Predestination/Judas Iscariot

[tonyrey]

Define “evil.” There are no simple questions where vague terms are involved.

You are evading the question! I have asked you what you think it is…

 

[tonyrey]

Define “evil.” There are no simple questions where vague terms are involved.

Define “evil.” There are no simple questions where vague terms are involved.

You are evading the question! I have asked you what you think it is… and you have failed to reply:

Do you believe all the horrific crimes committed by the Nazis - separating mothers from their childen, for example - can be explained scientifically as a mental aberration or conditioned response for which they were not responsible?

 

[Oreoracle]

You are evading the question! I have asked you what you think it is… and you have failed to reply:

At this point, I need further clarification. Are you asking for my opinion of evil in actions, or in people?

Do you believe all the horrific crimes committed by the Nazis - separating mothers from their childen, for example - can be explained scientifically as a mental aberration or conditioned response for which they were not responsible?

I have a more pressing question: Do you think I am unable to construct an ethical code that can prevent “horrific crimes” without assigning blame to individuals? Don’t you think it would be more useful to assign moral values to actions rather than personalities?

 

[tonyrey]

You are evading the question! I have asked you what you think it is… and you have failed to reply:

                             At this point, I need further clarification.  Are you asking for my opinion of evil in actions, or in people?

  Both!

Do you believe all the horrific crimes committed by the Nazis - separating mothers from their childen, for example - can be explained scientifically as a mental aberration or conditioned response for which they were not responsible?

I have a more pressing question: Do you think I am unable to construct an ethical code that can prevent “horrific crimes” without assigning blame to individuals? Don’t you think it would be more useful to assign moral values to actions rather than personalities?

I wonder why you’re so reluctant to commit yourself… I think I know… It’s either a simple “yes” or “no” or “I don’t know”! I shall answer your questions in the light of your answer.

 

[Oreoracle]

Both!

It’s important to remember that, in every ethical system, what is evil is “what ought not exist” or “what shouldn’t exist.” That is the only characteristic every conception of evil will have in common. What is held to be evil is a matter of opinion, however.

Given my own values and perspective, I would say suffering–the dissatisfaction of preferences–is the only evil consequence of actions. “Evil” in one’s chracter would either be the indifference of others’ happiness or the preference to make others suffer.

I wonder why you’re so reluctant to commit yourself… I think I know… It’s either a simple “yes” or “no” or “I don’t know”! I shall answer your questions in the light of your answer.

No reluctance is involved, I just feel that accusing others of being evil is irrelevant. If the goal of ethics in general is to make the world a more peaceful, productive place for sentient beings to inhabit–that is, to improve consequences–then character plays only an indirect role in ethics. The only reason we are concerned about one’s character, ethically speaking, is because it may incline them to act in a certain way. So if we consider a hypothetical world where every person is evil, but people only perform good actions, having an “evil character” is irrelevant.

Without actions to worry about, “virtuous character” means squat. And with character goes responsibility.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s important to remember that, in every ethical system, what is evil is “what ought not exist” or “what shouldn’t exist.” That is the only characteristic every conception of evil will have in common. What is held to be evil is a matter of opinion, however.

 

[Oreoracle]

If extreme suffering is inevitable is it evil?

Yes, in the sense that it ought not be. For yourself, you might ask, “If sinning is inevitable, is it evil?”

In that case to kill some one painlessly, and unnecessarily, is not evil!

This is the usual rushed argument I hear, but it fails to take into account at least two major factors: 1) All the happiness that could have been caused in the victim’s life has been prevented by their premature death (this is tantamount to dissatisfaction) and 2) the disappearance of individuals causes public distress and the loss of a potential worker. Your argument is futile when all of the factors come into play, and pretending that those factors don’t exist for the sake of quickly dismissing my position is a dishonest tactic.

Is indifference or cruelty evil if it is a result of a mental disorder?

Yes, in the sense that the disorder ought not be for the sake of maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. Again, responsibility need not come into play.

That is one goal but is it the only goal? We could even achieve that goal by killing “undesirables”!

It’s hardly that easy. One of the first principles of maximizing production is to have plentiful workers. Many companies are learning that at this very moment. You can’t expect to save money by laying off half of your workers, for example.

Are consequences the only consideration?

Let’s put it this way: The relevance of other considerations is dependent on how what is being considered will affect consequences.

If people only perform good actions how can they be evil?!

I dunno. They could be hateful people that are too lazy to act on their malice for others. It really doesn’t matter, because this is only a thought experiment designed to make people answer a question they normally wouldn’t. It’s like being presented with the Trolley Problem and asking why you’re on a train in the scenario–it wouldn’t matter, because that’s not the purpose of the thought experiment.

Are we responsible for our character?

Define “responsible.”

Which brings me back to the familiar question - which is relevant to the OP:
Do you believe all the horrific crimes committed by the Nazis - separating mothers from their children, for example - can be explained scientifically as a mental aberration or conditioned response for which they were not responsible?

You’re essentially asking two questions here:

1. Can the psychological states needed to commit atrocities like these be explained by science, i.e., psychology? I would wager that they can.
2. If free will isn’t involved, are people responsible for committing atrocities? Define “responsible” and “free will.”

 

[tonyrey]

If extreme suffering is inevitable is it evil?

Does it make sense to use “ought” with regard to suffering if it is a natural phenomenon that cannot be avoided? If suffering is necessary for survival surely it is good… assuming of course that life is not evil…

For yourself, you might ask, “If sinning is inevitable, is it evil?”

For myself? I’m a great sinner! But seriously, if we cannot avoid causing evil we are not to blame and therefore not sinning.

In that case to kill some one painlessly, and unnecessarily, is not evil!

1. All the happiness that could have been caused in the victim’s life has been prevented by their premature death (this is tantamount to dissatisfaction)

Suppose the misery outweighed the happiness!

1. the disappearance of individuals causes public distress and the loss of a potential worker.

If no one noticed the disappearance and the worker was more trouble than he was worth… ?

Is indifference or cruelty evil if it is a result of a mental disorder?

Yes, in the sense that the disorder ought not be for the sake of maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. Again, responsibility need not come into play.

This again raises the question of natural (or physical) evil. Do you believe there is no essential difference between natural and moral evil?

That is one goal but is it the only goal? We could even achieve that goal by killing “undesirables”!

It’s hardly that easy. One of the first principles of maximizing production is to have plentiful workers. Many companies are learning that at this very moment. You can’t expect to save money by laying off half of your workers, for example. You can if those workers are “undesirables”, i.e. lazy, obstructing others and agitating for strike action! The real issue is not economic but moral - unless you equate the two!

Are consequences the only consideration?

Let’s put it this way: The relevance of other considerations is dependent on how what is being considered will affect consequences.

Do you include the effects on a person’s mind as consequences even when there are no physical consequences? Don’t you think motives should be taken into account? Even if there are no consequences an attempt to murder a person is still evil…

If people only perform good actions how can they be evil?!

They could be hateful people that are too lazy to act on their malice for others.

In that case we have to decide whether their laziness is culpable or not. Malice alone is evil even when it does not lead to action.

Do you believe all the horrific crimes committed by the Nazis - separating mothers from their children, for example - can be explained scientifically as a mental aberration or conditioned response for which they were not responsible? 1. Can the psychological states needed to commit atrocities like these be explained by science, i.e., psychology?

I would wager that they can.

In that case the Nazis were not to blame and should not have been punished…

1. If free will isn’t involved, are people responsible for committing atrocities?

Define “responsible” and “free will.”

If you are responsible the buck stops with you. You alone are the cause of your decision and action. You exercise your willpower freely and without coercion… and your character is formed to a large extent by the choices and decisions you make.

BTW

Your argument is futile when all of the factors come into play, and pretending that those factors don’t exist for the sake of quickly dismissing my position is a dishonest tactic.

You are sadly mistaken - and getting away from the point. In my replies I generally ignore and delete such comments. They merely disrupt the discussion. I haven’t the slightest interest in “winning” an argument. I write what I believe to be true. If my reasoning is defective I am prepared to acknowledge the fact. I don’t believe in imputing motives to others…

 

[tonyrey]

If extreme suffering is inevitable is it evil?

Does it make sense to use “ought” with regard to suffering if it is a natural phenomenon that cannot be avoided? If suffering is necessary for survival surely it is good… assuming that life is not evil!

For yourself, you might ask, “If sinning is inevitable, is it evil?”

For myself? I’m a great sinner! But seriously, if we cannot avoid causing evil we are not to blame and therefore not sinning.

In that case to kill some one painlessly, and unnecessarily, is not evil!

1. All the happiness that could have been caused in the victim’s life has been prevented by their premature death (this is tantamount to dissatisfaction)

1. the disappearance of individuals causes public distress and the loss of a potential worker. If no one noticed the disappearance and the worker was more trouble than he was worth… ?

Is indifference or cruelty evil if it is a result of a mental disorder?

Yes, in the sense that the disorder ought not be for the sake of maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. Again, responsibility need not come into play.

This again raises the question of natural (or physical) evil. Do you believe there is no essential difference between natural and moral evil?

That is one goal but is it the only goal? We could even achieve that goal by killing “undesirables”!

It’s hardly that easy. One of the first principles of maximizing production is to have plentiful workers. Many companies are learning that at this very moment. You can’t expect to save money by laying off half of your workers, for example. You can if those workers are “undesirables”, i.e. lazy, obstructing others and agitating for strike action! The real issue is not economic but moral - unless you equate the two!

Are consequences the only consideration?

Let’s put it this way: The relevance of other considerations is dependent on how what is being considered will affect consequences. Do you include the effects on a person’s mind as consequences even when there are no physical consequences? Don’t you think motives should be taken into account? Even if there are no consequences an attempt to murder a person is still evil…

If people only perform good actions how can they be evil?!

They could be hateful people that are too lazy to act on their malice for others.In that case we have to decide whether their laziness is culpable or not. Malice alone is evil even when it does not lead to action.

Do you believe all the horrific crimes committed by the Nazis - separating mothers from their children, for example - can be explained scientifically as a mental aberration or conditioned response for which they were not responsible? 1. Can the psychological states needed to commit atrocities like these be explained by science, i.e., psychology?

I would wager that they can. In that case the Nazis were not to blame and should not have been punished…

1. If free will isn’t involved, are people responsible for committing atrocities?

Define “responsible” and “free will.”

If you are responsible the buck stops with you. You alone are the cause of your decision and action. You exercise your willpower freely and without coercion… and your character is formed to a large extent by the choices and decisions you make.

BTW

Your argument is futile when all of the factors come into play, and pretending that those factors don’t exist for the sake of quickly dismissing my position is a dishonest tactic.

You are sadly mistaken - and getting away from the point. In my replies I generally ignore and delete such comments. They merely disrupt the discussion. I haven't the slightest interest in "winning" an argument. I write what I believe to be true. If my reasoning is defective I am prepared to acknowledge the fact. I don't believe in imputing motives to others...

 

[tonyrey]

If extreme suffering is inevitable is it evil?

Does it make sense to use “ought” with regard to suffering if it is a natural phenomenon that cannot be avoided? If suffering is necessary for survival surely it is good… assuming that life is not evil!

For yourself, you might ask, “If sinning is inevitable, is it evil?”

For myself? I’m a great sinner! But seriously, if we cannot avoid causing evil we are not to blame and therefore not sinning.

In that case to kill some one painlessly, and unnecessarily, is not evil!

1. All the happiness that could have been caused in the victim’s life has been prevented by their premature death (this is tantamount to dissatisfaction) 2) the disappearance of individuals causes public distress and the loss of a potential worker.

If no one noticed the disappearance and the worker was more trouble than he was worth… ?

Is indifference or cruelty evil if it is a result of a mental disorder?

Yes, in the sense that the disorder ought not be for the sake of maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. Again, responsibility need not come into play.

This again raises the question of natural (or physical) evil. Do you believe there is no essential difference between natural and moral evil?

That is one goal but is it the only goal? We could even achieve that goal by killing “undesirables”!

It’s hardly that easy. One of the first principles of maximizing production is to have plentiful workers. Many companies are learning that at this very moment. You can’t expect to save money by laying off half of your workers, for example. You can if those workers are “undesirables”, i.e. lazy, obstructing others and agitating for strike action! The real issue is not economic but moral…

Are consequences the only consideration?

Let’s put it this way: The relevance of other considerations is dependent on how what is being considered will affect consequences. Do you include the effects on a person’s mind as consequences even when there are no physical consequences? Don’t you think motives should be taken into account? Even if there are no consequences an attempt to murder a person is still evil…

If people only perform good actions how can they be evil?!

They could be hateful people that are too lazy to act on their malice for others.In that case we have to decide whether their laziness is culpable or not. Malice alone is evil even when it does not lead to action.

Do you believe all the horrific crimes committed by the Nazis - separating mothers from their children, for example - can be explained scientifically as a mental aberration or conditioned response for which they were not responsible? 1. Can the psychological states needed to commit atrocities like these be explained by science, i.e., psychology?

I would wager that they can. In that case the Nazis were not to blame and should not have been punished…

1. If free will isn’t involved, are people responsible for committing atrocities?

Define “responsible” and “free will.”

If you are responsible the buck stops with you. You alone are the cause of your decision and action. You exercise your willpower freely and without coercion… and your character is formed to a large extent by the choices and decisions you make.
BTW

Your argument is futile when all of the factors come into play, and pretending that those factors don’t exist for the sake of quickly dismissing my position is a dishonest tactic.

You are sadly mistaken - and getting away from the point. In my replies I generally ignore and delete such comments. They merely disrupt the discussion. I haven’t the slightest interest in “winning” an argument. I write what I believe to be true. If my reasoning is defective I am prepared to acknowledge the fact. I don’t believe in imputing motives to others…

 

[tonyrey]

They could be hateful people that are too lazy to act on their malice for others.

Then it is a question of whether there are responsible for their laziness. In a court of law one can be guilty of culpable negligence if some one suffers as a result of laziness - even when malice does not entail any physical action.

 

[tonyrey]

They could be hateful people that are too lazy to act on their malice for others.

Then it is a question of whether they are responsible for their laziness. In a court of law one can be guilty of culpable negligence if some one suffers as a result of laziness - even when malice does not entail any physical action.

 

[Oreoracle]

Does it make sense to use “ought” with regard to suffering if it is a natural phenomenon that cannot be avoided? If suffering is necessary for survival surely it is good… assuming that life is not evil!

Most suffering isn’t necessary for survival at all, and for humans, almost no suffering is necessary with our technology and reasoning abilities. In fact, could you imagine how much better things would be if God would have, say, designed us with better reflexes instead of the sensation of pain? When people put their hands on stoves that are turned on, the common belief is that pain is needed to warn the person that their flesh is burning. But if the designer theists propose is real, then couldn’t he have simply built in a reflex that would cause a person to withdraw their hand just as effectively as pain would? The nerves sense the heat, the brain becomes aware of this, and then the brain sends a signal to the nerves to withdraw. No pain needed.

For myself? I’m a great sinner! But seriously, if we cannot avoid causing evil we are not to blame and therefore not sinning.

I think you’re missing my meaning here. While a Christian would agree that each individual instance of sinning could be prevented, no Christian would say that one could live a (full) life without sin, save for Jesus himself. Sinning, to some extent, is inevitable. At the very least, living without it would be infinitely improbable.

If no one noticed the disappearance and the worker was more trouble than he was worth… ?

A person who is willing to kill someone merely because he is a troublemaker is not going to make sure that his actions maximize utility. He’ll kill everyone in sight before he even considers that. You’re trying to create precautions for events that will never occur. Even if you’re right, an ethical system disagreeing with you could still be useful on the grounds that your objections will never be actualized.

Do you include the effects on a person’s mind as consequences even when there are no physical consequences? Don’t you think motives should be taken into account? Even if there are no consequences an attempt to murder a person is still evil…

An attempt to murder someone is still a physical consequence, is it not? But if someone merely hates another person and never acts on it, the hate is irrelevant. We could call him “evil” for feeling that way, but what’s the use in that? The only case where the hate would be relevant is if it was also making him unhappy. Removing it then would be a positive thing. Otherwise, it’s totally irrelevant. And please, don’t try to rattle off a platitude about how people who hate are always less happy than people who don’t. We both know that isn’t true.

Malice alone is evil even when it does not lead to action.

That’s like saying a gun is evil regardless of whether it’s used. I can’t honestly convince myself that a harmless feeling is evil. That would make me like the people who claim lusting is evil. There is no foundation for these claims except for petty disapproval.

In that case the Nazis were not to blame and should not have been punished…

Frankly, you must have a childish view of morality then. To you, the courtrooms and prisons must be another part of a convention whose aim is to deal evil to the evil-doers, torment to the torturers, and death to the murderers. If ever there was a self-defeating effort! Do you honestly think that people use punishment only as a mechanism to fulfill the biblical “eye for an eye” principle?

People should be punished to improve the consequences, and most punishments do just that. If punishment is only meant to “give people what they deserve,” then I wouldn’t consent to punishment at all. Pain is pain whether or not it’s “deserved.”

You exercise your willpower freely and without coercion

So your definition of “free will” is “the ability to exercise your willpower freely and without coercion?” The only useful bit in there is the part about coercion; the rest is circular.

What does it mean to exercise one’s willpower “freely?” Personally, I see freedom mostly as an illusion. One thinks they are capable of doing anything, but much of their mind, and consequently their actions, is known to be determined, just as everything else in our environment is known to be determined. Unless you can disprove determinism, I won’t be convinced of free will. And no, my ideas of what constitute a person, responsibility, and willpower remain intact even if determinism is true. Just because your definitions aren’t up to snuff doesn’t mean my own suffer the same difficulty. My ethical system endures no changes whether or not determinism is true.

BTW You are sadly mistaken - and getting away from the point. In my replies I generally ignore and delete such comments. They merely disrupt the discussion. I haven’t the slightest interest in “winning” an argument. I write what I believe to be true. If my reasoning is defective I am prepared to acknowledge the fact. I don’t believe in imputing motives to others…

I don’t believe you. There’s no way that you would have overlooked those obvious factors if you had honestly considered it.

 

[tonyrey]

Most suffering isn’t necessary for survival at all, and for humans, almost no suffering is necessary with our technology and reasoning abilities.

Please produce a blueprint of a world without suffering.

In fact, could you imagine how much better things would be if God would have, say, designed us with better reflexes instead of the sensation of pain? No pain needed.

It is the easiest thing in the world to suggest improvements to an existing system… rather than design one…

Does it make sense to use “ought” with regard to suffering if it is a natural phenomenon that cannot be avoided? If suffering is necessary for survival surely it is good… assuming that life is not evil!

While a Christian would agree that each individual instance of sinning could be prevented, no Christian would say that one could live a (full) life without sin, save for Jesus himself. Sinning, to some extent, is inevitable. At the very least, living without it would be infinitely improbable.

I was referring to a natural phenomenon, not moral evil.

Even if you’re right, an ethical system disagreeing with you could still be useful on the grounds that your objections will never be actualized.

I asked you whether the only goal of morality is to make the world a more peaceful, productive place for sentient beings to inhabit–that is, to improve consequences…

An attempt to murder someone is still a physical consequence, is it not?

I am referring to malice that is not acted upon…

But if someone merely hates another person and never acts on it, the hate is irrelevant.

Evil is evil whether it has physical consequences or not because our state of mind is very important.

We could call him “evil” for feeling that way, but what’s the use in that? The only case where the hate would be relevant is if it was also making him unhappy. Removing it then would be a positive thing.

So physical consequences are not the only things that matter…

…people who hate are always less happy than people who don’t. We both know that isn’t true.

Speak for yourself! How do you know what I know?..

Malice alone is evil even when it does not lead to action.

That’s like saying a gun is evil regardless of whether it’s used.

There is a vast difference between a gun and a person… Do you think of people solely in terms of what they do?

I can’t honestly convince myself that a harmless feeling is evil.

Malice is not a harmless feeling…

In that case the Nazis were not to blame and should not have been punished…

.
Do you honestly think that people use punishment only as a mechanism to fulfill the biblical “eye for an eye” principle?

Irrelevant. Punishment is another topic. Courtrooms exist to determine whether a person is responsible.

So your definition of “free will” is “the ability to exercise your willpower freely and without coercion?” The only useful bit in there is the part about coercion; the rest is circular.

If you don’t use your willpower you cease to be free…

Personally, I see freedom mostly as an illusion. My ethical system endures no changes whether or not determinism is true.

Your ethical system may well endure but that does not mean it is true… If **all **your ideas are determined they are far more likely to be false because there are countless ways of being mistaken.The truth is elusive… and the more specific the subject the more elusive it becomes… as any specialist is well aware…

 

[Oreoracle]

Please produce a blueprint of a world without suffering.

If someone scolded you for not remembering something, would you ask them to produce a blueprint of a world where humans have perfect memories?

I don’t have to make a perfect design to make a better design. Suffering could be reduced by adding those small changes. And besides, with god-like powers, anyone would be able to make a world without suffering; if not, they certainly wouldn’t be omnipotent!

It is the easiest thing in the world to suggest improvements to an existing system… rather than design one…

A design with new additions added to it is a new design overall. And if it isn’t, how many changes must be added for it to be a new design? How many parts of a car need to be replaced before the car is no longer the same model? Or, if you prefer, at what point during the baking process does the glob of dough become a cookie?

Small changes are still significant changes, my friend.

I was referring to a natural phenomenon, not moral evil.

I don’t see the distinction between natural evils and moral evils. Ethics/morality is about good and evil; it makes no sense to speak of evil outside of ethics or morality. All evil is “moral evil.”

I asked you whether the only goal of morality is to make the world a more peaceful, productive place for sentient beings to inhabit–that is, to improve consequences…

It isn’t the only goal that has been proposed by mankind throughout history, no. People obviously have differing opinions.

I am referring to malice that is not acted upon…

There is a difference between an attempt to murder and a desire to murder. “I attempted” means “I tried it.” A person who has not tried to murder someone but only wishes to has not attempted murder.

Evil is evil whether it has physical consequences or not because our state of mind is very important.

I detect an incomplete thought. Important…for what? If a single thought has no effect on one’s other thoughts and feelings, has no effect on the physical world, and doesn’t affect other people, how can it be evil? A thing that has no effect must be harmless, unless you contend that harm can be produced without effect? That would be an interesting theory, to say the least. It’s kind of like saying you can fry eggs without heat.

Hmm…I’m using a lot of food analogies. Maybe I’m more hungry than I realized.

Speak for yourself! How do you know what I know?..

Do you watch television? If so, then you must have heard at least one upsetting story on the news. For example, I remember hearing about a teenager throwing his dog off a bridge. I was pretty agitated by the news, and I wanted to hit the guy with a sledge hammer where it hurts. As impressive as that sounds, the feeling pretty much glanced off of me, since I didn’t actually know the guy enough to concentrate my anger at him. There was malice involved, though the feeling was very general and not as concentrated as genuine hate. Anyway, I wasn’t any less happy after hearing the news, despite my malice. And I’m not even going to mention the people who are actually happier and more successful because of their malice. Believe it or not, that is the case for some people, and they never “pay for it” in the long run.

There is a vast difference between a gun and a person… Do you think of people solely in terms of what they do?

Worrying about someone’s opinion even if it is irrelevant is something humans do often. Perhaps the most obvious instance of this lies in romantic relationships–does one lover not care about how the other feels for them? While we find peoples’ thoughts sometimes aesthetically pleasing or disturbing in this way and others, I don’t see them as having any ethical value outside of their effects on overall happiness. And besides, isn’t your opinion of how someone feels at least partially based on their actions, if not mostly?

Malice is not a harmless feeling…

It can be, as I’ve demonstrated with my example of the teenager who threw his dog off a bridge. Malice was involved, yet no harm was done.

Irrelevant. Punishment is another topic.

Okay, then stop asking me if the Nazis deserved punishment.

If you don’t use your willpower you cease to be free…

My qualm with your definition was that it was circular, the circularity being that you used the concepts of “free” and “will” to define “free will.” That’s not a definition, it’s a tautology.

Your ethical system may well endure but that does not mean it is true…

No ethical system is “true.” A prescription cannot be true; only descriptions can be true. And before you ask, yes, I do realize that this makes ethics a matter of opinion and I do realize that it makes our situation a difficult one, so don’t ask.

If **all **your ideas are determined they are far more likely to be false because there are countless ways of being mistaken.The truth is elusive… and the more specific the subject the more elusive it becomes… as any specialist is well aware…

Disliking the implications of a theory is no reason to reject it.

 

[tonyrey]

Please produce a blueprint of a world without suffering.

I don’t have to make a perfect design to make a better design. Suffering could be reduced by adding those small changes.

Small changes in a vast world - many of which have led to pollution and the diseases of civilisation… Not a very convincing argument if we are to go by results

And besides, with god-like powers, anyone would be able to make a world without suffering; if not, they certainly wouldn’t be omnipotent!

You obviously don’t understand what being omnipotent entails… Every advantage incurs a corresponding disadvantage. “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied…” -J.S.Mill

It is the easiest thing in the world to suggest improvements to an existing system… rather than design one…

A design with new additions added to it is a new design overall.

Not in the case of an immensely complex system which has evolved…

I don’t see the distinction between natural evils and moral evils. Ethics/morality is about good and evil; it makes no sense to speak of evil outside of ethics or morality. All evil is “moral evil.”

In that case you are out of touch with reality. Refer to any textbook on the Problem of Evil. Why do you think atheists use evil to try to disprove the existence of God? If there were no God the only moral evil would be that for which human or other rational beings are responsible. Natural evil would still exist: there would still be suffering and the other causes of unhappiness…

I asked you whether the only

goal of morality is to make the world a more peaceful, productive place for sentient beings to inhabit–that is, to improve consequences…It isn’t the only goal that has been proposed by mankind throughout history, no. People obviously have differing opinions.

I am asking what you believe…

I am referring to malice that is not acted upon.

…
There is a difference between an attempt to murder and a desire to murder. “I attempted” means “I tried it.” A person who has not tried to murder someone but only wishes to has not attempted murder.

I am not referring to the desire but to the intention or plan to murder. “malice aforethought…” and the “depraved heart murder” are two examples.

Evil is evil whether it has physical consequences or not because our state of mind is very important.

If a single thought has no effect on one’s other thoughts and feelings, has no effect on the physical world, and doesn’t affect other people, how can it be evil?

It is the thin end of the wedge. All evil actions begin with a single thought or desire which may seem harmless…

Speak for yourself! How

do you know what I know?.. Do you watch television? If so, then you must have heard at least one upsetting story on the news… Believe it or not, that is the case for some people, and they never “pay for it” in the long run.

IMy original question : Do you include the effects on a person’s mind as consequences even when there are no physical consequences? Whether they always “pay for it” is irrelevant.

There is a vast difference between a gun and a person… Do you think of people solely in terms of what they do

?While we find peoples’ thoughts sometimes aesthetically pleasing or disturbing in this way and others, I don’t see them as having any ethical value outside of their effects on overall happiness.

What about their effects on their sanity or physically health? Are they morally irrelevant?

And besides, isn’t your opinion of how someone feels at least partially based on their actions, if not mostly?

That is beside the point. “partially” and “mostly” indicate that you don’t think of people solely in terms of what they do…

 Quote:

Malice is not

a harmless feeling…It can be, as I’ve demonstrated with my example of the teenager who threw his dog off a bridge. Malice was involved, yet no harm was done.

No physical harm. Would you choose to live with a person who harbours malice, even if it is not directed towards you?

Irrelevant. Punishment is another topic

.
Okay, then stop asking me if the Nazis deserved punishment.

The primary question was whether the Nazis were to blame - which you have evaded.
…:

If you don’t use your willpower you cease to be free…

My qualm with your definition was that it was circular, the circularity being that you used the concepts of “free” and “will” to define “free will.”

There is no circularity. You are confusing free will with willpower and freedom. If you do not use your willpower you are not free. A power is useless and hypothetical unless it is used.

 

[tonyrey]

Please produce a blueprint of a world without suffering.

If someone scolded you for not remembering something, would you ask them to produce a blueprint of a world where humans have perfect memories?

Have you forgotten it?

I don’t have to make a perfect design to make a better design. Suffering could be reduced by adding those small changes.

Small changes in a vast world - many of which have led to pollution and the diseases of civilisation… Not a very convincing argument if we are to go by results

And besides, with god-like powers, anyone would be able to make a world without suffering; if not, they certainly wouldn’t be omnipotent!

You obviously don’t understand what being omnipotent entails… Every advantage incurs a corresponding disadvantage. “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied…” -J.S.Mill

It is the easiest thing in the world to suggest improvements to an existing system… rather than design one… A design with new additions added to it is a new design overall.

Not in the case of an immensely complex system which has evolved over billions of years…

I don’t see the distinction between natural evils and moral evils. Ethics/morality is about good and evil; it makes no sense to speak of evil outside of ethics or morality. All evil is “moral evil.”

In that case you are out of touch with reality. Refer to any textbook on the Problem of Evil. Why do you think atheists use evil to try to disprove the existence of God? If there were no God the only moral evil would be that for which human or other rational beings are responsible. Natural evil would still exist: there would still be suffering and the other causes of unhappiness…

I asked you whether the only

goal of morality is to make the world a more peaceful, productive place for sentient beings to inhabit–that is, to improve consequences…It isn’t the only goal that has been proposed by mankind throughout history, no. People obviously have differing opinions.

I am asking what you believe…

I am referring to malice that is not acted upon.

…
There is a difference between an attempt to murder and a desire to murder. “I attempted” means “I tried it.” A person who has not tried to murder someone but only wishes to has not attempted murder.

I am not referring to the desire but to the intention or plan to murder. “malice aforethought…” and the “depraved heart murder” are two legal examples.

Evil is evil whether it has physical consequences or not because our state of mind is very important.

If a single thought has no effect on one’s other thoughts and feelings, has no effect on the physical world, and doesn’t affect other people, how can it be evil?

It is the thin end of the wedge. All evil actions begin with a single thought or desire which may seem harmless…

Speak for yourself! How

do you know what I know?.. Do you watch television? If so, then you must have heard at least one upsetting story on the news… Believe it or not, that is the case for some people, and they never “pay for it” in the long run.

IMy original question : Do you include the effects on a person’s mind as consequences even when there are no physical consequences? Whether they always “pay for it” is irrelevant.

There is a vast difference between a gun and a person… Do you think of people solely in terms of what they do

?While we find peoples’ thoughts sometimes aesthetically pleasing or disturbing in this way and others, I don’t see them as having any ethical value outside of their effects on overall happiness.

What about their effects on sanity or physical health? Are they morally irrelevant?

And besides, isn’t your opinion of how someone feels at least partially based on their actions, if not mostly?

That is beside the point. “partially” and “mostly” indicate that you don’t think of people solely in terms of what they do…

Malice is not

a harmless feeling…It can be, as I’ve demonstrated with my example of the teenager who threw his dog off a bridge. Malice was involved, yet no harm was done.

No physical harm. Would you choose to live with a person who harbours malice, even if it is not directed towards you?

Irrelevant. Punishment is another topic

.
Okay, then stop asking me if the Nazis deserved punishment.

The primary question was whether the Nazis were to blame - which you have evaded.

If you don’t use your willpower you cease to be free…

My qualm with your definition was that it was circular, the circularity being that you used the concepts of “free” and “will” to define “free will.”

There is no circularity. You are confusing free will with willpower and freedom. If you do not use your willpower you are not free. A power is useless and hypothetical unless it is used.

 

[tonyrey]

Irrelevant. Punishment is another topic

.
Okay, then stop asking me if the Nazis deserved punishment.
The primary question was whether the Nazis were to blame - which you have evaded.
…:

If you don’t use your willpower you cease to be free…

My qualm with your definition was that it was circular, the circularity being that you used the concepts of “free” and “will” to define “free will.” There is no circularity. You are confusing free will with willpower and freedom. If you do not use your willpower you are not free. A power is useless and hypothetical unless it is used.

Your ethical system may well endure but that does not mean it is true…

No ethical system is “true.” A prescription cannot be true; only descriptions can be true. A medical prescription can be true! It can correspond to the reality of a person’s disease or disorder. Similarly a moral prescription corresponds to a person’s psychological makeup. You believe it is linked to happiness…

If all your ideas are determined they are far more likely to be false because there are countless ways of being mistaken.The truth is elusive… and the more specific the subject the more elusive it becomes… as any specialist is well aware…

Disliking the implications of a theory is no reason to reject it.
It is not a question of disliking but of recognising its implications. The truth is not always pleasant but that is completely beside the point - which you have not addressed: if all our ideas are determined they are far more likely to be false than true because there are countless ways of being mistaken…

 

[miguel]

Assuming that the betrayal was destined to happen, was the betrayal itself unforgiveable? I don’t think so. The despair and suicide that followed it probably was unforgiveable. Otherwise, why would Jesus have said it would have been better if Judas had not been born? But it didn’t necessarily have to play out like that. Remorse might also have lead to repentence.

This article is pertinent to this discussion.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3344&CFID=24718571&CFTOKEN=72353122

 

[momor]

This article is pertinent to this discussion.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3344&CFID=24718571&CFTOKEN=72353122

This quote from the article you mentioned sums up my belief.

*"This is that sin which is never forgiven, now or ever: the refusal, the scorning, of my mercy. For this offends me more than all the other sins they have committed. So the despair of Judas displeased me more and was a greater insult to my Son than his betrayal had been. Therefore, such as these are reproved for this false judgment of considering their sin to be greater than my mercy, and for this they are punished with the demons and tortured eternally with them (No. 37, emphasis added).

Thus, Judas perished not simply because of his part in Jesus’ trial, but because of a final act of “despair” or “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” (Mk. 3:29) at the “moment of death,” says St. Catherine." end quote.*

I think a bestowal of grace is likely at the moment of death (or in the hour of death). A last chance to repent and accept God’s mercy and love if we are in mortal sin. We ask Our Blessed Mother to pray for us at the hour of our death. We are asking for her intercession for God’s mercy.

Don’t misunderstand. I don’t suggest that people should live their life in sin presumptively thinking they will have a chance to repent at the end!