Having a problem believing in Hell

[Betterave]

We must resort to speculation, since the information is missing.

I just wanted to point out that conceptual analysis is different from speculation and that it is in fact a basic step in reasoning carefully about anything which has nothing to do with “the information being missing.”

 

[Spock]

You seem to be implying that I am supposed to be examining the first scenario you presented - why? What problem to you take me to be ‘contaminating’ and how am I ‘contaminating’ it?

Because it presents the circumstances which make it obvious that “good” and “bad” cannot be defined meaningfully if there are no living entities around. You may agree or disagree. If you agree, then what are we talking about? If you disagree and you say that good and bad can be meaningfully defined even in the absence of living entities, then please present your suggested definition.

I don’t wish to present a different definition.

Well, there you go. Do you imply that you agree with the definition I presented? (To recap: “good” is that promotes life or increases its “pleasantness”.) If you agree, then what are we arguing about?

That is not my point at all. Again: I’m just trying to understand your reason for making ‘life’ a necessary and sufficient condition for ascriptions of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ I’m trying to understand what exactly you mean when you make that claim. You seem to want to say that it is just obvious? But again, I don’t think it is, and I think that is why you can’t just answer my question:

If you don’t think it is obvious, then it is incumbent upon you to present a better definition.

Now suppose Godzilla also stepped on man’s rose bush before finally limping away. Now you say that the wrecking of the car is not relevant to the car, only to the human owner of it (who probably considers it a good exchange for his life). My question is: why wouldn’t you also say that the wrecking of the rose bush is not relevant to the rose bush, only the human owner of it? This is the question I keep coming back to and you keep dodging it.

But I am not dodging it. The answer follows from the definition presented.

You claim that I have somehow ‘contaminated’ the problem, but my question about the rosebush ‘contaminates’ what exactly? I don’t see how that charge makes sense: with respect to what issue is my question a red herring??

You neglected the first, basic scenario, which gives an example why the “good” and “bad” are meaningless if there are no living entities around.

 

[Spock]

I just wanted to point out that conceptual analysis is different from speculation and that it is in fact a basic step in reasoning carefully about anything which has nothing to do with “the information being missing.”

I agree, if there is some starting point which can form the foundation of a conceptual analysis. We probably would disagree upon the nature of such starting point.

 

[Betterave]

Because it presents the circumstances which make it obvious that “good” and “bad” cannot be defined meaningfully if there are no living entities around. You may agree or disagree. If you agree, then what are we talking about? If you disagree and you say that good and bad can be meaningfully defined even in the absence of living entities, then please present your suggested definition.

What are we talking about? I’m trying to get you to explain your position, including your grounds for holding it. I’m searching for understanding, not just agreement or disagreement.

Well, there you go. Do you imply that you agree with the definition I presented? (To recap: “good” is that promotes life or increases its “pleasantness”.) If you agree, then what are we arguing about?

I’m trying to understand, not (just) argue.

If you don’t think it is obvious, then it is incumbent upon you to present a better definition.

No, it is only incumbent on me to explain why I don’t think it is obvious (and I think it is obvious that that is all that is incumbent on me ).

But I am not dodging it. The answer follows from the definition presented.

But the question remains: where does your definition come from? What justifies it? Does it justify the corollaries which you take to follow from it? What else does it imply with regard to the bigger questions about the cosmos? “That’s my definition and I’m sticking to it” isn’t helpful here.

You neglected the first, basic scenario, which gives an example why the “good” and “bad” are meaningless if there are no living entities around.

You simply stated:

1. An environment where there are no living beings. In such an environment, the concepts of “good” and “bad” cannot be defined. For example, the tide waves will polish the pebbles of the beach to a nice, round shape, but neither the tide nor the pebbles “care”. To be round and smooth is not “better” for the pebbles than to be rough.
   You give an example here, yes, but that isn’t really helpful as far as a conceptual analysis of what it is about ‘life’ that a) differentiates it from non-life and b) functions as the necessary and sufficient condition for ascriptions of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ You don’t tell us *why *it is not better for the pebbles to be one way or another. Is it simply because they are not alive, and there’s nothing more to be said about it? Or is it because the pebbles don’t have a ‘perspective’ or a ‘telos’/‘purpose’? Is it because they are not part of anything ‘bigger’ than themselves? Is it because you just don’t care about pebbles? (The danger is always there when you are considering “an environment where there are no living beings” that you forget that you are a living being, who in the act of conceiving of such a situation may be projecting his own ‘living’ perspectives into the situation so as to constitute it on the basis of yourself and your concerns, as opposed to a basis of simply what it is.)

You just seem to be arguing circularly: there is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ IFF there is life since life is necessary and sufficient for there to be a ‘good’ and ‘bad.’

 

[Spock]

But the question remains: where does your definition come from? What justifies it? Does it justify the corollaries which you take to follow from it? What else does it imply with regard to the bigger questions about the cosmos? “That’s my definition and I’m sticking to it” isn’t helpful here.

But it is not “my” definition. We call something “good”, if it is beneficial, useful, etc… all the synonyms cover a positive assessment. Likewise the word “bad” is synonymous with harmful, etc… a negative assessment.

How could these concepts be applied to a rock, or sand, or water, or air, or a planet, a star, a galaxy, etc? I cannot see how they could. If you can make an argument to the contrary, I am here to listen. Just give me an example how could an inanimate object benefit from an action or how could it be harmed by an action?

You simply stated:

1. An environment where there are no living beings. In such an environment, the concepts of “good” and “bad” cannot be defined. For example, the tide waves will polish the pebbles of the beach to a nice, round shape, but neither the tide nor the pebbles “care”. To be round and smooth is not “better” for the pebbles than to be rough.
   You give an example here, yes, but that isn’t really helpful as far as a conceptual analysis of what it is about ‘life’ that a) differentiates it from non-life and b) functions as the necessary and sufficient condition for ascriptions of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ You don’t tell us *why *it is not better for the pebbles to be one way or another. Is it simply because they are not alive, and there’s nothing more to be said about it? Or is it because the pebbles don’t have a ‘perspective’ or a ‘telos’/‘purpose’? Is it because they are not part of anything ‘bigger’ than themselves? Is it because you just don’t care about pebbles? (The danger is always there when you are considering “an environment where there are no living beings” that you forget that you are a living being, who in the act of conceiving of such a situation may be projecting his own ‘living’ perspectives into the situation so as to constitute it on the basis of yourself and your concerns, as opposed to a basis of simply what it is.)

You just seem to be arguing circularly: there is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ IFF there is life since life is necessary and sufficient for there to be a ‘good’ and ‘bad.’

For a living object it is obvious. If you break a stone into pieces, they will still be smaller stones. If you cut down a tree, it will cease to be a “tree”, it will become dead wood. If you shoot an animal, it will cease to be that animal, it will turn into rotting meat.

The point is that all living entities attempt to preserve their existence, propagate their existence, and try to avoid extinction. It is their biological “imperative”.

We, as humans consciously try to avoid the negative experiences, and accumulate the positive ones. We observe the same kind of behavior in other living beings, and extrapolate our behavior onto them.

 

[Betterave]

But it is not “my” definition. We call something “good”, if it is beneficial, useful, etc… all the synonyms cover a positive assessment. Likewise the word “bad” is synonymous with harmful, etc… a negative assessment.

That’s irrelevant and untrue. It still needs to be explained, whether it’s *exclusively *‘yours’ or not, and it *is *‘yours,’ even if *not exclusively *yours.

How could these concepts be applied to a rock, or sand, or water, or air, or a planet, a star, a galaxy, etc? I cannot see how they could. If you can make an argument to the contrary, I am here to listen. Just give me an example how could an inanimate object benefit from an action or how could it be harmed by an action?

Well obviously these things come to be and stay in existence (‘attempt’ to preserve their existence) and pass out of existence just like living things. If that is what makes ‘good’ and ‘bad’ to apply to living things, why not also to these non-living things?

For a living object it is obvious. If you break a stone into pieces, they will still be smaller stones. If you cut down a tree, it will cease to be a “tree”, it will become dead wood. If you shoot an animal, it will cease to be that animal, it will turn into rotting meat.

Will the stones just be smaller stones? Maybe, but so what? That is a tiny snippet from the life cycle of stones as such. You might as well say, “You cut a branch off a tree, it won’t cease to be a tree. You shear a sheep’s wool, it won’t cease to be that animal.” Sure, but that’s irrelevant to the bigger picture.

But regardless, what justifies you in saying that ceasing to exist is ‘bad’ for an animal?..

You say: “The point is that all living entities attempt to preserve their existence, propagate their existence, and try to avoid extinction. It is their biological ‘imperative’.”

First, they don’t really ‘attempt’ to avoid extinction - they just do what they do as members of their species, and this ‘doing’ in fact includes actions which tend towards the propagation of the species, provided favorable conditions obtain; if favorable conditions don’t obtain, they don’t ‘attempt’ to do anything about it. But in any case, so what? Are ‘biological imperatives’ themselves good, such that their satisfaction is ‘good’ and their frustration ‘bad’? If they are, then why not say the same for ‘geological imperatives’ or ‘astrophysical imperatives’ or ‘hydrological imperatives’?

We, as humans consciously try to avoid the negative experiences, and accumulate the positive ones. We observe the same kind of behavior in other living beings, and extrapolate our behavior onto them.

And this brings us to the big question: Is that extrapolation from our conscious experience justified? How?

(Then we might wonder: Why do we extrapolate like this? What does our tendency to do so say about us and about the cosmos?)

 

[Spock]

That’s irrelevant and untrue.

What is irrelevant? And what is “untrue”? The definition of what is good and what is bad? How can a simple definition be “untrue”? You may disagree with this definition, and I already asked you quite a few times if you do. So far you turned it down. Therefore I will make the (tentative) conclusion that you agree with this definition. Btw, I would appreciate if you declared explictly if you agree or not. I have no problem with you asking these questions and I answering them, but could you answer my question, just once in a while?

It still needs to be explained, whether it’s *exclusively *‘yours’ or not, and it *is *‘yours,’ even if *not exclusively *yours.

Why does it “need” to be explained? If I would say that the definition of a circle is the collection of all the points which are at the same distance from one set point, would you demand “why” do I hold this definition? But since you insist, I hold this definition because that is the only rational defintion in town.

And this brings us to the big question: Is that extrapolation from our conscious experience justified? How?

What kind of justification are you looking for? My justification is simple: I use “the duck principle”. (If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it tastes like duck, it is very probably a duck.)

I happened to bruise myself before, and I did not like it, because it was painful. When I see someone else to get a bruise, I will compare his incident with mine, and come to the conclusion that he is pain, just like I was. He acts as if he were in pain, therefore I conclude that he is in pain. (Yes, I am aware that he could be a good actor, who only wishes to fool me.)

(Then we might wonder: Why do we extrapolate like this? What does our tendency to do so say about us and about the cosmos?)

It says nothing about the cosmos. It says a lot about us. We are very similar biological beings, so we can put ourselves into someone else’s shoes, and develop empathy. And empathy is a useful evolutionary trait. We can empathize with higher forms of animals, too, since they are also close to us biologically speaking.

 

[Betterave]

What is irrelevant? And what is “untrue”?

Your statement: “But it is not ‘my’ definition.” That statement is irrelevant and untrue.

The definition of what is good and what is bad? How can a simple definition be “untrue”? You may disagree with this definition, and I already asked you quite a few times if you do. So far you turned it down.

Exactly: and I already told you quite a few times what I’m looking for.

Therefore I will make the (tentative) conclusion that you agree with this definition. Btw, I would appreciate if you declared explictly if you agree or not. I have no problem with you asking these questions and I answering them, but could you answer my question, just once in a while?

I always answer your questions, Spock. You have made assertions about ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ Whether or not those assertions are correct, I am trying to ascertain why you think they are correct. I won’t know whether I agree or disagree with you until I get some answers to my questions.
(I do hope you can think about how this works and that it will make sense to you.)

Why does it “need” to be explained? If I would say that the definition of a circle is the collection of all the points which are at the same distance from one set point, would you demand “why” do I hold this definition? But since you insist, I hold this definition because that is the only rational defintion in town.

In other words, you just think it’s obvious, so you don’t want to consider objections and answer questions about it?

What kind of justification are you looking for? My justification is simple: I use “the duck principle”. (If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it tastes like duck, it is very probably a duck.)

I happened to bruise myself before, and I did not like it, because it was painful. When I see someone else to get a bruise, I will compare his incident with mine, and come to the conclusion that he is pain, just like I was. He acts as if he were in pain, therefore I conclude that he is in pain. (Yes, I am aware that he could be a good actor, who only wishes to fool me.)

Spock! Please, man, that is so obviously a red herring response to my question. When did you ever see a plant get bruised and ‘act’ as if it was in pain? I don’t think plants are good actors, ever.

It says nothing about the cosmos. It says a lot about us. We are very similar biological beings, so we can put ourselves into someone else’s shoes, and develop empathy. And empathy is a useful evolutionary trait. We can empathize with higher forms of animals, too, since they are also close to us biologically speaking.

Well that’s the conclusion you’ve obviously jumped to. But I think you should slow down and try to think this through more carefully so that you can give some more reasonable answers (real answers, that is) to my questions.

 

[Betterave]

Also: I would appreciate you not simply ignoring many of my questions. It’s easy to blithely assert that your position is the only rational one in town, but that claim becomes rather questionable when you decline to answer critical questions about it. So again:

Quote:
How could these concepts be applied to a rock, or sand, or water, or air, or a planet, a star, a galaxy, etc? I cannot see how they could. If you can make an argument to the contrary, I am here to listen. Just give me an example how could an inanimate object benefit from an action or how could it be harmed by an action?

Well obviously these things come to be and stay in existence (‘attempt’ to preserve their existence) and pass out of existence just like living things. If that is what makes ‘good’ and ‘bad’ to apply to living things, why not also to these non-living things?

Quote:
For a living object it is obvious. If you break a stone into pieces, they will still be smaller stones. If you cut down a tree, it will cease to be a “tree”, it will become dead wood. If you shoot an animal, it will cease to be that animal, it will turn into rotting meat.

Will the stones just be smaller stones? Maybe, but so what? That is a tiny snippet from the ‘life’ cycle of stones as such. You might as well say, “You cut a branch off a tree, it won’t cease to be a tree. You shear a sheep’s wool, it won’t cease to be that animal.” Sure, but that’s irrelevant to the bigger picture.

But regardless, what justifies you in saying that ceasing to exist is ‘bad’ for an animal?..

You say: “The point is that all living entities attempt to preserve their existence, propagate their existence, and try to avoid extinction. It is their biological ‘imperative’.”

First, they don’t really ‘attempt’ to avoid extinction - they just do what they do as members of their species, and this ‘doing’ in fact includes actions which tend towards the propagation of the species, provided favorable conditions obtain; if favorable conditions don’t obtain, they don’t ‘attempt’ to do anything about it. But in any case, so what? Are ‘biological imperatives’ as such themselves ‘good,’ such that their satisfaction is ‘good’ and their frustration ‘bad’? If they are, then why not say the same for ‘geological imperatives’ or ‘astrophysical imperatives’ or ‘hydrological imperatives’?

 

[Betterave]

It says nothing about the cosmos. It says a lot about us. We are very similar biological beings, so we can put ourselves into someone else’s shoes, and develop empathy. And empathy is a useful evolutionary trait. We can empathize with higher forms of animals, too, since they are also close to us biologically speaking.

Spock: I had been enjoying our conversation and was interested to see where it might lead. Now I guess you don’t want to address the objections that I’ve already made, but maybe you’ll be interested in others. So:

When you say “empathy is a ‘useful evolutionary trait’,” could you just as well say “empathy is good” (i.e., “empathy is ‘beneficial’ relative to ‘the biological imperative’”)? But then we should (still) want to know: What is ‘the biological imperative’? Is it good itself? Or is it only the necessary condition of the possibility of ‘goodness’ and ‘badness,’ as you seem to want to claim it is, without really explaining why?