibly know right from wrong at the outset… but that doesn’t mean we don’t know anything.

But if your point is that we can’t know morality infallibly without revelation, you might be right. Even with revelation however, it sometimes still remains difficult to judge particular cases mostly due to our fallen nature and even still our ignorance.

peace,
Michael

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m busting in the convo, I read all the posts. I can see where Petey (I hope it’s okay to call you this) is coming from. It seems like he is saying there is no natural law, something built into human nature totally distinct from revelation. But if there is no natural law, it would be pretty easy to dismiss the original problem of evil in the OP. One would just say the OP is wrong and leave it at that. On the issue of abortion, one would just say that they’re wrong and leave it at that. It seems that although there is an objective right and wrong, people who don’t have access to revelation can’t know it; and if someone without revelation does something good, well, that’s only by accident. I disagree.

I apologize if that’s not what you’re saying Petey, but that’s what I took away.

This is a long shot, but are you perhaps saying what you say based upon Aquinas? If you are, it would seem that you’re not giving the whole story. His view was that every choice we choose we do so because we think we see good in it, whether implicitly or explicitly. That doesn’t necessarily preclude from knowing that what one is choosing is wrong.

Not conscience of the perceived good, and do the objectively wrong action anyway:
One implicitly sees good and knows it’s wrong- Perhaps the passions? Free-will is still involved to a greater or less degree (for instance, addiction). Attributed to nature.
One implicitly sees good and doesn’t know it’s wrong- Perhaps the passions. Free-will is still involved to a greater or less degree. Attributed to ignorance and nature. Perhaps formed through bad habit as well.

Conscience of the perceived good:
One explicitly sees good and knows it’s wrong - Or one can choose it anyway, being confused by the doctrine of utilitarianism (but they still know the action is wrong). Free-will is still involved. Ignorance.
One explicitly sees good and doesn’t know it’s wrong – What you seem to be saying. Free-will is still involved. Although one might have known at one point something is wrong, through habit one can mold his conscience to not bother him anymore.

But there is overwhelming evidence for natural law… it’s there right when we pop out of the womb. That isn’t to say it’s not changeable to a certain degree through habit. And original sin might have to do with the fact that we don’t seem to infallibly know right from wrong at the outset… but that doesn’t mean we don’t know anything.

But if your point is that we can’t know morality infallibly without revelation, you might be right. Even with revelation however, it sometimes still remains difficult to judge particular cases mostly due to our fallen nature and even still our ignorance.

peace,
Michael

i wasn’t trying to say that at all.

im only saying that the flaw is in human nature.

i wasn’t making an argument based on anyting, its just an observation of human activity.

i didn’t know that statement was so loaded

 

[WarriorAngel]

Where did Wm go?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Please excuse my limited understanding of this subject.
I apologize if this old (and outdated) philosopher’s question has been answered in this forum… I have a number of answers to this, but they seem… somehow unsatisfactory.

Who am I to label the Bible’s answers unsatisfactory? Well, I’m nobody… and I understand that it matters not what I think, but I hope that someone would be kind enough to offer their knowledge on the subject, and for it I will be very appreciative.

Thanks -

This question is the subject of another thread… ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Read John Paul 2’s Salvifici Doloris. Suffering can be a source of good for the sufferer themselves, not just those around them.

Remind me to tell that to the next person I hear of who’s been flown off somewhere to have his genitalia sliced with razor-blades by the nice people interrogating him. ​

My brother may be willing to use the sufferings entailed in his own starvation, unite them with Christ’s sufferings, for the salvation of souls and his own sanctification. Many saints have done this with their own various illnesses and sufferings.

As to why suffering is not INVARIABLY used for good - that gets back to free-will, I’m afraid. We have the free will to use our sufferings for good or ill.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Pleasure as absence of suffering
Epicurus’ philosophy is based on the theory that all good and bad derive from the sensations of pleasure and pain. What is good is what is pleasurable, and what is bad is what is painful. Pleasure and pain were ultimately, for Epicurus, the basis for the moral distinction between good and bad. If pain is chosen over pleasure in some cases it is only because it leads to a greater pleasure. Although Epicurus has been commonly misunderstood to advocate the rampant pursuit of pleasure, (primarily through the influence of Christian polemics) what he was really after was the absence of pain (both physical and mental, i.e., suffering) - a state of satiation and tranquility that was free of the fear of death and the retribution of the gods. When we do not suffer pain, we are no longer in need of pleasure, and we enter a state of ‘perfect mental peace’ (ataraxia).
Epicurus explicitly warned against overindulgence because it often leads to pain. For instance, in what might be described as a “hangover” theory, Epicurus warned against pursuing love too ardently. However, having a circle of friends you can trust is one of the most important means for securing a tranquil life.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

A pagan philosopher seeking answers to the enigma of life.
Close he was - but lacked certain aspects in actual answers which Christ gave.

Interesting how those things work out…such as God writing His laws into their hearts - leaving them rendered certain aspects of knowing good or bad.