The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[warpspeedpetey]

I see now the genesis for warpspeedpetey’s idea, it stems from Cartesianism.

I’ve been searching the stacks at a Catholic university I am attending (long story), and there’s a whole section allocated to theodicy. The thing is though is that all the books deal with moral evil. I only found one book that attempts to deal with natural evil.

• Nature red in tooth and claw* : theism and the problem of animal suffering
  Michael J. Murray. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2008,

The author goes through the historical arguments, and dismisses them, rightfully so. His best argument is that of normic regularity, in other words, that’s just the way the world works. The author can’t imagine any possible alternative configuration for our world that would eliminate pain and suffering (natural not moral), or even lessen it.

I’ll leave you with a quote I came across from Descartes, the father of modern philosophy.

“For in my view, pain exists only in the understanding. What I do is explain all the external movements which accompany feeling in us; in animals it is these movements alone which occur, and not pain in a strict sense.” (from page 50 of the above book)

So, since non-human animals don’t experience pain, there is no problem of evil. Warspeedpetey would agree, I’m sure.

To me, this is an affront to common sense.

actually it came about as i was on an atheist forum. i knew the POE amounted to an opinion but i didnt have what i felt was an adequate reponse. after some investigation of various decision theory strategies i ran across the answer posted in the OP. it was a way to demonstrate that the problem is in fact, that we simply dont have the information that G-d may have and therefore we cannot draw valid conclusions about the moral status of G-d on the basis of observed events.

after posting, it lit them up like a disturbed beehive. their only response boiled down to “its ok, because we make judgements on limited info all the time” and they got really angry when i pointed out that drawing an invalid conclusion simply because that was the only recourse didnt change the validity or accuracy of the conclusion, and that doing so anyway was an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. heck even the mods started to send me nasty PMs. i love to watch atheists squirm en masse.

as to natural evil, i dont believe it exists not in descartes ideas, but rather that an earthquake, a tornado, or a hurricane arent moral agents. they dont pick and choose. it is intimately related to the idea that suffering is evil. yet another opinion. one may as well call the suitcase i broke my toe on a few weeks ago evil, or one may call the nail in the road that popped my tire evil. its not anywhere near a realistic idea of evil.

as to the idea that animals dont suffer, or have emotions, it comes from the basic idea of projective anthropomorphism. people really want to believe they do, but in the end there is no evidence for it. all those reactions that we assume are emotion, could just as well be evolutionarily programmed responses, and not emotions at all. its simply an assumption on the part of the observer. exetremly bad science that most people accept because they want to believe their psets really love them after all.

i have a year old tomcat named opie, he plays fetch with me, follows me around the house like a dog, sleeps on the table next to me, or on my shoulders while i type and he curls up with me at night for a while. i would really like to believe that opie loves me. after all, i was there when he was born, i was the first person he ever saw. only, when i look back over the last year, i realize opie likes to sleep where it is warm, he likes the fetch ball because it makes noise, and he stays on the table, because when i eat, i put treats up there for him.

so the question is, as much as i like opie, does he “love” me, or feel any affection for me at all? not really, all his behaviors are self serving. i could easily interpret them as love, most folks would, they want to feel loved, its a basic human need.

 

[TEPO]

actually it came about as i was on an atheist forum. i knew the POE amounted to an opinion but i didnt have what i felt was an adequate reponse. after some investigation of various decision theory strategies i ran across the answer posted in the OP. it was a way to demonstrate that the problem is in fact, that we simply dont have the information that G-d may have and therefore we cannot draw valid conclusions about the moral status of G-d on the basis of observed events.

after posting, it lit them up like a disturbed beehive. their only response boiled down to “its ok, because we make judgements on limited info all the time” and they got really angry when i pointed out that drawing an invalid conclusion simply because that was the only recourse didnt change the validity or accuracy of the conclusion, and that doing so anyway was an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. heck even the mods started to send me nasty PMs. i love to watch atheists squirm en masse.

as to natural evil, i dont believe it exists not in descartes ideas, but rather that an earthquake, a tornado, or a hurricane arent moral agents. they dont pick and choose. it is intimately related to the idea that suffering is evil. yet another opinion. one may as well call the suitcase i broke my toe on a few weeks ago evil, or one may call the nail in the road that popped my tire evil. its not anywhere near a realistic idea of evil.

as to the idea that animals dont suffer, or have emotions, it comes from the basic idea of projective anthropomorphism. people really want to believe they do, but in the end there is no evidence for it. all those reactions that we assume are emotion, could just as well be evolutionarily programmed responses, and not emotions at all. its simply an assumption on the part of the observer. exetremly bad science that most people accept because they want to believe their psets really love them after all.

i have a year old tomcat named opie, he plays fetch with me, follows me around the house like a dog, sleeps on the table next to me, or on my shoulders while i type and he curls up with me at night for a while. i would really like to believe that opie loves me. after all, i was there when he was born, i was the first person he ever saw. only, when i look back over the last year, i realize opie likes to sleep where it is warm, he likes the fetch ball because it makes noise, and he stays on the table, because when i eat, i put treats up there for him.

so the question is, as much as i like opie, does he “love” me, or feel any affection for me at all? not really, all his behaviors are self serving. i could easily interpret them as love, most folks would, they want to feel loved, its a basic human need.

You mean, since we cannot understand God -then we cannot say whether or not God allows evil?

therefore -

Just because there is evil in the world, that does not mean that God was incapable of preventing it in the first place.

Is this what this thread is about?

 

[NowAgnostic]

there is no such thing as the Problem of Evil. allow me to demonstrate.

Logical problem of evil or Evidential problem of evil? I agree that the burden hasn’t been met in the former case; atheists have not shown the existence of an evil for which it is logically impossible that it should be logically necessary for a greater good (as soon as they did that, I’d change and become an atheist myself). The evidential problem of evil is another case. It’s certainly true we don’t know everything, but that’s always the case and I’m not an advocate of epistemological nihilism. I agree that while quantifying epistemic uncertainty is tough, it isn’t necessary to do exactly to build a case. An example: The atheist argues, there is no reason we can see for this evil. The theist responds, just because we can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. The atheist argues, OK but it is highly unlikely that it exists and this makes an evidential case. The theist responds, from where do you get your likelihood? But the theist has missed the point. Even when there is a high likelihood (let’s make it 90%) of a given evil being logically necessitated by a greater good this still counts as evidence against God, because all universes are epistemically possible under atheism, while only 90% now are epistemically possible under theism. Keep adding up evil after evil and no matter what the prior belief in God the posterior will decline. (I’ll do the Bayesian analysis upon request if anyone’s interested.)

 

[tonyrey]

**tonyrey
**1. “Ought” implies that an activity is valuable and necessary.
2. All valid hypotheses are based on the principles of reasoning.
3. The principles of reasoning are valuable and necessary because they enable us to discover whether a hypothesis is true.
4. The “ought cannot be derived from is” hypothesis is based on the principles of reasoning.
5. The “ought cannot be derived from is” hypothesis is not true because it implies that the principles of reasoning are not valuable or necessary.

1. “Ought” implies that an activity is valuable and necessary.
Valuable, maybe, but necessary? No. It’s only necessary to someone who wants their actions to be valuable. “Ought” just means that one course of action is, for some reason, preferable to another.

“reason” is the key word. Reasoning is both valuable and necessary because without it we cannot decide what we “ought” to do. It does not make sense to say that we ought not reason. It is self refuting.

2. All valid hypotheses are based on the principles of reasoning.
What are those principles?

Aristotle listed three basic principles:
1. The law of identity
2. The law of non-contradiction
3. The law of excluded middle
Schopenhauer listed four:

1. A is A.
2. A is not not-A.
3. A is either B or not-B.
4. If A then B.
   There are of course others related to reasoning by deduction, induction, abduction and analogy.

3. The principles of reasoning are valuable and necessary because they enable us to discover whether a hypothesis is true.
Why is truth valuable?

Because without it reasoning would be pointless.

5. The “ought cannot be derived from is” hypothesis is not true because it implies that the principles of reasoning are not valuable or necessary.
How does it imply such a thing?

Because the fact that people are reasoning implies that they believe it is worth reasoning. Otherwise they would not waste their time on an activity which leads nowhere and produces no results.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You mean, since we cannot understand God -then we cannot say whether or not God allows evil?

therefore -

Just because there is evil in the world, that does not mean that God was incapable of preventing it in the first place.

Is this what this thread is about?

i mean it more along the lines that for any particular situation that someone chooses to blame G-d for or to call Him evil, there can well be information that we do not know, that could justify the event. now, it may not always be easy to think of what such a reason might be, and indeed, it may be one that humans may find strange with our limited intellects

essentiallt what we think is right, and what is actually right may be far apart. of course this is demonstrated in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Info-ga…ng_assumptions, as in the OP.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Logical problem of evil or Evidential problem of evil? I agree that the burden hasn’t been met in the former case; atheists have not shown the existence of an evil for which it is logically impossible that it should be logically necessary for a greater good (as soon as they did that, I’d change and become an atheist myself). The evidential problem of evil is another case. It’s certainly true we don’t know everything, but that’s always the case and I’m not an advocate of epistemological nihilism. I agree that while quantifying epistemic uncertainty is tough, it isn’t necessary to do exactly to build a case. An example: The atheist argues, there is no reason we can see for this evil. The theist responds, just because we can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. The atheist argues, OK but it is highly unlikely that it exists and this makes an evidential case. The theist responds, from where do you get your likelihood? But the theist has missed the point. Even when there is a high likelihood (let’s make it 90%) of a given evil being logically necessitated by a greater good this still counts as evidence against God, because all universes are epistemically possible under atheism, while only 90% now are epistemically possible under theism. Keep adding up evil after evil and no matter what the prior belief in God the posterior will decline. (I’ll do the Bayesian analysis upon request if anyone’s interested.)

to me it works equally well either way. no event or group of events fail to be subject to the argument in the OP. even if an atheist were to say it is highly unlikely, doesnt change the fact that we cannot know, i could just as easily assert that it is guarunteed.

 

[Oreoracle]

That explains a lot, no sarcasm intended. Welcome to the world of philosophy. If you are going to talk like you have developed arguments, than don’t be surprised when people treat you other than you would prefer when it is discovered your arguments are not developed.

Like Socrates, it’s not so much that I’m making arguments but more like I’m deconstructing the arguments of others. As I said, I really don’t care for metaphysics. It’s too speculative for my tastes.

One problem I’ve noticed is that Christians tend to believe that in order for their opponent’s rebuttal to mean anything, they must offer an alternative metaphysical explanation. This, of course, isn’t the case. I don’t have to offer an explanation to point out that yours, or anybody’s, is deficient in some way.

The Semantic Theory of Concepts identifies the concept with the abstract (vs the mental theory of mind). This is Frege’s idea. Further, he holds that the abstract idea must be in context in order for it to be a concept. It is my understanding that the difference is akin to saying, (for the RTM) ‘Bears doing their business in the wood’ is a mental construct independent of reality, whereas Frege’s is to hold the individual nouns as abstracts then contextualizing it into the deed.

I’m sorry, but this just sounds semantical. A concept, any way you look at it, is an idea/thought/mental image that reflects some aspect of reality. No reality=no concepts. I’m not sure if your distinction is really meant for the serious academic so much as it is for the serious pedant.

Bluntly speaking, metaphors suck. They are weak examples of a poorly stated argument. On the other hand, my argument is well based, and because you are not educated enough to understand it does not weaken the argument.

Whatever you say…

So, a universe of zero is impossible because it is impossible to have an entropy of 0. Now you have your answer. Ask you science teacher.

I have asked my science teacher. We came to two conclusions, neither of which you’ll like very much:

1. The theory that there are possible worlds is purely speculative, as it dismisses determinism for no reason. For all we know, this could be the only possible world, which makes this discussion pointless. (He doesn’t seem to like metaphysics very much, either. )
2. My teacher seemed to hesitate here, but he agreed with the point I’m about to make. Your argument is circular. I mean, you’re saying that my possible world cannot exist (it might be better to say “be the case”) because it violates a physical law in some way. You could have used any physical law, such as the law of conservation of energy, and said that my possible world would do away with energy, thus violating the law. But here’s the rub: my universe doesn’t have to do away with energy; rather, it could have started out without energy to conserve. Physical laws only tell us how two things will behave with one another, not that those things must exist. Saying that laws concerning entropy must be conformed to assumes that there must exist energy, temperature, and objects to begin with, which is exactly what you were trying to prove. So you’re partially right; my world of nothingness probably can’t be brought about in this reality, but that’s not to say that it wasn’t once a possible world (again, this assumes the “possible worlds” nonsense).

 

[Oreoracle]

I am not going to debate the evidence on this particular thread. Suffice to say that it is valid to conclude that a “contingent” entity requires a fundamental existential cause by definition of its contingency. And thus there is a criteria by which we can infer, from the contingency of a being, the actual existence of a “necessary being”, once we have identified the contingency and the limited nature of physical reality as an existential cause.

You do realize that you’re not going to convince me on this thread without evidence, right?

I never said that; at least not in the way that you intend to imply. I said that God is a “perfect being” as in God lacks nothing that is fundamental to his existence. Anything that begins to exist is limited in its contingency and is thus not a perfect being. Anything that has physical dimension is not perfect, since it is limited in some real and fundamental manner.

Just out of curiosity, why do you guys use “perfect” when you already have a word that means the same thing (“necessary”)? “Perfect” is such a loaded word with many meanings, most of which are subjective.

If and when I say that God possesses everything, then you can raise such an objection. Until then, learn to read my posts properly please, and please stop changing the context in which i pose an arguement.

Why don’t you learn to speak like a normal person? You’re using loaded language when it isn’t necessary. I would even go so far as to say that you’re trying too hard.

There are other questions and objections that you made that will have to be dealt with on another thread inorder to be dealt with sufficiently. You will have to wait until tomorrow before you see the thread. I will send you a link.

I’ll be waiting…

 

[Oreoracle]

“reason” is the key word. Reasoning is both valuable and necessary because without it we cannot decide what we “ought” to do.

Indeed, I just don’t think we come to ethical conclusions through reasoning alone.

It does not make sense to say that we ought not reason. It is self refuting.

I would contest this. Your parents warned you about a lot of things in life, right? They probably said that they hoped you wouldn’t have to go through some of what they did. They came to the conclusion that you shouldn’t experience X because they experienced X. Would you say that their admonishment is self-refuting because they’re condemning the use of the means that made their admonishment possible? Your idea sounds good in text, but it makes no sense when we apply it to the real world.

1. A is not not-A.

Is that a typo? “A is not not not A” would be a triple negative meaning that “A is not A.” Two of the negatives cancel out, leaving one behind.

Edit: Oh wait, you were just using those hyphens differently. Disregard that, then…

Because without it reasoning would be pointless.

Okay, so why is reasoning valuable? And don’t say, “because it’s the most reliable way to determine what is true.” That would be circular. You would be saying that truth is valuable because of reason and that reason is valuable because of truth.

Because the fact that people are reasoning implies that they believe it is worth reasoning. Otherwise they would not waste their time on an activity which leads nowhere and produces no results.

How does “an ought cannot be derived from an is” imply that reasoning produces no results?

 

[wussup]

Like Socrates, it’s not so much that I’m making arguments but more like I’m deconstructing the arguments of others. As I said, I really don’t care for metaphysics. It’s too speculative for my tastes.

Don’t worry, you’ll grow into it.

One problem I’ve noticed is that Christians tend to believe that in order for their opponent’s rebuttal to mean anything, they must offer an alternative metaphysical explanation. This, of course, isn’t the case. I don’t have to offer an explanation to point out that yours, or anybody’s, is deficient in some way.

Actually, this is a human thing, not a Christian thing.

I’m sorry, but this just sounds semantical. A concept, any way you look at it, is an idea/thought/mental image that reflects some aspect of reality. No reality=no concepts. I’m not sure if your distinction is really meant for the serious academic so much as it is for the serious pedant.

Hmmm, imagine that…the Semantic Theory of Concepts is, errr…semantical. Ya think?

Whatever you say…

That is really weird, my son is in the army, and when I dis him like that, he rolls his eyes and says ‘whatever’ as well. I thought only valley girls said that.

I have asked my science teacher. We came to two conclusions, neither of which you’ll like very much:

1. The theory that there are possible worlds is purely speculative, as it dismisses determinism for no reason. For all we know, this could be the only possible world, which makes this discussion pointless. (He doesn’t seem to like metaphysics very much, either. )

I was curious if 1) you would ask your science teacher, 2) if he/she/it would take the question seriously, and 3) if the answer would be intelligent. I admit to being unsurprisingly disappointed. I have a high school senior as an intern at my business and often feed him questions to ask his teacher. I am easily amused. According to many very influential physicists, there is plenty reason to dismiss determinism, if only because the term is so vague as to be meaningless. One hypothesis, the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) suggests that whatever is mathematically possible exists. He suggest he doesn’t like metaphysics because he isn’t very imaginative.

1. My teacher seemed to hesitate here, but he agreed with the point I’m about to make. Your argument is circular. I mean, you’re saying that my possible world cannot exist (it might be better to say “be the case”) because it violates a physical law in some way. You could have used any physical law, such as the law of conservation of energy, and said that my possible world would do away with energy, thus violating the law. But here’s the rub: my universe doesn’t have to do away with energy; rather, it could have started out without energy to conserve. Physical laws only tell us how two things will behave with one another, not that those things must exist. Saying that laws concerning entropy must be conformed to assumes that there must exist energy, temperature, and objects to begin with, which is exactly what you were trying to prove. So you’re partially right; my world of nothingness probably can’t be brought about in this reality, but that’s not to say that it wasn’t once a possible world (again, this assumes the “possible worlds” nonsense).

I am frankly surprised here at your science teachers response. First, there is a vast difference between ‘nothingness’ and ‘not having energy to conserve’. According to quantum mechanics (specifically, the theories of Bell and Boehm), all possible universes exists. This is scientifically and mathematically proven. Logically, since this universe exists, the possibility of nothing existing is false. This means that it is scientifically and mathematically proven that it is impossible for ‘nothing’ to exist even as a possibility. While this is a similar statement to what others here have said, I say this from the position of Quantum Mechanics. Proving this requires high end Calculus, Linear Algebra, blah blah blah. You can look up the physicists and prove for your self if QM is true. However, I suspect your math skills at this level of your education will not be sufficient. On the other hand, ask your science teacher of Boehm, Bell, etc and the idea of all possible universes. I would be shocked if you science teacher has never heard of David Boehm. In fact, if your science teacher has never heard of David Boehm (sometimes spelled Boem or Bohm) or John Stuart Bell, I would quietly take the class, pass the test, but internally say this person is unfamiliar with the subject matter.

 

[tonyrey]

                                                                                                                              Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5763449#post5763449)                 
             *"reason" is the key word. Reasoning is both valuable and necessary because without it we cannot decide what we "ought" to do.*

Indeed, I just don’t think we come to ethical conclusions through reasoning alone.

What else?

                                             It does not make sense to say that we ought not reason. It is self refuting.

I would contest this. Your parents warned you about a lot of things in life, right? They probably said that they hoped you wouldn’t have to go through some of what they did. They came to the conclusion that you shouldn’t experience X because they experienced X. Would you say that their admonishment is self-refuting because they’re condemning the use of the means that made their admonishment possible? Your idea sounds good in text, but it makes no sense when we apply it to the real world.

Are you saying we ought not reason.in daily life?

                                        Because without it reasoning would be pointless.

Okay, so why is reasoning valuable? And don’t say, “because it’s the most reliable way to determine what is true.” That would be circular. You would be saying that truth is valuable because of reason and that reason is valuable because of truth.

There are many reasons why reasoning is valuable. The success of science is one of them. The fact that it increases our chances of survival is another. The fact that you are doing it is another! If you stop reasoniing you won’t be around much longer to deny its value…

Quote:
Because the fact that people are reasoning implies that they believe it is worth reasoning. Otherwise they would not waste their time on an activity which leads nowhere and produces no results.
How does “an ought cannot be derived from an is” imply that reasoning produces no results?

You are misinterpreting me. First of all, please explain why people reason if they don’t believe it is worth reasoning. They can choose to stop reasoning and sometimes they do! But generally speaking they choose to be reasonable. Why? Because they** know **reasoning is necessary, important and valuable for the reasons I have given… and any further response you make will confirm that fact!!!

 

[JOHNONEVI]

You mean the problem of evil does not exist? :coolinoff: What a relief…

:choocho: :jrbirdman: :whackadoo:

How can I convey this concept? Alduous Huxley wrote a facsinating account of a demonic possession that ocurred within a Ursuline convent in the French province of Loudon. 12 nuns and the Mother Superior were victims of a demonic possession that required an exorcism conducted by three priests lasting 9 years. This exorcism resulted in a priest named Grandier brought to charges of sorcery and was subsequently tortured and burned at the stake. The most remarkable details of this account centered around the fact that Grandier never met the nuns or the Mother Superior or visited the Ursuline convent. The exorcisms came to a conclusion when the three exorcists passed on from old age. When the exorcists died so did the demons. Huxley draws the sad conclusion had the nuns not been accused of being demoniacs there would never have been a possession. What about the social demons of bigotry, racism, and all forms of religious intolerance? Doesn’t it brgin with Ideas invented by an overactive mental process? These aren’t inherent qualities. If we can see evil can’t we make the choice of seeing good? We are faced with two choices love or fear. The problem of evil does exist but not as divine judgement or even as an inherent quality we must accept and accustom ourselves to but as a choice. Wasn’t that the condition of the Fall.? That we can execise free will.

 

[Oreoracle]

What else?

Emotions.

Are you saying we ought not reason.in daily life?

I’m saying that it would be possible to defend that sentiment and that it wouldn’t be self-refuting.

There are many reasons why reasoning is valuable. The success of science is one of them. The fact that it increases our chances of survival is another. The fact that you are doing it is another!

So reasoning is valuable because it makes our lives easier? That sounds pretty emotional to me. I mean, why should our lives be made easier? The only answer is an emotional one.

If you stop reasoniing you won’t be around much longer to deny its value…

I’m not denying its value, I’m just saying that value is subjective.

You are misinterpreting me. First of all, please explain why people reason if they don’t believe it is worth reasoning.

They do believe it’s worth reasoning, but that worth isn’t an objective quality of reasoning. Reasoning helps us, so we appreciate and assign value to it. It’s as simple as that. No objectivity involved.

 

[tonyrey]

Emotions.

So you believe values are based on emotions?

*Are you saying we ought not reason.in daily life? *
I’m saying that it would be possible to defend that sentiment and that it wouldn’t be self-refuting.

"we ought not reason"is not a sentiment but a statement. But the main point is that if reason is not necessary or valuable it does not make any difference if we do not reason. And if we do not reason there is no need to accept any proposition whatsoever…
including the proposition “we ought not reason”.

*There are many reasons why reasoning is valuable. The success of science is one of them. The fact that it increases our chances of survival is another. The fact that you are doing it is another! *
So reasoning is valuable because it makes our lives easier? That sounds pretty emotional to me. I mean, why should our lives be made easier? The only answer is an emotional one.

You have a strange notion of emotion. It seems to include all human activity - including science! How would you define emotion?

If you stop reasoniing you won’t be around much longer to deny its value…
I’m not denying its value, I’m just saying that value is subjective.

Do you mean it exists only in the mind? That nothing has instrumental value?

First of all, please explain why people reason if they don’t believe it is worth reasoning.
They do believe it’s worth reasoning, but that worth isn’t an objective quality of reasoning. Reasoning helps us, so we appreciate and assign value to it. It’s as simple as that. No objectivity involved.

So nothing that helps us is intrinsically valuable? In fact nothing whatsoever is intrinsically valuable? Life has no objective value? Opportunities are not valuable? Everything is equally valueless? Do you live as if everything is equally valueless?

 

[Oreoracle]

So you believe values are based on emotions?

They originate partially from emotions, yes.

"we ought not reason"is not a sentiment but a statement.

It’s a statement that articulates a sentiment.

But the main point is that if reason is not necessary or valuable it does not make any difference if we do not reason.

And how do you come to that conclusion? Of course it would make a difference, it just wouldn’t matter to us. That is, we wouldn’t feel any worse for discarding reason.

And if we do not reason there is no need to accept any proposition whatsoever…

If you mean “reason” in the sense of logic, then I must say that logic doesn’t require us to accept any propositions. Logic is not some metaphysical entity that foists obligations on us. It is a tool we use to demonstrate validity or invalidity (science is usually the preferred method of testing truth values and so it aids philosophy in establishing soundness). Whether one accepts the truth is entirely up to the individual, and logic doesn’t condemn those who don’t (we do).

You have a strange notion of emotion. It seems to include all human activity

Alright, reasoning pervades most human activity. So what? Emotion is at least as pervasive, if not more. You, like many Christians, seem to be under the impression that the mind is divided into neat little sectors where emotion can be cut off from other mental activities. When it comes to decision-making, emotion plays a big part.

How would you define emotion?

That would be tough, actually. I’ll go with “a mental impetus; a subjective experience that compels one to action.” (This “action” can even be the experience of another emotion/mental activity! If you think about it, that makes the definition circular, but I hope you see the point.)

Do you mean it exists only in the mind?

That’s crude wording, but yes.

That nothing has instrumental value?

Now you’re talking about two different kinds of values. From what I gather, instrumental value is calculated based on a thing’s proficiency in achieving a certain end. Here, we’re discussing ethics, so the matter is the value of the end itself, not a thing’s proficiency in attaining it.

So nothing that helps us is intrinsically valuable? In fact nothing whatsoever is intrinsically valuable?

Nope. Those things are considered valuable precisely because they help us. The value is “produced” (again, poor wording) in our minds along with the satisfaction of being aided by said things.

Life has no objective value?

Life is valuable because we desire it. Think of it this way: If only bacteria were alive, would life be valuable? Without sentience–that is, the capacity for feeling–you have nothing. Without subjectivity, there is no value, because there are no subjects to desire their own lives (among other valuable things) or those of other subjects.

Everything is equally valueless? Do you live as if everything is equally valueless?

I never said that anything is valueless. I only contend that the values arise from and are experienced by the subjects.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Obviously it DOES exist or this thread wouldn’t still be so long and active.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Obviously it DOES exist or this thread wouldn’t still be so long and active.

It depends on what you mean. 2+2 is in some sense a problem, but it has an answer. In which case one can say in a difference sense that the problem of 2+2 is not really a problem in so far as one has a ligitimate answer.

Also, that a person disagrees with me that 2+2=4, doesn’t change the fact that i know that 2+2 =4.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Why don’t you learn to speak like a normal person?

What is a normal person exactly; objectively speaking, that is? For somebody who likes to swim in the sea of relativism, ridiculing subjectivity at every stroke of the key, it is amazing to me that you failed to recognize the folly in asking such a question.

Instead of trying to do the psychology thing, why don’t you instead accept the truth when its spelled out to you?

The again, i forget that you are still a child, and so i should not be surprised that you chose to attack the way i write instead of addressing the contents of my posts.

I’ll be waiting…

Why should i waste my time on an arrogant wannabe atheist who is determined to think that “nothing” can exist positively? I have better things to do then teach you how to think. If I start a new thread, i assure you it will not be for your sake.

Thank you.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey
So you believe values are based on emotions?
They originate partially from emotions, yes.

Why not entirely?

• But the main point is that if reason is not necessary or valuable it does not make any difference if we do not reason. *
  Of course it would make a difference, it just wouldn’t matter to us. That is, we wouldn’t feel any worse for discarding reason.

If you are lying in hospital as the result of discarding reason you would certainly feel much the worse!

Whether one accepts the truth is entirely up to the individual, and logic doesn’t condemn those who don’t (we do).

It is not a matter of condemnation but of common sense. To reject reason amounts to rejecting life…

When it comes to decision-making, emotion plays a big part.

Which is usually more successful, emotion or reason? On which do you rely more?

•      How would you define emotion?*

That would be tough, actually. I’ll go with “a mental impetus; a subjective experience that compels one to action.”

So you are always compelled to act in the way you do?

• Do you mean it exists only in the mind?*
  That’s crude wording, but yes.

So you believe value corresponds to nothing in reality?

  Here, we're discussing ethics, so the matter is the value of the end itself, not a thing's proficiency in attaining it.

What about existence? That is an end in itself yet it is also instrumental in achieving other ends, such as love, happiness and fulfilment.

• So nothing that helps us is intrinsically valuable? In fact nothing whatsoever is intrinsically valuable? *
  Nope. Those things are considered valuable precisely because they help us. The value is “produced” (again, poor wording) in our minds along with the satisfaction of being aided by said things.

So value applies solely to human beings and not to animals or other rational beings? Everything exists for our benefit?

   Life has no objective value?

Life is valuable because we desire it.

If a person ceases to desire life his/her life ceases to be valuable and he/she may be killed painlessly?

Think of it this way: If only bacteria were alive, would life be valuable? Without sentience–that is, the capacity for feeling–you have nothing. Without subjectivity, there is no value, because there are no subjects to desire their own lives (among other valuable things) or those of other subjects.

All non-sentient life is valueless? You are implying that sentience per se is valuable…

I never said that anything is valueless. I only contend that the values arise from and are experienced by the subjects.

If all values are arbitrary conventions I’m afraid you are a moral nihilist because you believe nothing has intrinsic value!

 

[Oreoracle]

This will be a hurried response…

Why not entirely?

All values are associated with objects. For example, you might value life, and thus the prevention of death. You deem these things valuable due to your emotional response to death, however (among other things). The evil of death is something most humans consider axiomatic. We just don’t like it, and it’s as simple as that. There’s no objective reason why you shouldn’t die.

If you are lying in hospital as the result of discarding reason you would certainly feel much the worse!

Which is why your hypothetical scenario where reason is abandoned by everyone entirely will remain hypothetical and never be actualized.

It is not a matter of condemnation but of common sense. To reject reason amounts to rejecting life…

There is no objective reason that life is preferable to death. We just like living and don’t wish to die. Hence the corresponding values.

Which is usually more successful, emotion or reason? On which do you rely more?

I rely on both pretty much equally. For example: Emotionally, I wish to live. Reasonably, I determine the best way to remain alive. Without emotion, I wouldn’t have consciously sought to remain alive in the first place.

So you are always compelled to act in the way you do?

Yes, in one way or another.

So you believe value corresponds to nothing in reality?

Strictly speaking, no.

What about existence? That is an end in itself yet it is also instrumental in achieving other ends, such as love, happiness and fulfilment.

There is no objective reason why we ought to exist. We simply wish to.

So value applies solely to human beings and not to animals or other rational beings?

No. Other sentient beings can also have goals/desires of sorts.

Everything exists for our benefit?

No. Most people want that to be the case, though.

If a person ceases to desire life his/her life ceases to be valuable and he/she may be killed painlessly?

No, because others may value their life. I’m just saying that, to that individual, death is not a bad consequence. To others, it might be.

All non-sentient life is valueless? You are implying that sentience per se is valuable…

The only value sentience itself possesses is what value it produces. Personally, I think pleasure and pain are all that’s inherently valuable.

If all values are arbitrary conventions I’m afraid you are a moral nihilist because you believe nothing has intrinsic value!

Actually, that would make me a moral subjectivist. A nihilist wouldn’t bother with morals at all (which is why no real nihilists exist).