Is evil really the absence of good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicHere_Hi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does a being who is perfect evil exist at all? No. So it is neutral. Something which does not exist is neutral in the sense that it cannot affect anything.
 
Last edited:
Could you please be more specific and tell me what is wrong with my argument? For example, (3) does not follow from (1) and (2).
 
  1. that “being” which you called “good”, are you trying to unite to it?
If yes then it is good to you.
If you are running away from it, then it is evil to you.
If you are neither running from it nor coming to it then it is neither good nor evil to you.
I believe I said as much in my longer piece. Your items 1 and 2 do not equalize with reality.
Click to expand...
Before you can say that (1) “being” is convertible with “good” you must find a way to say that all being is desirable. ( it is true but very few live as if it were true)
(2) when good equals the presence of what I desire then it is very easy to say that the absence of what I desire is evil. Good does not mean good on a pedestal; good means good with my arms wrapped around it; if it is ripped from my arms so that my arms are empty with the absence of that good that I desire, that is evil.

Good and evil are relational terms; they cannot be posited from a transcendent position of disinterest.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
Does a being who is perfect evil exist at all? No. So it is neutral. Something which does not exist is neutral in the sense that it cannot affect anything.
Click to expand...
Yes, non-being considered absolutely is neither good or evil but evil as it might exist in a subject or being is considered a privation which is a non-being in a subject or being. Either way evil as evil cannot effect or affect anything as a cause because a non-being cannot cause anything. Only good which is convertible with being can be a cause and so good or being is the cause of evil such as human beings causing evil. The evil that is effected from a cause is not a pure non-being for an effect has being of some kind from the cause. So the evil in an effect from a cause is some privation of good or being in being.
 
Last edited:
John_Martin said:
  1. that “being” which you called “good”, are you trying to unite to it?
If yes then it is good to you.
If you are running away from it, then it is evil to you.
If you are neither running from it nor coming to it then it is neither good nor evil to you.
I believe I said as much in my longer piece. Your items 1 and 2 do not equalize with reality.
Click to expand...
Totally unrelated to our discussion.
John_Martin said:
Before you can say that (1) “being” is convertible with “good” you must find a way to say that all being is desirable. ( it is true but very few live as if it were true)
Click to expand...
Being is good regardless, otherwise God wouldn’t create.
John_Martin said:
(2) when good equals the presence of what I desire then it is very easy to say that the absence of what I desire is evil. Good does not mean good on a pedestal; good means good with my arms wrapped around it; if it is ripped from my arms so that my arms are empty with the absence of that good that I desire, that is evil.

Good and evil are relational terms; they cannot be posited from a transcendent position of disinterest.
Click to expand...
You are not adding much here. Again, what is wrong with my argument?
Click to expand...
 
Richca said:
Yes, non-being considered absolutely is neither good or evil but evil as it might exist in a subject or being is considered a privation which is a non-being in a subject or being. Either way evil as evil cannot effect or affect anything as a cause because a non-being cannot cause anything. Only good which is convertible with being can be a cause and so good or being is the cause of evil such as human beings causing evil. The evil that is effected from a cause is not a pure non-being for an effect has being of some kind from the cause. So the evil in an effect from a cause is some privation of good or being in being.
Click to expand...
Evil can cause things since you experience it. Just close your finger to fire.
 
STT said:
Evil can cause things since you experience it. Just close your finger to fire.
Click to expand...
My finger is “good” (I desire to have it), and fire is good (I desire it for warmth and cooking), so what evil exists concerning my finger and fire? If I burn my finger, my finger is still good, and the fire is still good. But now there is a defect in my finger - something is missing - some skin is burned away and there are exposed nerves - but my finger is still good, the nerves are still good, but it hurts because something is missing, absent that I do not want to be absent - my skin.
There is no evil existing, there is only the good that I want is missing.
 
John_Martin said:
My finger is “good” (I desire to have it), and fire is good (I desire it for warmth and cooking), so what evil exists concerning my finger and fire? If I burn my finger, my finger is still good, and the fire is still good. But now there is a defect in my finger - something is missing - some skin is burned away and there are exposed nerves - but my finger is still good, the nerves are still good, but it hurts because something is missing, absent that I do not want to be absent - my skin.
There is no evil existing, there is only the good that I want is missing.
Click to expand...
But you experience that fire is burning your finger.
 
STT said:
But you experience that fire is burning your finger
Click to expand...
Yes, the good fire is burning my good finger, and the evil is the absence of good skin, and pain is good as it tells me to protect my finger so that more good skin is not absent - because I prefer what is good to be present rather than what is good to be absent.
 
STT said:
Evil can cause things since you experience it. Just close your finger to fire.
Click to expand...
Fire as fire is not evil. It’s a being and as such is good. Now the pain or hurt experienced by placing a finger in fire is an affectation or passion from the sense of touch in the body of the animal or human and perceived or apprehended as pain or hurt by the soul. The sense of touch is a part of our being and a good of our being for we learn not to place our finger in fire because it causes pain which in this sense is a good. The passions are considered accidents of our being or substance and accidents are beings that inhere in the substance. So the pain or hurt of placing a finger in fire is a passion of the composite animal or human, namely, the soul and body together which has accidental being in the animal or human. But, the pain in the body that is experienced or sensed and apprehended as such is a kind of passion that entails the loss or corruption of a good of the body such as pleasure or the natural temperament or disposition of the body to be without pain. It is this corruption, loss, or privation of the good of the natural temperament of the body to be without pain that is a kind of evil for the body or rather the whole animal or human. And evil is defined as the privation of good.

The objects of the sensitive passions, affectations, or emotions of an animal or human are apprehended as either good or evil. The good is naturally desired for the good is defined as that which all things desire while evil is naturally avoided or shunned. Those things apprehended as good to an animal cause passions or emotions such as love, concupiscence which is desire, hope and pleasure or delight while those things apprehended as evil cause such passions as hate, aversion, despair, fear, and sadness or sorrow.
 
Last edited:
John_Martin said:
Yes, the good fire is burning my good finger, and the evil is the absence of good skin, and pain is good as it tells me to protect my finger so that more good skin is not absent - because I prefer what is good to be present rather than what is good to be absent.
Click to expand...
No, that is evil fire which burns your finger and causes experience of burning. Fire is evil when you use it to burn your finger.
 
Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
 
Richca said:
Fire as fire is not evil.
Click to expand...
Fire can be good or evil or neutral. It is good when you make food for yourself. It is evil when someone tortures you with it. Fire is neutral when you do nothing with it. We have a full spectrum which starts from evil to neural to good.
 
STT said:
Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Click to expand...
Do you know who Cyrus is?
He was the king of Persia.
‘I AM’ (the LORD) sent word to Cyrus how he was going to do great things in co-operation with Cyrus.
He told Cyrus: Isaiah 45:7 "I form light and create darkness; I bring prosperity and create calamity.
I, the LORD, do all these things."
He was telling Cyrus, “You are going to fight, and I will give you victory.”
This verse in Isaiah is not about the metaphysics of good and evil; it is about convincing Cyrus to have courage and go to war.
To all the world it will look like Cyrus did all the work and won the war himself. But he has the promise of ‘I AM’ (the LORD) that he will win before he has even committed to the fights.
[When Cyrus asked “How did you form the light?” the LORD replied, “I put the sun and stars in the heavens.”
When Cyrus asked, “How did you create darkness?” the LORD replied, “I set the earth rotating so it would not face the sun at night, so there is an absence of light.”
When Cyrus asked, “How do you bring prosperity (peace)?” the LORD replied, “I give victory to my chosen.”
When Cyrus asked, “How do you create calamity (evil)?” the LORD replied, “I do not help who I do not help, and they do not know what is wrong, why they cannot succeed, because there is an absence of my help. For, the horse is made ready for the day of battle, yet victory belongs to the LORD, not to the well trained horse, yet without a well trained horse there will be no battle either.”]
Click to expand...
 
Did you even read the article I linked? If you did, you would know It would be impossible for you to interpret the passage in Isaiah as you did.
 
Let’s stop and look at this scenario for a second:

When we talk about the fire being bad for burning your finger, the “badness” is not actually located in the fire. The fire does what it does, namely give off heat and light, and it will do so whether or not the finger is there. Rather, the problem is in the thing that is burned rather than what is doing the burning, which in this case is the finger. So if the “badness” is in the finger, what is bad about it? Unsurprisingly, it is the fact that the finger is being burned. What happens when the finger burns? It blisters, bleeds, turns to ash, whatever. But this is important, because where we actually encounter evil is in the fact that the finger is no longer a good instance of a finger; it is lacking important features such as intact and functioning skin, among other things. Yet this just is an instance of privation in an otherwise good finger, and thus is when we say that there is a privative evil here, the evil is in the finger being a burned and malformed finger, not in the fire. So this example cannot stand as a counter to the privation theory of evil.
 
Could we please we focus on fire instead of finger? Do you think that fire can cause evil, good or be neutral? We use fire to cook. That is of course is good. You can of course use fire to burn your finger which is evil. The fire is neutral if you don’t use it. So it depends on how do you use it. The fire produces a range of effects and you can distinguish one from another.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top