The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[tonyrey]

All values are associated with objects.

Do you regard a person as an object?! (I’m being too strict here because you’re using “object” loosely - I think.

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.

Is there any reason why we should die?! You probably think not because you think there is no reason for anything…

                                        I*f 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.

I’m not referring to everyone but an individual who chooses to discard reason…

                                             I*t 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.

Not necessarily. Some people don’t want to go on living but do so because others need them.

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

I rely on both pretty much equally.

If you rely on emotion more than reason you are bound to come to grief - unless you are an unusually unemotional person…

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.

The urge to live need not involve any emotions. It’s instinctive.

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

Yes, in one way or another.

So you cannot have no control over your thoughts or actions?

          *                              So you believe value corresponds to nothing in reality?*

Strictly speaking, no.

Are you quite sure absolutely nothing is objectively valuable?

           *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.

Even if there were no reason why we ought to exist it does not follow that existence is valueless. It is a source of opportunities. Do you reject the value of opportunities?

                                        *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.

So a mouse has values?

                                        *Everything exists for our benefit?                                 *

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

Nothing is valuable without the existence of human beings?

                          *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.

And if no one values a person’s life he/she may be killed painlessly?

                                            *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.

Then sentience is inherently valuable because value cannot be produced by something valueless…

Personally, I think pleasure and pain are all that’s inherently valuable.

In that case pleasure and pain are objective values.
The inherent value of pleasure and pain stems from the inherent value of sentience which stems from the inherent value of life…

                                        *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 **moral **nihilist with regard to objective values because you believe nothing is intrinsically valuable.

A nihilist wouldn’t bother with morals at all (which is why no real nihilists exist).

]A nihilist wouldn’t bother with anything because he believes nothing at all exists (which, as you say, is why no real nihilists exist).

 

[tonyrey]

If evil is subjective - as most atheists believe - the problem of evil does not exist!

 

[jkiernan56]

… thats my point. it doesnt really exist because there may always be information owhich one remains unaware.

The reality (ie - problem) of “EVIL” does not exist because we “may” not have all the information? What kind of subjective relativistic nonsense is this. Give me a break …

 

[Oreoracle]

Do you regard a person as an object?! (I’m being too strict here because you’re using “object” loosely - I think.

I’m using “object” in the sense of something that can be conceived (this would include concepts). You’re right that this shouldn’t be confused with the “object” that means “something thats existence is independent of perception.”

But I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking.

Is there any reason why we should die?!

There aren’t objective reasons why we should live or die. The only reason you’ll find to support your life is “I want to live.”

You probably think not because you think there is no reason for anything…

I’d rather accept the truth than entertain delusion. Believe it or not, this universe doesn’t care if you live or die. The most arrogant assumption one can make is that they have a personal, divine protector–that all of reality longs for one’s happiness and protection. But in the end, only you, your friends, and your family really care about you (well, I care about you, at least as much as it’s possible to care for someone you know through the internet alone ). The rest is comforting delusion.

I’m not referring to everyone but an individual who chooses to discard reason…

Well I’m sure that once reason proves itself useful to said person he’ll adopt it as a value once again.

Not necessarily. Some people don’t want to go on living but do so because others need them.

Then they value their life insofar as it allows them to care for others. Either way, we’re dealing with axiomatic values.

If you rely on emotion more than reason you are bound to come to grief - unless you are an unusually unemotional person.

You gotta love the irony here: your argument against being emotional is threatening me with an emotion (grief, in this case). That ranks up there with one quote I read from a Christian’s blog: “I hate emotion!” You guys are just too funny.

The urge to live need not involve any emotions. It’s instinctive.

Which is why I specified that I wouldn’t consciously pursue life without emotion. If it were all up to instinct, then my actions would be involuntary and I wouldn’t be conscious. But then, if my brain were that primitive, I probably wouldn’t be capable of reasoning anyway, no?

So you cannot have no control over your thoughts or actions?

Come again? Was the double-negative intentional?

Are you quite sure absolutely nothing is objectively valuable?

Yes. Feel free to dish out another derogatory label.

Even if there were no reason why we ought to exist it does not follow that existence is valueless.

You keep moving the goalposts. I’m not arguing against value, I’m just saying that value is subjective.

It is a source of opportunities. Do you reject the value of opportunities?

What sort of opportunities?

So a mouse has values?

I should have been more specific. When I say “sentient” I mean “having an emotional capacity.” I’m fairly certain that mice don’t have emotional capacities (I’m no biologist).

Nothing is valuable without the existence of human beings?

When did I say that?

And if no one values a person’s life he/she may be killed painlessly?

It’s not a question of what may or may not be done. It’s a question of what should be done. According to my ethical system, this would not be sufficient reason to kill someone. But it just goes to show that the question is personal. Naturally, I feel that my opinion of what should be done is best, just as you feel yours is best, and everyone else feels that their own opinions are best.

Then sentience is inherently valuable because value cannot be produced by something valueless…

This is an unsupported assertion.

In that case pleasure and pain are objective values.

You’re confusing “inherent” with “intrinsic” (which is an understandable error). “Intrinsic” has a connotation that makes it related to objective qualities, so subjectivists tend to use “inherent” instead. I equate pleasure with goodness–that is, the thing that ought to be produced–but that doesn’t mean I consider “goodness” to be objective. The same applies to pain.

The inherent value of pleasure and pain stems from the inherent value of sentience which stems from the inherent value of life…

…the axiomatic value of life, maybe. Why is life valuable? And no, you aren’t allowed to ask a question to answer a question this time. I want an actual answer.

A **moral **nihilist with regard to objective values because you believe nothing is intrinsically valuable.

That’s not how “nihilist” is typically used (in fact, that’s an inaccurate definition), but we’ll run with it. Okay, I’m an “objective nihilist.”

 

[Areopagite]

I’d rather accept the truth than entertain delusion. Believe it or not, this universe doesn’t care if you live or die. The most arrogant assumption one can make is that they have a personal, divine protector–that all of reality longs for one’s happiness and protection. But in the end, only you, your friends, and your family really care about you (well, I care about you, at least as much as it’s possible to care for someone you know through the internet alone ). The rest is comforting delusion.

For an agnostic, you sure seem to act like you know things.

You gotta love the irony here: your argument against being emotional is threatening me with an emotion (grief, in this case). That ranks up there with one quote I read from a Christian’s blog: “I hate emotion!” You guys are just too funny.

You seem to assume that all hatred is emotional. However, that’s not how it’s always used (at least according to a bunch of philosophers). The will is capable of hatred … in which case it means, “Seeking a thing’s destruction.”

It’s heretical by the way to seek the destruction of emotions … kind of a Buddhist thing too.

Which is why I specified that I wouldn’t consciously pursue life without emotion. If it were all up to instinct, then my actions would be involuntary and I wouldn’t be conscious. But then, if my brain were that primitive, I probably wouldn’t be capable of reasoning anyway, no?

But, of course, if there was just the brain and no immaterial intellect to enable abstract thought … you wouldn’t be capable of reasoning either. Hmm.

You keep moving the goalposts. I’m not arguing against value, I’m just saying that value is subjective.

It depends what you mean by “value.” If you just mean “that which one likes” then that could probably be considered subjective. If you mean “that which is good for something” then it’s no subjective. Food is valuable for sustaining human life, for example.

I should have been more specific. When I say “sentient” I mean “having an emotional capacity.” I’m fairly certain that mice don’t have emotional capacities (I’m no biologist).

Wow. I’m surprised you made this remark. Even Aquinas would say that animals have emotions. I think that’s pretty obvious (are you not a pet person?). Sentient simply means “having senses” (and passions go along with that). All animals are thus sentient. But not all animals are rational (capable of abstract thought). Many scientists nowadays say “sentient” when they mean “rational.”

It’s not a question of what may or may not be done. It’s a question of what should be done. According to my ethical system, this would not be sufficient reason to kill someone. But it just goes to show that the question is personal. Naturally, I feel that my opinion of what should be done is best, just as you feel yours is best, and everyone else feels that their own opinions are best.

When you say “best” do you me “correct”?

 

[redhen]

If evil is subjective - as most atheists believe - the problem of evil does not exist!

That may well work for moral evil, but it does not address the 800 lb gorilla in the room, natural evil, aka pain and suffering in the animal kingdom.

“So far as we know beasts are incapable either of sin or of virtue; therefore they can neither deserve pain nor be improved by it.” C.S. Lewis, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, 1940.

churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=82434

oxfordanimalethics.com/who-we-are/director/

 

[crazzeto]

Well, my personal view on the subject of “Evil doesn’t exist” is this:

When you start trying to apply a relitivistic moral model you very quickly find your self in a position where you must doubt everything. That is to say, there is absolutly no certainty in life. I’m not just talking about morality, but it very quickly seeps out of the strick realm of morality out into the realm of science.

Quick case in point which I’ve brought up in a different thread. On another forum the topic of “porn addiciton” came up in the context of a discussion over the review of the movie “fireproof”. Now I have yet to see the film (it’s finally in the mail from netflix), and I wasn’t even arguing that it’s a good movie but the reviewer was bashing, absoultly bashing this film on the following principals:

1. It’s unrealistic to believe that anyone could become addicted to porn
2. It’s overly preachy (well hey it is an evangelical protistant movie)
3. It expouses a “christian approch” to marriage, which is unrealistic in today’s world

Did you catch point 1? You can’t become addicted to porn! And why does he say this? Because in his world porn doesn’t enter the body. And because it doesn’t enter the body it can’t be metabolised by the body. And if it can’t be metabolised by the body you can’t become addicted to it. Here’s the problem, in the world of reality you can become addicted to porn. Porn does have a mental "payoff’ which we can become addicted to. In medical terms there’s a release of hormones which we know we can become addicted to. But I guess in his world none of that was true. And from his perspective that is a perfectly valid response. “You have yours I have mine”, that’s perfectly valid. Why? Because that’s the basis of his entire moral outlook, nothing can be allowed to voilate his moral outlook! So because science can’t be allowed to inerfere with his moral outlook on life, he simply ignores science and claims that in his world it doesn’t work that way.

You see how pervasive the problem of “there is no evil” is? You have to become blind to all of reality in order to maintain this outlook on life!

 

[jkiernan56]

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.

I sense your frustration and empathize. Subjective reletavists are moving targets. You can’t pin their feet to the ground. You can’t even get them to agree that 1=1 let alone anything else. You cannot reason with an unreasonable person.

By the way, I am one person that enjoys reading your threads and posts.
I find that you are a very logical and sensible person and contribute excellent ideas worth reading.

 

[djeter]

there is no such thing as the Problem of Evil.

The Chief Intellectual Obstacle To Christian Theism

Theodicy is a problem which has exercised Christian minds through the ages when wrestling with the issue of the existence of God. St. Thomas, for instance, gives it as the chief intellectual obstacle to Christian theism. He formulates the objection in his customary sharp way:

“It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the name ‘God’ means that he is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.”[Thomas Aquinas, Summit theologiae Ta, q. 2, a. 3]

To understand why evil is a philosophical problem of this magnitude for the Christian, we must remind ourselves of the Church’s basic confession about God. Christianity, here reflecting its own source in Judaism, ascribes to God both all-powerfulness and all-goodness. And indeed, quite apart from the fact that this is the (overall) witness of Old and New Testaments, a number of the arguments for the existence of God touched on in the last chapter also point to these qualities as characteristic of transcendence. For example, to say that God is the infinite ground of the world is to come fairly close to saying that he is almighty; and to say that he is the explanation of our sense of absolute moral obligation comes fairly close to saying that he is all-good.

Lactantius’ Dilemma
Given, then, that both a pre-theological and a specifically Christian consensus points to God as enjoying both these characteristics (and both ancient and modern deviations there from have had a frosty reception by Catholic believers), the problem of evil must be confronted. Ever since the ancient Greeks it has been formulated as a dilemma; we possess a lapidary example from the pen of the Latin Christian apologist Lactantius: “God either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or he is able, and is unwilling; or he is neither willing nor able, or he is both willing and able. If he is willing and is unable, he is feeble—which is not in accordance with the character of God. If he is able and unwilling, he is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if he is neither willing nor able, he is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if he is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does he not remove them?” [Lactantius, De ira Dei, 13]

More of the nature of evil and Theodicy here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/09/11/theodicy-and-the-idea-of-salvation/

dj

 

[tonyrey]

That may well work for moral evil, but it does not address the 800 lb gorilla in the room, natural evil, aka pain and suffering in the animal kingdom.

Why natural evil? Surely it would be more appropriate to call a spade a spade and refer to pain and suffering by their own names, unless evil is associated with moral responsibility on the part of God - which of course an atheist is not entitled to do because he does not believe in God! If an atheist denies that we have free will, as many do, the question of any kind of evil does not even arise. All events become amoral…

 

[Oreoracle]

For an agnostic, you sure seem to act like you know things.

Being ignorant of the existence of divine beings doesn’t entail ignorance of everything. God isn’t the starting point.

You seem to assume that all hatred is emotional.

Well, yeah: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate

Even most of the philosophical definitions pertain to emotion. Personally, I would define “hate” as “the tendency for one’s anger to be amplified by the (mental or physical) presence of certain objects (this includes concepts).” I say this because people aren’t always angry about the things they hate, but when they are angry about such things, the anger is disproportionate. But I suppose this is a non-issue if we both mean different things by “hate.”

However, that’s not how it’s always used (at least according to a bunch of philosophers). The will is capable of hatred … in which case it means, “Seeking a thing’s destruction.”

I think it’s interesting that you consider the will to be so isolated from emotions. What influences the will? Oneself? But I thought you were your own willpower? How could yourself motivate yourself to act? That’s almost as bad as a being causing its own existence.

It’s heretical by the way to seek the destruction of emotions … kind of a Buddhist thing too.

Err…not really. I guess it depends on whether you’re talking about classical Buddhism or incense-and-robes Buddhism. I don’t think that was the literal message of the Buddha (you don’t take Jesus’ words literally, so why not give Buddha a break as well?). But anyway, the destruction of emotions seems more Stoic than anything. Buddhism is about seeing the relations of things in the universe, their impermanence, and then applying this insight so you may know that your desires are just another part of the whole. It also helps one to understand the origins of one’s desires and how they pertain to one’s immediate reality. For some, this destroys certain desires, for others, it enrichs certain desires.

But, of course, if there was just the brain and no immaterial intellect to enable abstract thought … you wouldn’t be capable of reasoning either. Hmm.

How do you know this? I think this is another one of those ideas that sounds good but is ultimately unsupported.

It depends what you mean by “value.” If you just mean “that which one likes” then that could probably be considered subjective. If you mean “that which is good for something” then it’s no subjective. Food is valuable for sustaining human life, for example.

But what is good for something is also subjective. I’d think that sex at my age would be good for me; the Church doesn’t feel the same way. I think once someone asks, “Why do I consider life valuable?” they will see where emotions take part.

Wow. I’m surprised you made this remark. Even Aquinas would say that animals have emotions. I think that’s pretty obvious (are you not a pet person?). Sentient simply means “having senses” (and passions go along with that). All animals are thus sentient. But not all animals are rational (capable of abstract thought). Many scientists nowadays say “sentient” when they mean “rational.”

Didn’t I tell you that I was using a very particular definition of “sentience” here?

When you say “best” do you me “correct”?

No.

 

[jkiernan56]

Being ignorant of the existence of divine beings doesn’t entail ignorance of everything. God isn’t the starting point.

And what is your starting point at this moment? Ooops … that moment has already passed. What about this moment? Ooops … that one has passed too. What about this moment. Dang gone it … it keeps slipping away.

Maybe you are not ignorant of everything, but you are ignorant of what is most important. Hopefully you are not ignorant and void of love in your life. Truly, that is a very sad and lonely starting point.

 

[JOHNONEVI]

Being ignorant of the existence of divine beings doesn’t entail ignorance of everything. God isn’t the starting point.

Well, yeah: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate

Even most of the philosophical definitions pertain to emotion. Personally, I would define “hate” as “the tendency for one’s anger to be amplified by the (mental or physical) presence of certain objects (this includes concepts).” I say this because people aren’t always angry about the things they hate, but when they are angry about such things, the anger is disproportionate. But I suppose this is a non-issue if we both mean different things by “hate.”

I think it’s interesting that you consider the will to be so isolated from emotions. What influences the will? Oneself? But I thought you were your own willpower? How could yourself motivate yourself to act? That’s almost as bad as a being causing its own existence.

Err…not really. I guess it depends on whether you’re talking about classical Buddhism or incense-and-robes Buddhism. I don’t think that was the literal message of the Buddha (you don’t take Jesus’ words literally, so why not give Buddha a break as well?). But anyway, the destruction of emotions seems more Stoic than anything. Buddhism is about seeing the relations of things in the universe, their impermanence, and then applying this insight so you may know that your desires are just another part of the whole. It also helps one to understand the origins of one’s desires and how they pertain to one’s immediate reality. For some, this destroys certain desires, for others, it enrichs certain desires.

How do you know this? I think this is another one of those ideas that sounds good but is ultimately unsupported.

But what is good for something is also subjective. I’d think that sex at my age would be good for me; the Church doesn’t feel the same way. I think once someone asks, “Why do I consider life valuable?” they will see where emotions take part.

Didn’t I tell you that I was using a very particular definition of “sentience” here?

No.

Let me chime in here with a quote from Plato, It is easy to forgive children who are afraid of the dark but it is much harder to overlook adults who are afraid of the light.Isn’t that the essence of evil, absence of light? To choose to live in darkness[ignorance predjudice,hatred,fear] rather than release the light that burns within us all. They say we are all flawed but the cracks in our armour are to let the light put rather than to let the light in.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you regard a person as an object?

Do you regard a person as a physical object which functions entirely in accordance with physical laws?

There aren’t objective reasons why we should live or die. The only reason you’ll find to support your life is “I want to live.”

Why do you want to live?

But in the end, only you, your friends, and your family really care about you (well, I care about you, at least as much as it’s possible to care for someone you know through the internet alone).

I appreciate your concern - which is mutual. Do you think it is impossible to care about a person with whom you have never had any contact?

The rest is comforting delusion.

How do you know that?

Well I’m sure that once reason proves itself useful to said person he’ll adopt it as a value once again.

Useful for what?

Some people don’t want to go on living but do so because others need them*.*

They value their life insofar as it allows them to care for others.

Some people live alone, are not valued by anyone and don’t value their lives at all. Are their lives valueless?

If you rely on emotion more than reason you are bound to come to grief - unless you are an unusually unemotional person.

Your argument against being emotional is threatening me with an emotion (grief, in this case).

You obviously don’t understand the expression “come to grief”. I am not threatening you with anything. Let me put it more simply. People who rely on their emotions more than reason are unrealistic and sometimes killed as a result.

The urge to live need not involve any emotions. It’s instinctive.

Which is why I specified that I wouldn’t consciously pursue life without emotion.

Don’t you believe a person can make choices dispassionately? To choose to live on purely rational grounds… to finish a project for example?

Was the double-negative intentional?

It could be but it isn’t! So you have no control over your thoughts or actions?

Are you quite sure absolutely nothing is objectively valuable?

Yes.

So everything is intrinsically valueless?

Even if there were no reason why we ought to exist it does not follow that existence is valueless.

I’m not arguing against value, I’m just saying that value is subjective.

Does that mean we imagine things are valuable?

Life is a source of opportunities. Do you reject the value of opportunities?

What sort of opportunities?

Opportunities for thinking, feeling, choosing, making decisions and many kinds of physical activity.

When I say “sentient” I mean “having an emotional capacity.” I’m fairly certain that mice don’t have emotional capacities (I’m no biologist).

Why do you attach values only to beings with emotions?

Is nothing is valuable without the existence of human beings?

When did I say that?

You stated “You **deem **these things valuable due to your emotional response”. It seems to follow that nothing is valuable unless there are beings with a capacity for thought.

And if no one values a person’s life he/she may be killed painlessly?

It’s not a question of what may or may not be done. It’s a question of what should be done. According to my ethical system, this would not be sufficient reason to kill someone.

What is your ethical system based on?

Naturally, I feel that my opinion of what should be done is best, just as you feel yours is best, and everyone else feels that their own opinions are best.

So no opinion is superior to another? They are all equally acceptable?

Then sentience is inherently valuable because value cannot be produced by something valueless…

This is an unsupported assertion.

Please explain how something valueless can produce something valuable.

In that case pleasure and pain are objective values.

“Intrinsic” has a connotation that makes it related to objective qualities, so subjectivists tend to use “inherent” instead.

A convenient distinction!

I equate pleasure with goodness–that is, the thing that ought to be produced…

So pleasure is always good? And pain is always evil?

…but that doesn’t mean I consider “goodness” to be objective.

Don’t you think pleasure is objective? And pain?

The inherent value of pleasure and pain stems from the inherent value of sentience which stems from the inherent value of life…

…the axiomatic value of life, maybe.

The use of the term axiomatic does not alter the fact.

Why is life valuable?

The life of a person is the source of opportunities for creativity, individual and spiritual fulfilment, the pursuit of knowledge, the appreciation of beauty, social relations, friendship and love.

A moral nihilist with regard to objective values because you believe nothing is intrinsically valuable.

Okay, I’m an “objective nihilist.”

Let’s put it another way. You believe all values are arbitrary illusions which correspond to nothing in reality and are entirely dependent on an individual’s emotional preferences.
Is that correct?

 

[Oreoracle]

Do you regard a person as a physical object which functions entirely in accordance with physical laws?

Yes.

Why do you want to live?

I want to live because I enjoy living.

Do you think it is impossible to care about a person with whom you have never had any contact?

That depends on what you mean by “contact.” I don’t think you can care about someone you don’t know, if that’s what your asking.

How do you know that?

There may be an afterlife, but it’s irrational to believe there is one. You can’t prove that fairies don’t exist, but is it rational to believe in them?

Useful for what?

For attaining personal satisfaction.

Some people live alone, are not valued by anyone and don’t value their lives at all. Are their lives valueless?

To me, no. To them, yes. By the way, who might these suicidal hermits be?

You obviously don’t understand the expression “come to grief”.

Indeed I don’t. Poetry and debate don’t mix.

I am not threatening you with anything. Let me put it more simply. People who rely on their emotions more than reason are unrealistic and sometimes killed as a result.

Can you give me an example of a decision that can be made without the use of emotion? And no, “deciding” that 2 plus 2 equals 4 is not a decision. I’m talking about mental deliberation that prompts action.

Don’t you believe a person can make choices dispassionately? To choose to live on purely rational grounds… to finish a project for example?

Why should they finish a project?

So you have no control over your thoughts or actions?

We’re back to the spectator/actor metaphor I used in another thread. I’m not sure what this has to do with the topic, though.

So everything is intrinsically valueless?

Yes.

Does that mean we imagine things are valuable?

Loosely, yes. Keep in mind that we’re talking about feelings and conceptions, not senses and perceptions. Values aren’t illusions, they’re just manifestations of desires.

Opportunities for thinking, feeling, choosing, making decisions and many kinds of physical activity.

Those things are valuable because we are pleased by them. If and when those things cause us pain, we would (and do) dismiss them.

Why do you attach values only to beings with emotions?

I think that only beings with emotions have values, yes. Information alone doesn’t lead to values. If that were the case, your computer would have values (some reject this on the grounds that computers aren’t aware, though).

You stated “You **deem **these things valuable due to your emotional response”. It seems to follow that nothing is valuable unless there are beings with a capacity for thought.

Right, but how did I imply that only humans think? (I actually said “feel” but you’re close enough.)

What is your ethical system based on?

The greatest happiness principle. Wikipedia has a great article on utilitarianism.

So no opinion is superior to another? They are all equally acceptable?

Well, no. You see, the idea of what is acceptable is an opinion in itself. To me, opinions that conflict with my ethical view are less significant, but this is not an objective assessment. What you’re using is just a common straw man against moral relativism.

Please explain how something valueless can produce something valuable.

Here’s an example that your own ideology has to deal with: Since sperm cells and egg cells are in themselves valueless, how can they produce a valuable being? Or maybe you believe the soul makes a human valuable. I’m sure I can give another example, in that case.

A convenient distinction!

Not really. Connotations are important, and any language arts teacher would tell you that. For example, pro-lifers could simply say that abortionists kill infants, but that phrasing may not be powerful enough to sway the crowd. So they instead say that abortionists slaughter babies. The words have the same definitions, but different usages. See?

So pleasure is always good? And pain is always evil?

That’s what I’d say.

Don’t you think pleasure is objective? And pain?

Yes, but my contention that pleasure should be and pain should not be is subjective. Pleasure doesn’t literally possess the quality of “should be” or, as we might say, “goodness.”

The life of a person is the source of opportunities for creativity, individual and spiritual fulfilment, the pursuit of knowledge, the appreciation of beauty, social relations, friendship and love.

Why are those things good? Are you certain emotions play no part in your assessment?

Let’s put it another way. You believe all values are arbitrary illusions which correspond to nothing in reality and are entirely dependent on an individual’s emotional preferences.
Is that correct?

Let’s rephrase: “I believe all values are arbitrary emotional attachments that partially correspond to reality and are partially dependent on an individual’s emotional preferences.” What is valued is obviously a part of reality, at least conceptually, so they aren’t entirely dependent on preferences, and as I stated above, “illusion” doesn’t apply as values are not perceptions.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you regard a person as a physical object which functions according to physical laws?

Then every thought is determined by previous physical events. There can be no distinction between subjective and objective because mental events are simply an aspect of physical events.

Why do you want to live?

I want to live because I enjoy living.

Is it natural to enjoy living?

I don’t think you can care about someone you don’t know…

Even if that person is being treated unjustly?

Useful for what?

For attaining personal satisfaction.

Just your satisfaction?

Some people live alone, are not valued by anyone and don’t value their lives at all. Are their lives valueless?

To me, no. To them, yes.

Why do you think their lives are valuable? BTW In modern cities there are people who live alone and think they are worthless because no one cares for them.

You obviously don’t understand the expression “come to grief”.

Indeed I don’t. Poetry and debate don’t mix.

It’s not poetry but a common expression:
Come to grief: Fig. to experience something unpleasant or damaging. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms

People who rely on their emotions more than reason are unrealistic and sometimes killed as a result.

Can you give me an example of a decision that can be made without the use of emotion?

A decision to cross the road…

Don’t you believe a person can make choices dispassionately? To finish a project for example?

Why should they finish a project?

Because they have promised to do so.

So everything is intrinsically valueless?

Even your thought that everything is intrinsically valueless?

Does that mean we imagine things are valuable?

Loosely, yes. Keep in mind that we’re talking about feelings and conceptions, not senses and perceptions.

So senses and perceptions are not valuable?

Values aren’t illusions, they’re just manifestations of desires.

So if we don’t desire something it cannot be valuable?

Opportunities for thinking, feeling, choosing, making decisions and many kinds of physical activity.

Those things are valuable because we are pleased by them. If and when those things cause us pain, we would (and do) dismiss them.

Don’t we ever make painful decisions?

Why do you attach values only to beings with emotions?

I think that only beings with emotions have values, yes. Information alone doesn’t lead to values.

So the DNA code is not valuable?

Right, but how did I imply that only humans think? (I actually said “feel” but you’re close enough.)

Your exact words: “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 term “deem” means “give judgement, judge; think, consider” and is applied only to rational persons. Interestingly, " a deemster is either of the two judges on the Isle of Man".

What is your ethical system based on?
The greatest happiness principle. Wikipedia has a great article on utilitarianism.

With its flaws! e.g.
“Yet such an argument is implicitly tautological (“What is it that people want? Pleasure. But what is pleasure? What people want.”). The utilitarian therefore has no ultimate justification for primarily valuing pleasure, other than to say that “this is the way it should be.” In this critique, utilitarianism is thus ultimately reduced to a form of dishonest ethical intuitionism, unable to recognize or acknowledge its own groundlessness.”

So no opinion is superior to another? They are all equally acceptable?

Well, no. You see, the idea of what is acceptable is an opinion in itself. To me, opinions that conflict with my ethical view are less significant, but this is not an objective assessment.

If those opinions contain logical inconsistencies it must be an objective assessment that they are less significant.

Here’s an example that your own ideology has to deal with: Since sperm cells and egg cells are in themselves valueless, how can they produce a valuable being?

Why do you assume sperm cells and egg cells are valueless? They are valuable precisely because they are essential for the continuation of life.

So pleasure is always good? And pain is always evil?

That’s what I’d say.

Even if a person obtains pleasure from inflicting pain?!

Yes, but my contention that pleasure should be and pain should not be is subjective. Pleasure doesn’t literally possess the quality of “should be” or, as we might say, “goodness.”

If pleasure is our primary goal it must be the natural result of the way we are made.

The life of a person is the source of opportunities for creativity, individual and spiritual fulfilment, the pursuit of knowledge, the appreciation of beauty, social relations, friendship and love.

Why are those things good?

Those things are objectively good because it is in the nature of a person to be creative, pursue knowledge, appreciate beauty and have social relations, friendship and love.

Are you certain emotions play no part in your assessment?

Yes. It is an objective conclusion on objective facts.

Let’s rephrase: “I believe all values are arbitrary emotional attachments that partially correspond to reality and are partially dependent on an individual’s emotional preferences.”

From what you have said it seems that the preference for pleasure and the pleasure-seeking goal are not arbitrary emotional attachments but the inevitable consequence of the way we are made.

BTW The Problem Of Evil does not exist if evil is subjective!

 

[Oreoracle]

Then every thought is determined by previous physical events. There can be no distinction between subjective and objective because mental events are simply an aspect of physical events.

You didn’t ask whether our functions can be explained by physical laws, you just asked if they were in accordance with physical laws. Nothing we do contradicts physical laws, hence my answer. I think it was just a misunderstanding.

Is it natural to enjoy living?

Is there anything that’s unnatural? I think all this talk of what’s “natural” is just a lot of fluff.

Even if that person is being treated unjustly?

In that case, you would be caring about the unjust treatment and not the person.

Just your satisfaction?

It can be for everyone’s satisfaction. Pleasing others pleases me. Since pleasing others is a preference of mine, and indeed prompts helpful behaviors on my part, I can’t perform any “selfless” actions because any attempt to do so is ultimately done so that I may satisfy a preference of mine.

Why do you think their lives are valuable? BTW In modern cities there are people who live alone and think they are worthless because no one cares for them.

They are valuable because happiness is valuable, and happiness can only be experienced by living, sentient beings. Life is instrumental to the end of happiness.

It’s not poetry but a common expression:
Come to grief: Fig. to experience something unpleasant or damaging. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms

Alright, the phrase refers to an emotional state that is “unpleasant or damaging,” which is exactly what I said. Your argument against relying on emotion is threatening me with these emotional states, which is a self-defeating maneuver.

A decision to cross the road…

Why do you want to cross the road? I’m sure you’ll respond with: “To get to the other side.” Why do you want to get to the other side?

Because they have promised to do so.

Why should we keep promises?

Even your thought that everything is intrinsically valueless?

Since my thoughts can’t possibly possess objective qualities (on account of the fact that they’re subjective entities), I think not.

So if we don’t desire something it cannot be valuable?

We won’t consider it valuable, no. You’re still thinking of value as an objective quality instead of a mental construct.

Don’t we ever make painful decisions?

Of course. What are you trying to prove?

So the DNA code is not valuable?

I said information alone couldn’t lead to values. DNA eventually leads to and maintains sentience, so it is not valuable in itself, but rather for what it produces.

Your exact words: “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 term “deem” means “give judgement, judge; think, consider” and is applied only to rational persons. Interestingly, " a deemster is either of the two judges on the Isle of Man".

Right. I was only saying that you missed the point of my position here. The capacity for thought (sapience) should not be directly compared to the capacity for emotion (in this case, sentience). That’s why I protested your use of “thinking.” It’s possible for an animal to have its brain damaged in such a way that it can still think but with a diminished capacity for feelings (and vice-versa).

With its flaws! e.g.
“Yet such an argument is implicitly tautological (“What is it that people want? Pleasure. But what is pleasure? What people want.”). The utilitarian therefore has no ultimate justification for primarily valuing pleasure, other than to say that “this is the way it should be.” In this critique, utilitarianism is thus ultimately reduced to a form of dishonest ethical intuitionism, unable to recognize or acknowledge its own groundlessness.”

Though true, this observation applies to all ethical systems. It even applies to systems that aren’t ethical. Axioms cannot be proven, be they utilitarian, stoic, Christian, egoist, or otherwise. The argument above could just as easily be an attempt to discredit mathematics on the grounds that one can’t prove the reflexive property. Would you call mathematics “groundless” because its axioms have no “ultimate justification?”

Why do you assume sperm cells and egg cells are valueless? They are valuable precisely because they are essential for the continuation of life.

Just a question: Do you think it’s immoral to smoke? I’ll explain why that’s significant when you respond.

Even if a person obtains pleasure from inflicting pain?!

I don’t consider generating your own pleasure to be a morally significant act, so causing pain to others would be wrong, in this case. (This works in reverse, too; I don’t consider it immoral for others to harm themselves, though I may try to prevent them from doing so.)

If pleasure is our primary goal it must be the natural result of the way we are made.
Those things are objectively good because it is in the nature of a person to be creative, pursue knowledge, appreciate beauty and have social relations, friendship and love.
Yes. It is an objective conclusion on objective facts.

There we go with your “natural” talk again. Tell me: Why should we act naturally? Why is nature valuable? I think you’re running out of gas; eventually you’ll have to cough up an emotion.

BTW The Problem Of Evil does not exist if evil is subjective!

As I’ve explained to Petey, that’s akin to saying, “Emotions don’t exist if they’re subjective!”

 

[tonyrey]

Nothing we do contradicts physical laws…

So all your thoughts and decisions are caused by previous events? Self-control and responsibility are illusions because you behave in the only way you can?

Is there anything that’s unnatural?

If some one treats you unnaturally you’ll soon change your mind! Enjoyment is usually an indication that a person is fulfilling purposes necessary for a full life, e.g. eating, drinking, thinking, loving… Is it natural to enjoy living?

Even if that person is being treated unjustly?

In that case, you would be caring about the unjust treatment and not the person.

So you are not concerned about the person at all?

Just your satisfaction?

It can be for everyone’s satisfaction. Pleasing others pleases me.

Why does it please you to please others?

Since pleasing others is a preference of mine, and indeed prompts helpful behaviors on my part, I can’t perform any “selfless” actions because any attempt to do so is ultimately done so that I may satisfy a preference of mine.

So you never do anything you would prefer not to do?

They are valuable because happiness is valuable, and happiness can only be experienced by living, sentient beings.

Why is happiness valuable?

Life is instrumental to the end of happiness.

So life is instrumentally valuable?

All right, the phrase refers to an emotional state that is “unpleasant or damaging”.

If you lie in a deep coma you are not in any emotional state…

Why do you want to cross the road?

To prove to you that life depends mainly on rational behaviour!

Why should we keep promises?

Because it is the basis of a consistent, rational existence. If you fail to keep your promises you rely on falsehood to achieve your goals. Yet the fundamental purpose of communication is to communicate the truth. If you deny the truth is valuable you might as well stop trying to understand anything.

Even your thought that everything is intrinsically valueless?

Since my thoughts can’t possibly possess objective qualities (on account of the fact that they’re subjective entities), I think not.

If all our thoughts are objectively valueless why should true ones be more successful than false ones? If you deny the truth is objectively valuable you are wasting your time trying to persuade yourself and others certain propositions are true. The only reasonable thing to do is to stop communicating - if values exist only in the mind…

So if we don’t desire something it cannot be valuable?

We won’t consider it valuable, no.

So we are infallible about what is valuable?

Don’t we ever make painful decisions?

Of course. What are you trying to prove?

You believe we always do what gives us pleasure…

DNA eventually leads to and maintains sentience, so it is not valuable in itself, but rather for what it produces.

So you agree that DNA is instrumentally valuable?

“Yet such an argument is implicitly tautological (“What is it that people want? Pleasure. But what is pleasure? What people want.”). The utilitarian therefore has no ultimate justification for primarily valuing pleasure, other than to say that “this is the way it should be.” In this critique, utilitarianism is thus ultimately reduced to a form of dishonest ethical intuitionism, unable to recognize or acknowledge its own groundlessness.”

Though true, this observation applies to all ethical systems.

It does not apply to a system which regards as goodness as the ultimate reality - but it does apply to naturalism…

Axioms cannot be proven, be they utilitarian, stoic, Christian, egoist, or otherwise.

It is not necessary to prove axioms which are true. Their truth is borne out by events.

The argument above could just as easily be an attempt to discredit mathematics on the grounds that one can’t prove the reflexive property.

The basic principles of mathematics are not reflexive because they reflect reality.

Would you call mathematics “groundless” because its axioms have no “ultimate justification?”

They have the ultimate justification of being logically and epistemologically necessary.If you abandon them you are denying your own propositions can be true!

Why do you assume sperm cells and egg cells are valueless? They are valuable precisely because they are essential for the continuation of life.

Just a question: Do you think it’s immoral to smoke?

It is evil because it causes unnecessary disease and suffering.

Even if a person obtains pleasure from inflicting pain?!

I don’t consider generating your own pleasure to be a morally significant act, so causing pain to others would be wrong, in this case. (This works in reverse, too; I don’t consider it immoral for others to harm themselves, though I may try to prevent them from doing so.)

!!! So you are entitled to do anything whatsoever in order to obtain pleasure!

If pleasure is our primary goal it must be the natural result of the way we are made.
Those things are objectively good because it is in the nature of a person to be creative, pursue knowledge, appreciate beauty and have social relations, friendship and love.
Yes. It is an objective conclusion on objective facts.

Tell me: Why should we act naturally? Why is nature valuable?

Because life and happiness would not exist without it…

BTW The Problem Of Evil does not exist if evil is subjective!

That’s akin to saying, “Emotions don’t exist if they’re subjective!”

Do you regard them as objective evidence? How can subjective “reality” disprove an objective fact?

 

[Oreoracle]

So all your thoughts and decisions are caused by previous events?

No, I’m only saying that thinking doesn’t contradict physical laws. We can’t think our way out of the law of gravity. Do you disagree?

If some one treats you unnaturally you’ll soon change your mind! Enjoyment is usually an indication that a person is fulfilling purposes necessary for a full life, e.g. eating, drinking, thinking, loving…

And the abuse that would make such ends unattainable is also natural–forms of abuse have naturalistic explanations, consist of natural items, are caused by base emotions that we would consider natural, etc. What the heck isn’t natural about abusing another person? It might be wrong, but it isn’t “unnatural.”

Is it natural to enjoy living?

Yes, and so is everything else.

Who made you the arbiter of what is natural? Perhaps it is “natural” to cause ourselves to suffer, and your interference would be against nature (and would therefore, by your logic, be immoral). What tells you that suffering is bad, other than your emotions?

So you are not concerned about the person at all?

Knowing something is a prerequisite of caring for it. Would you care for a girl you’re going on a blind date with? Certainly not, because you don’t know what to care for! Maybe you can say that you care for her because she’s human, or conscious, etc., but you can’t care for anything particular. My position is simply that you can’t care for unknown qualities.

Why does it please you to please others?

I’m not certain. I’ve cultivated the preference over the years, so that accounts for its strength. I’d guess that natural selection did away with humans who were uncooperative, and so this instinctual empathy persisted over the years. It gives us a better chance of survival.

So you never do anything you would prefer not to do?

When given options, I choose what I most prefer to do. All options might be unfavorable, but I choose what I feel is most favorable.

Why is happiness valuable?

We all pursue it unconditionally.

So life is instrumentally valuable?

Yes, but not inherently.

If you lie in a deep coma you are not in any emotional state…

But then I wouldn’t be in grief.

To prove to you that life depends mainly on rational behaviour!

Why would you want to prove that? You’ll respond: “So you’ll know the truth.” Why do you want me to know the truth? “Because knowing the truth improves our lives.” Why would you want to improve our lives? (Sorry, I’m just trying to speed this process up. You don’t seem capable of asking “why?” unless I prompt you to do it.)

If you fail to keep your promises you rely on falsehood to achieve your goals. Yet the fundamental purpose of communication is to communicate the truth. If you deny the truth is valuable you might as well stop trying to understand anything.

This sounds like the classic Kantian slippery slope argument. “If lying can be considered good in some cases, all communication falls apart!” (Hehe. You can tell that Kant didn’t get out much.) Keeping promises can get people killed.

If all our thoughts are objectively valueless why should true ones be more successful than false ones?

The value of something does not affect its successfulness in any way. Does a boulder fail to roll down a hill because it isn’t valuable?

If you deny the truth is objectively valuable you are wasting your time trying to persuade yourself and others certain propositions are true. The only reasonable thing to do is to stop communicating - if values exist only in the mind…

“If what I believe isn’t the case then the world will be dark and scary!”

C’mon, you can do better than this.

So we are infallible about what is valuable?

Things aren’t valuable. You still fail to realize that value assessments aren’t descriptive.

You believe we always do what gives us pleasure…

…or prevents pain, which serves the same end.

So you agree that DNA is instrumentally valuable?

Yes.

It does not apply to a system which regards as goodness as the ultimate reality - but it does apply to naturalism…

Well, saying that God is good is a circular conclusion. You believe that God is goodness, right? So if God is the standard of goodness, and things that satisfy that standard are good, then saying that God is good is merely an assertion that he satisfies himself. So “I should obey God” is axiomatic, and you simply can’t prove God is good without using circular arguments.

Axioms are assumed to be true, whether you like it or not. That is, in fact, part of the definition.

The basic principles of mathematics are not reflexive because they reflect reality.

You obviously don’t know what the reflexive property is. The reflexive property is simply “A=A.” This cannot be proven without being assumed, and any math teacher will tell you that. Is mathematics groundless because it makes this assumption?

So you are entitled to do anything whatsoever in order to obtain pleasure!

Where did you get that? No, the pleasure you cause for yourself isn’t calculated, so if you harm others to obtain pleasure for yourself, the action is considered evil (the pain would outweigh the pleasure because the pleasure isn’t calculated). Please think before you type.

Because life and happiness would not exist without it…

So Natural Law doesn’t need to be followed if it fails to attain these ends? Nature is only instrumental to life, which is instrumental to happiness? If so, we agree. Happiness is the end.

 

[Areopagite]

Being ignorant of the existence of divine beings doesn’t entail ignorance of everything. God isn’t the starting point.

And yet you claimed you knew that a divine protector doesn’t care about us. Kind of a weird dogmatic statement to make, considering your an agnostic. Usually agnostics have the humility to admit they don’t know about this.

Well, yeah: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate

Even most of the philosophical definitions pertain to emotion.

Really? You must be well-read in philosophy to make such a general statement about this. Aristotle certainly didn’t say that emotional love was the only love that existed. Plato wouldn’t have said that either. In fact, the only Pre-Socratic I can think of that talked at all about love (Empodocles) said the main kind of love was not emotional either (he used it in the physical or even “gravitational” sense). The wikipedia article didn’t prove your point at all either. And the merrian-webster page was very sparse. One of my dictionaries defined love as “ill will.” So, I’m not quite sure your point that “most people think emotional love is the only love” (if that was the point you were trying to prove) is very convincing.

I think it’s interesting that you consider the will to be so isolated from emotions. What influences the will? Oneself? But I thought you were your own willpower? How could yourself motivate yourself to act? That’s almost as bad as a being causing its own existence.

It depends what you mean by “isolated from emotions” and “influencing the will.” The emotions simply make it easier or harder for the will to choose something. This is because the emotions incline the body one way, and in order to avoid giving into that inclination, one’s will must be strong enough to do so. I would say this is common sense (but you are free to reject it of course). And I’m not sure what you mean by “That’s almost as bad a being causing its own existence.”

Err…not really. I guess it depends on whether you’re talking about classical Buddhism or incense-and-robes Buddhism. I don’t think that was the literal message of the Buddha (you don’t take Jesus’ words literally, so why not give Buddha a break as well?). But anyway, the destruction of emotions seems more Stoic than anything. Buddhism is about seeing the relations of things in the universe, their impermanence, and then applying this insight so you may know that your desires are just another part of the whole. It also helps one to understand the origins of one’s desires and how they pertain to one’s immediate reality. For some, this destroys certain desires, for others, it enrichs certain desires.

Well, perhaps that’s one denomination of Buddhism. I know that Stoicism had different sects as well. The later Stoics were all about destroying the emotions. It seems like in some strands of Buddhism aim to “eliminate desire” which I think is a real problem. But, I’m no scholar in Eastern stuff.

But, of course, if there was just the brain and no immaterial intellect to enable abstract thought … you wouldn’t be capable of reasoning either. Hmm.

Well, in short, I would ask the question how could material things be capable of immaterial understanding? How could concrete reality be the only instruments for understanding things abstract? It seems a contradiction. That’s one thing to consider. No?

But what is good for something is also subjective. I’d think that sex at my age would be good for me; the Church doesn’t feel the same way. I think once someone asks, “Why do I consider life valuable?” they will see where emotions take part.

So, someone could rape another person if he thought it was good for him?