Problem of Evil (again): Logic [intro]

[o_mlly]

If you burn a dog even just once, it will learn to escape if it can. That is an exhibit of fear and as such fear of suffering.

No. Fear is an emotion, a feeling. As do all emotions, the feeling conditions behavior, moves the animal to act. Suffering is a cognitive state of mind. One suffers the death of a loved one but feels no physical pain, only distress from a loss of equipoise.

Your definitions are unacceptable.

“God is good” is an unfounded proposition. To quote Forrest Gump: “Good is as good does”.
“Evil is not-God”. also not true. Evil is to intentionally causing gratuitous or unnecessary harm to a sentient (feeling) being

Winston Groom is your goto guy?

Your and his definitions are unacceptable.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

in my view it’s best to focus on evil/badness in general, then, once that’s established, specific examples of suffering can be looked at in context.

So how would you, in context, explain the fact that literally uncounted numbers of non-humans have suffered painful lives and agonising deaths over hundreds of millions of years each with no hope whatsoever of any sort of countervailing eternal life and eternal bliss? I see the ‘problem of pain’ as discussed by most CAFers as ignoring the obvious insurmountable problem for Christians: the pain experienced by animals.

I just wanted to acknowledge this. I read it earlier, thought about whether to jot down a few sentences or give a more thought out response. I haven’t replied yet because I’d like to find some time for it.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

It depends on your use. Some people use “evil” exclusively as a moral term, or to describe some arbitrarily level of excessive “badness”, or only for something that has malevolent intent. That’s not universal, though. Badness and evil are interchangeable terms, and moral evil just a subset of evil/badness in general.

I am “picky”, and prefer to use precise terms. The expression “natural evil” is still an oxymoron. Is the lack of rain in the Sahara “evil”? Is the excessive rain “evil” for the cactus plants? Is the lack of rain “evil” for the impatient flowers?

The technical term is physical evil. A man who has lost an arm due to an accident has suffered a physical evil. A flower wilting from lack of rain is experiencing a physical evil. The earthquake that ruins a city or habitat is the cause of the physical evils suffered by the residents and things there.

The machinery that caused the loss of the man’s arm was not evil. The dry climate around the wilting plant is not evil. The earthquake and the tectonic plates shifting are not evil.

We also have a case where a lion takes down an antelope. The antelope suffers a physical evil, but the lion is not evil. In fact, the lion has done what a lion should do, and if the lion was incapable of bringing down prey for food it would not be a good lion, in that respect at least.

 

[Abrosz]

No. Fear is an emotion, a feeling. As do all emotions, the feeling conditions behavior, moves the animal to act. Suffering is a cognitive state of mind. One suffers the death of a loved one but feels no physical pain, only distress from a loss of equipoise.

Pain is not necessarily a physical pain. It can be emotional distress. It can be an anticipation of some future distress.

Winston Groom is your goto guy?

Any rational person is my “goto” guy.

 

[Abrosz]

The technical term is physical evil.

This is not a philosophical term.

The machinery that caused the loss of the man’s arm was not evil. The dry climate around the wilting plant is not evil. The earthquake and the tectonic plates shifting are not evil.

In that case, why the term “physical evil”? It only serves as a method to confuse.

We also have a case where a lion takes down an antelope. The antelope suffers a physical evil, but the lion is not evil.

So there is no “physical” evil here either.

 

[o_mlly]

Pain is not necessarily a physical pain. It can be emotional distress. It can be an anticipation of some future distress.

Pain is a sensation, is local and in the moment. If I prick your finger then you feel pain. The disorder of a pin penetrating your flesh sends electric signals through your nervous system to your brain which interprets the signal as pain at a particular location of your body. Only you feel the pain. Others may suffer at the sight of you reacting to your pain but they do not sense your pain. The pain is yours alone.

If I threaten to prick your finger then you suffer. The thought of a future pain causes suffering. Any thought that removes one’s serenity, that is separate from pain itself causes suffering. Thinking, not feeling, causes the disposition of suffering. Perceiving, not thinking, causes the feeling of pain.

I distinguish the difference between pain and suffering. You reject my definitions and choose to make them synonyms. Therefore, no productive exchange is possible between us.

 

[Anesti33]

Dictionary : PHYSICAL EVIL | Catholic Culture

Boy howdy! If we can’t agree on definitions for “evil” then we will have a real problem discussing the “Question” or “Problem” of evil, won’t we?!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Abrosz]

I distinguish the difference between pain and suffering. You reject my definitions and choose to make them synonyms. Therefore, no productive exchange is possible between us.

A distinction without difference.

Boy howdy! If we can’t agree on definitions for “evil” then we will have a real problem discussing the “Question” or “Problem” of evil, won’t we?!

Observe origin of the link you provided. It is not a philosophical term. But you are correct. If there is no common definition of the terms, it is futile to try to have a conversation.

 

[Anesti33]

Yes, the origin is Rev. John Hardon, SJ, a renowned moral theologian. What of it?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

The technical term is physical evil.

This is not a philosophical term.

The machinery that caused the loss of the man’s arm was not evil. The dry climate around the wilting plant is not evil. The earthquake and the tectonic plates shifting are not evil.

In that case, why the term “physical evil”? It only serves as a method to confuse.

We also have a case where a lion takes down an antelope. The antelope suffers a physical evil, but the lion is not evil.

So there is no “physical” evil here either.

It’s very much a philosophical term and has been in use for centuries if not millennia.

Evil is a deficiency, an absence of a good that should be in a thing by nature. This is true for both physical and moral evils, but the distinction is created for good reason as morality (philosophy of ethics) is its own specialized field regarding what is good and bad human choices. That is, where knowledgeable agents make deliberate choices and whether these are in agreement with their nature or contrary to their nature, meaning that there is a deficiency or defect in them. The moral deficiency is in the agent, not in the victim. Physical evils, as noted, are also deficiencies in which some good that should be there according to a thing’s nature is absent, but in the case of physical evils it is not related to a defect in, well, “character” to use a non-technical term (more precisely a deliberate choice to act contrary to the ends of one’s nature, or highest ends). Let’s say Steve chops off Rob’s arm due to a petty disagreement. The deficiency in Steve is in regards to a moral evil. The deficiency in Rob (from losing his arm) is a physical evil.

Really, though, a discussion on “what is goodness” should precede a discussion on evil.

 

[Hume]

First of all I’d like to discuss whether anyone has any objections to this logic, and then move on to discuss the proposed theodicies one at a time, each in their own thread.

Thoughts?

The logic seems to require jumps because the validity of the form is not obvious.

For people who are genuinely interested in seeing if their arguments work, they need to learn the basic Boolean operators of logic and see if they can construct their argument using them.

Dr. H., one of my old philo profs, had an oft repeated statement-
If you can verbalize your argument but can’t clearly construct it with operators, it’s very probably invalid.

 

[Hume]

From my memory of his class, with arguments requiring more than 2 or 3 premises, the operational chains begin to get insane. The probability that valid form was broken rises in multiples for every additional term you’re trying to reference.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
These are the basic operators (there are more) shown with just two premises. Each premise is it’s own circle.
Imagine the difficulty of trying to create two arguments with 5 and 5 premises, respectively or an argument with 10 premises (as your assumptions are also really premises).

Much, much, much, much more difficult than it looks.

 

[o_mlly]

A distinction without difference.

Only to one who has a closed mind.

Although in pain, I need not suffer. This exchange proves as much. You, however, when in pain will always suffer therefore you will always avoid pain. This exchange proves as much.

 

[Abrosz]

Only to one who has a closed mind.

Are insults now permitted?

 

[Neithan]

Thank you that’s really helpful. So the argument is not “iron-clad” logic as the writer claims. I always stuck to very simple syllogisms. The longer versions look impressive but always have some weakness.

 

[Vico]

Neither of your quoted terms appears in CCC1274. Nothing explanatory to see.

The Catechism was not quoted for the terms but for the concept. You did not answer my question to you which would be helpful since I need to know what it is that you do not understand before I can explain it better to you.

 

[Neithan]

Are insults now permitted?

That’s not an insult; you’re being oversensitive (also not an insult).

Anyway I’m going to move on the author’s first theodicy (Justice) because I think there’s enough here to see the logical argument has multiple issues with it, but is still useful as a suggestion of reasoning.

Feel free to continue here because it’s all relevant to PoE.

 

[Abrosz]

Evil is a deficiency, an absence of a good that should be in a thing by nature.

No, that is “bad”, as opposed to “good”, or “beneficial”. As such the term “physical evil” only serves to spread confusion.

 

[o_mlly]

Are insults now permitted?

I don’t think I have been insulted. Do you?

If you do then you don’t feel insulted; that would be a pain. Rather you think you are insulted; that is a suffering. The former may require medicinal treatment for relief; the latter merely a change in disposition.

 

[Vico]

…
In English please.

Vico: The Holy Trinity could not logically eliminate moral evil and also allow for sharing in the divine nature, …

You wrote: “Is that not the exact state of affairs in heaven?”
I replied: “The person in the heavenly state has been crowned with victory having been confirmed in charity.”

It is not the exact state of affairs in heaven, for before heaven there is not the Beatific Vision which is the prize, the “crown of victory”. It is the result of having chosen charity (“confirmed in charity” i.e., the person’s disposition of charity was verified) rather than malice – that is – having died in a state of sanctifying grace. Once a human has the Beatific Vision there will be no instance of choosing malice, even though the person has free will.