How would an atheist explain the probelm of evil?

Chumly wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Chumly wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Miklos7 wrote:
Brandon9000,

The older I get, the less inclined I am to make absolute judgments. Sure, I make the rough judgments that are necessary for navigating my daily life, but I'll leave the absolutes to someone better qualified.

How is labelling a person's behavior evil an absolute any more than labelling it selfish or kind? You simply don't like the idea that evil people exist in the world, so you try to pretend that you're too enlightened to believe in it. That would be fine except for the fact that some people do exhibit frequent evil behavior.

I agree with brandon, except for the terminology. As I said, I consider the word 'evil' to be a religious concept. but rejecting it in no way means to say morality has no foundation. Persons who kill with no remorse, Hitlers, etc., still must face justice.
And what is justice if not society's retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted) which is by many people's beliefs evil; as it then connotes revenge and not equity.........

I know you're joking, at least I hope you are, but it's nonsense to imply that putting a bank robber in jail is evil.
Demonstrate with evidentiary methodology that incarceration is empirically definable as more than Societal Retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted) and you have a case, if not there is no reason to suppose your opinion has merit.

Even if I do often post with some tongue-in-cheek, the challenge still stands if you are willing and able to respond in kind.

This is almost silly, since my conclusion has been the universal opinion for all of history, however, incarceration serves three functions:

1. To deter the individual from repeating the behavior
2. To deter others in society who might commit crimes
3. Punishment

0 Replies

I believe that a basic cognitive dissonance is in operation here. No distinction is being made between the contrast of good and bad, and the contrasts of good and evil. Determining what is good and what is bad is relatively simple, and obviously subjective. I think meatloaf sammiches are good, and tofu is bad.

But when the question becomes one of good and evil, the implication is that there is an eternal, absolute truth about what is good and what is evil. The religionist will tell you that it can be determined by reference to divinely-inspired scripture. The atheist would be unlikely to see things in those terms, and would not be likely to accept a contention that there is an independently existent, absolute and universal evil. Just as is the case with the word "morality," i prefer not to canvass the subject of "evil," because of all the baggage which goes with it, implying that there is a spirit of evil which exists in the world independent of human cognition.

0 Replies

What he meant was'What the hell does being religious have to do with recognizing a universal concept"?

We created religion and gods and saints and Trinities and Nirvanha, not the other way around, deal with it.

0 Replies

So, you're saying you like tofu?

0 Replies

I don't know if anyone said this but:

To me, to say something is evil is to view an action in a human context.
Genocide is evil because in the eyes of humans because it stamps out something generally valued by humanity. (human life)
My stance is rather arm-chair.
Genocide is an action that happens. My human instinct sympathizes with it's victims, however I don't see it as 'evil.'
This would just be an expression of my dislike in an objective form, and I think this causes problems with definition and blame. I prefer to acknowledge my dislike of genocide as purely subjective.

0 Replies

I am nobody...with only one account.
Agrote, why did you make a second account? And once you did, why did you "confess" it?
Nevertheless, I also welcome your alter-ego.

Oops! I see that you DID explain the second account.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Agrote, why did you make a second account? And once you did, why did you "confess" it?
Nevertheless, I also welcome your alter-ego.

Oops! I see that you DID explain the second account.

Yeah. Actually, if I'm honest, I think the reason was that I was asking for some dating advice in the Relationships & Marriage forum after having recently confessed in the Philosophy & Debate forum to having, shall we say, an unusual sexuality. People had got very angry at me for trying to argue that my sexuality isn't totally evil, and so I was worried that if I used the same name people might keep giving me death threats instead of useful advice.

And the reason I just told you that I am both agrote and thoke is that, after accidentally posting here as thoke, I accidentally made a follow-up post as agrote, which might have confused people had I not "confessed".

Sorry for the deception and the digression

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Agrote, why did you make a second account? And once you did, why did you "confess" it?
Nevertheless, I also welcome your alter-ego.

Oops! I see that you DID explain the second account.

Yeah. Actually, if I'm honest, I think the reason was that I was asking for some dating advice in the Relationships & Marriage forum after having recently confessed in the Philosophy & Debate forum to having, shall we say, an unusual sexuality. People had got very angry at me for trying to argue that my sexuality isn't totally evil, and so I was worried that if I used the same name people might keep giving me death threats instead of useful advice.

And the reason I just told you that I am both agrote and thoke is that, after accidentally posting here as thoke, I accidentally made a follow-up post as agrote, which might have confused people had I not "confessed".

Sorry for the deception and digression.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Agrote, why did you make a second account? And once you did, why did you "confess" it?
Nevertheless, I also welcome your alter-ego.

Oops! I see that you DID explain the second account.

Yeah. Actually, if I'm honest, I think the reason was that I was asking for some dating advice in the Relationships & Marriage forum after having recently confessed in the Philosophy & Debate forum to having, shall we say, an unusual sexuality. People had got very angry at me for trying to argue that my sexuality isn't totally evil, and so I was worried that if I used the same name people might keep giving me death threats instead of useful advice.

And the reason I just told you that I am both agrote and thoke is that, after accidentally posting here as thoke, I accidentally made a follow-up post as agrote, which might have confused people had I not "confessed".

Sorry for the deception and digression.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Demonstrate with evidentiary methodology that incarceration is empirically definable as more than Societal Retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted)

How much evidence do you need to show that an imprisoned criminal encounters great difficulty committing crimes against the general populace while imprisoned?

Do you understand that imprisonment serves as self defense for society?

You do believe in the right of self defense , don't you?

0 Replies

I think he's too "enlightened" to believe in self-defense.

0 Replies

I agree that imprisoning criminals is a form of self-defense, but it is a short-sighted one if the prisoners are not imprisoned for life. When they get out, and most of them will, they will have become more dangerous for society, and more skilled at criminal behavior--unless they have been prepared to live more successfully in society. Rehabilitation, while never perfect, also serves our self-defense interest, and it does so in a more humane way, in a way that does not degrade us for cruelty and vindictiveness.

Agrote, I understand: I too hate those damned death threats.
JL

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I agree that imprisoning criminals is a form of self-defense, but it is a short-sighted one if the prisoners are not imprisoned for life. When they get out, and most of them will, they will have become more dangerous for society, and more skilled at criminal behavior--unless they have been prepared to live more successfully in society. Rehabilitation, while never perfect, also serves our self-defense interest, and it does so in a more humane way, in a way that does not degrade us for cruelty and vindictiveness.....
JL

Punishment also has the effect of deterring people who might commit crimes if there were no punishment but only rehabilitation.

0 Replies

No, I refer to ENFORCED, mandatory, activities while IN PRISON. These educational and training activities are designed to render the prisoner more able to live without crime. Remember, some, perhaps many, criminals have considered crime an illegal but viable economic alternative to legal jobs which have not been available to them.
I'm talking about OUR interests, not just theirs. It's called enlightened SELF-interest.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

No, I refer to ENFORCED, mandatory, activities while IN PRISON. These educational and training activities are designed to render the prisoner more able to live without crime. Remember, some, perhaps many, criminals have considered crime an illegal but viable economic alternative to legal jobs which have not been available to them.
I'm talking about OUR interests, not just theirs. It's called enlightened SELF-interest.

Alright, then.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I agree that imprisoning criminals is a form of self-defense, but it is a short-sighted one if the prisoners are not imprisoned for life. When they get out, and most of them will, they will have become more dangerous for society, and more skilled at criminal behavior--unless they have been prepared to live more successfully in society. Rehabilitation, while never perfect, also serves our self-defense interest, and it does so in a more humane way, in a way that does not degrade us for cruelty and vindictiveness.

Agrote, I understand: I too hate those damned death threats.
JL

If you sentence them to less than 5 years in prison you are basically giving them a professional education in criminology at the state penitentiary college for free.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Chumly wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Miklos7 wrote:
Brandon9000,

The older I get, the less inclined I am to make absolute judgments. Sure, I make the rough judgments that are necessary for navigating my daily life, but I'll leave the absolutes to someone better qualified.

How is labelling a person's behavior evil an absolute any more than labelling it selfish or kind? You simply don't like the idea that evil people exist in the world, so you try to pretend that you're too enlightened to believe in it. That would be fine except for the fact that some people do exhibit frequent evil behavior.

I agree with brandon, except for the terminology. As I said, I consider the word 'evil' to be a religious concept. but rejecting it in no way means to say morality has no foundation. Persons who kill with no remorse, Hitlers, etc., still must face justice.
And what is justice if not society's retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted) which is by many people's beliefs evil; as it then connotes revenge and not equity.........

I know you're joking, at least I hope you are, but it's nonsense to imply that putting a bank robber in jail is evil.
Demonstrate with evidentiary methodology that incarceration is empirically definable as more than Societal Retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted) and you have a case, if not there is no reason to suppose your opinion has merit.

Even if I do often post with some tongue-in-cheek, the challenge still stands if you are willing and able to respond in kind.

This is almost silly, since my conclusion has been the universal opinion for all of history, however, incarceration serves three functions:

1. To deter the individual from repeating the behavior
2. To deter others in society who might commit crimes
3. Punishment

Brandon9000 wrote:

This is almost silly....

An opinion of which, as already stated you present no case, thus there is no reason to suppose your opinion has merit.

Brandon9000 wrote:

..........since my conclusion has been the universal opinion for all of history....

Sorry this is not going to work either, as here we have an example of the Logical Fallacy called "argumentum ad populum" in that a proposition is supposed to be true simply because many believe it to be so.

Brandon9000 wrote:

however, incarceration serves three functions:

So you claim, however as discussed: demonstrate with evidentiary methodology that incarceration is empirically definable as more than Societal Retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted) and you have a case, if not there is no reason to suppose your opinion has merit. In any case you have in no way demonstrated your claim that incarceration acts as a viable deterrent.

Brandon9000 wrote:

1. To deter the individual from repeating the behavior

So you claim, however I provide the same merited challenge as above and again note you have failed to respond in kind.

Brandon9000 wrote:

2. To deter others in society who might commit crimes

So you claim, however I provide the same merited challenge as above and again note you have failed to respond in kind.

Brandon9000 wrote:

3. Punishment

Sorry but this is circular. All you have claimed is you think incarnation is punishment.

In sum your case has yet to show any merit.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

however as discussed: demonstrate with evidentiary methodology that incarceration is empirically definable as more than Societal Retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted) and you have a case

Naturally you ignore the argument that incarceration is justifiable societal self defense, not simply 'retribution'.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Demonstrate with evidentiary methodology that incarceration is empirically definable as more than Societal Retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted)

How much evidence do you need to show that an imprisoned criminal encounters great difficulty committing crimes against the general populace while imprisoned?

Do you understand that imprisonment serves as self defense for society?

You do believe in the right of self defense , don't you?

Whether a so-called "imprisoned criminal" can or cannot commit crimes while incarcerated (in fact they most certainly can and do with regularity), is irrelevant to my challenge to Brandon9000 as per "Demonstrate with evidentiary methodology that incarceration is empirically definable as more than Societal Retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted)"

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
however as discussed: demonstrate with evidentiary methodology that incarceration is empirically definable as more than Societal Retribution (if the questionable arguments of deterrence and rehabilitation are exempted) and you have a case

Naturally you ignore the argument that incarceration is justifiable societal self defense, not simply 'retribution'.

Real life believes in retaliation; an eye for an eye.

Go ahead, justify the criminalization of marijuana.

Go ahead, justify the criminalization of public nudity.

0 Replies

How would an atheist explain the probelm of evil?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know