Personally, I think the key here is potential. Humans evolved with the mental capacity to be aware of abstract concepts such as ‘value’ and ‘life’ - but no initial understanding or knowledge of them, and certainly no words for them (ie. ignorance). We needed to gradually develop an awareness and understanding of this ‘value of life’ in relation to observing others first, before we could apply it to our own behaviour, recognising a potential to interact in a way that values life. But you can’t just tell someone to ‘value life’ when they have no way to relate those concepts to observable behaviour. You have to build these concepts of ‘good’ behaviour out of randomness - show people their potential.
We do what we recognise as effective behaviour in others - that’s how we learn without language. The ‘morality’ of a person who is mentally challenged becomes the responsibility of those who model for them and demonstrate the value of ‘good’ behaviour, as with a child. As for those with a sound knowledge of ethics, it is their capacity to blatantly ignore, isolate or exclude information that they personally don’t value (such as predicting the potential pain of a fellow human being) that enables them to violate moral principles. These are, for me, the three ‘gates’ of the will that determine its freedom. Ignorance/awareness is just the start. — Possibility
Thanks for your valuable comments. Like you said, ignorance is a very important player in the field. Just think, if evolution is true then we began as ignorants, unaware of the concept of morality and lacking the capacity to process such abstractions in any meaningful way. Slowly, we began to understand, in step with our growing cerebral capabilities and having thus dispelled our ignorance to the best of our abilities, we gained an appreciation of the notion of morality. This seems to be an ongoing process as we have yet to completely comprehend what the nature of the good or the bad is, as amply demonstrated by many mutually inconsistent theories on the subject. — TheMadFool
If there is no god there is no problem, at least not a philosophical one. — A Seagull
The concept of ‘God’ has been another key player here, providing a relational scope to this ignorance as we strive to overcome our fear of what we don’t yet understand. If there is no ‘God’ then we can still relate to the ‘unknown’ and strive to understand it - we’re just more likely to convince ourselves that any uncertain or ill-conceived relations with the universe don’t matter.
If there IS a ‘God’ (however we understand it), then we’re inspired to relate to these uncertain relations with confidence - but our ignorance comes from those who have attempted to ‘define’ or reduce this notion of ‘God’ to something they can share, and then lost sight of the irreducible relation to a more inclusive potential of humanity (and ultimately all possibility) that it points to.
The omni-benevolence of ‘God’, for me, is not so much that anything ‘evil’ is something other than ‘God’, but that our perception of something as ‘evil’ suggests a limited understanding of ‘God’. So ignorance lies not only with those who do ‘evil’, but with those who call it ‘evil’. That’s the challenge to our understanding of ‘God’, I think. — Possibility
However, realize that god is supposed to be a being who's concerned about our welfare and one of our concerns is good and evil. Granted that we may be ignorant of what good and evil actually are, but surely we have a satisfactory handle on its basic form which is seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. I believe you mentioned happiness somewhere. — TheMadFool
But when we’re inclined to ignore, isolate or exclude something as ‘evil’, then I think we need to stop and ask ourselves not why an ‘all-good God’ allows such ‘evil’, but why we call it ‘evil’ when, from ‘God’’s perspective, all is ‘good’? — Possibility
The more we understand what it means to ‘know’, to ‘love’ and to ‘relate’ beyond the limits of an observable, measurable universe, the less necessary this notion of ‘God’ as a being becomes. — Possibility
Interesting point of view but you said 'good' instead of just good. Why? Is your, god's 'good' different from good as we recognize it? — TheMadFool
The more we understand what it means to ‘know’, to ‘love’ and to ‘relate’ beyond the limits of an observable, measurable universe, the less necessary this notion of ‘God’ as a being becomes.
— Possibility
Less necessary for what? In what way does god become unnecessary? — TheMadFool
And while I consider myself less than average in terms of intellectual capacity, I've heard people who're patently more intelligent refer to less endowed people as "stupid" or "moronic", ignorant by your reckoning. — TheMadFool
What I do want to mention though is that people sometimes say that there's a thin line between genius and madness. Could you intepret that for me in re god? God, being omniscient, has to be a genius par excellence. My question is how do we know he isn't mad/insane? — TheMadFool
Ignorance is not related to intellectual capacity, but to awareness and information. — Possibility
you seem to attribute evil to ignorance, even going so far as to say that there is no such thing as evil and all is 'good' in god's eyes. I naturally concluded then that the relationship between god and us is essentially based on intelligence/knowledge - god being the superior, perhaps infinitely so, intelligence-wise. This point of view basically endorses a view that evil, in all its forms, is nothing more than a misunderstanding of god's omnibenevolence and that evil is simply good in disguise in a manner of speaking. — TheMadFool
If so, can you explain how and in what way the holocaust, in which roughly 6 million jews, men, women and children, perished, was good? There are an innumerable number of atrocities, cold-blooded murder to genocide at a grand scale, that beg for an explanation as to how they are good. — TheMadFool
Okay, let me clarify. In god’s eyes, there is no such thing as evil, but that also means there is no such thing as good — Possibility
You’re isolating a collection of events in time and focusing on the death of innocent human beings - of course that isn’t good. — Possibility
I’m not saying that ‘evil is good in disguise’ at all. More like it’s at a point where its potential is unrealised. — Possibility
What is this potential you frequently mention? — TheMadFool
The moment you isolate an event from its relation to the unfolding universe beyond time, you are ceasing to view the world as god would perceive it. — Possibility
So our relationship to ‘God’ is always a manifestation of the difference between this absolute possibility and our perceived potential. — Possibility
How would god perceive this universe? — TheMadFool
What is absolute possibility and perceived potential? — TheMadFool
You're basically saying that god is beyond our understanding - our perceived potential implied to be insufficient to grasp god's absolute possibility. That's why our relationship with god is based on, as you claimed, the difference between the two. It all boils down to ignorance which is probably the defining characteristic of our perceived potential. I agree that indeed, if a being, here god, can create the universe then it would be highly unlikely that the difference between our perceived potential and god's absolute possibility can ever be bridged successfully. The gap in our understanding of god, so conceived, may never be crossed by humans and this brings us to the main issue - the problem of evil. — TheMadFool
Here I'd like to provide you with an analogy. A chimpanzee may not understand a human just like we can't understand god but we humans understand full well that chimpanzees are essentially hedonists and refrain from causing them harm to the extent that we're fully aware of that fact. Why is it then that god, infinitely knowledgeable as he is, allows evil, the primary cause of much suffering? Basically, god should not allow evil to exist to the extent that free will is irrelevant just as we either avoid, or are reluctant to, cause pain to beings (animals) that have less perceived potential than us. — TheMadFool
Your views on the issue of evil and even good itself is basically a version of "god works in mysterious ways" which effectively puts god beyond our comprehension and demotes our intelligence to a level that renders our understanding of the world in general and good and evil in particular to an illusion caused by our ignorance. — TheMadFool
My question is simple: how intelligent do we have to be or how much of our perceived potential must we overcome to gain insight into god's absolute possibility and come to the realization that there is no such thing as good and evil? What kind of rationale could render the putrefying corpses in the ovens of Nazi concentration camps into something neither good not bad, as amoral as playfully kicking a stone down the road? — TheMadFool
Come to think of it, it seems to me that it's exactly the opposite of what you've been claiming all along. Non-human animals don't have the concept of good and evil and their behavior shows that's true and surely you won't deny that animals have less perceived potential than humans? Ergo, our greater perceived potential should get us closer to the truth than theirs: morality is knowledge, not ignorance as you seem to be suggesting, knowledge of a shared heritage, one of the universal desire to promote happiness (good) and prevent suffering (evil). God's absolute possibility would then necessarily reinforce this truth and not contradict it. — TheMadFool
Well, I think that’s an oversimplification which effectively encourages ignorance, so no, that’s not really my view — Possibility
The first line of the hymn has become an adage or saying, encouraging a person to trust God's greater wisdom in the face of trouble or inexplicable events, and is referenced in many literary works — Wikipedia
So yes, our capacity for awareness is closer to the ‘truth’ than theirs. — Possibility
But you refer to ‘happiness’ and ‘suffering’ as if we all know precisely what you mean by those terms — Possibility
What would be interpretation that would do full justice to your position? Read God moves in mysterious ways; the relevant abstract is presented for your consideration below:
The first line of the hymn has become an adage or saying, encouraging a person to trust God's greater wisdom in the face of trouble or inexplicable events, and is referenced in many literary works
— Wikipedia — TheMadFool
For animals, morality is a non-issue but for us, humans, morality is an important aspect of our lives; at least we make a show of it. This is explicable with your theory of perceived potential and infinite potential - humans have greater perceived potential than animals. My contentions was that since god has a greater potential s/he would arrive at a greater/better understanding of morality that includes our beliefs on morality and not come to a conclusion that contradicts our discoveries in the moral sphere, if we can call it that.
You seem to disagree with this and are of the view that we, humans, could b are wrong and good and bad are merely illusions caused by our limited perceived potential. If that's so then one thing strikes me as odd: animals have no notion of morality and by your reckoning god too knows neither good nor evil and so doesn't that mean animals, since they too don't recognize good or evil, are actually god? This is clearly a contradiction since animals have less perceived potential than us and yet their understanding of nature is equal to that of god who in your theory is of infinite potential. — TheMadFool
To begin with I'd like to thank you for the conversation. I too had a view similar to what your espousing here for the possibility remains that either we don't understand or we misunderstand. The denial of these two possibilities implies what is equally improbable -that we actually understand/know reality for what it truly is. — TheMadFool
One big obstacle to such a point of view is it fails to satisfactorily explain "evil" in the conventional sense of the term: for instance it would be extremely insensitive to tell Jews that the holocaust wasn't evil and the same applies to other cases "understood" to be evil. Nevertheless, it's not clear, in the context of your theory, whether this "understanding" is simply gut feelings or is there a good reason to call such things evil at all. Good too becomes a doubtful category of reality. — TheMadFool
Consider the science of ecology and the idea of the food-web. I'm sure you know how evil has been closely associated with predation and good with prey; for instance we call criminals "predators" and we say things like "as innocent as a lamb". These maybe poor examples but hopefully sufficient to convey a "primitive" grasp of ecology and, in line with your thoughts, morality too. In modern times, we've come to recognize that predation is natural and a part of ecology, necessary for harmony and we've managed, only partially in my opinion, to delink predation from evil and maybe we also see the absence of a necessary connection between a lamb and good. Doesn't this square well with your theory? — TheMadFool
So, assuming you are right that evil comes naturally to us and that we are evil by nature, that doesn’t contradict the explanation — Congau
The free will is not about what you choose to like but what you choose to do. In the case of robots that distinction would be blurred since a machine doesn’t have feelings and consequently it cannot “like” anything. We may perhaps say that a robot that moves towards green likes green, but that would be a figure of speech.Imagine you build a robot and program it to like green objects. If you were then to claim you gave the robot free will in order that it may "choose" to like green it wouldn't make sense right? Replace robot with humans and green with evil. — TheMadFool
The free will is not about what you choose to like but what you choose to do. — Congau
Sure, this extreme behaviorist assumption that we only do what we ultimately like doing, does have some truth to it. (Students like taking exams, since they like getting a degree, a job, money etc.) But if the liking is to be traced back to the ultimate goal of the action, how could you prove that we like evil more than anything? People do a lot of evil, but their final goal is rarely that bad, is it? A murderer kills to achieve something else, to get money for example, and that in itself is not evil. People use evil means to reach good or neutral ends.There is no escaping the necessity that whatever one does it ultimately tracks back to our likes/dislikes. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.