tfl@security.UUCP (Tom Litant) (06/19/83)
Actually, the question as introduced is a specific example of
a larger question, which is: are acts (im)moral of themselves,
or intentions, or just the results? The first is often called
deontic (Kantian), the second tends to correspond to a number
of orthadox catholic positions, while the third is called
teleological. Each has their own problems, and their own
virtues. The fun thing about situational ethics is that you
can cook up any number of situations to make any one of the
three above positions seem counter-intuitive.
We can say some pretty definite things about immorality or
evil. First, for an agent to be moral (as opposed to amoral),
he/she must be capable of choosing between acts and/or goals.
If I am constrained to perform a particularly distasteful act,
and it is beyond my control to behave otherwise, then I can hardly
be held culpabable, can I? Intention is also part of this
notion, since while I can be blamed for my ignorance, I can
hardly be blamed for situations that result un-intentionally.
Evil and goodness, whatever they may be, thus can only be applyed
to a moral agent if such acts or goals are sought intentionally.
(in the phil of law the corresponding principle for legal
culpability is "mens rea")
cheers.murray@sbcs.UUCP (Murray Gordon) (06/22/83)
Well, according to Plato, and, I would think, the great
Spinoxaza (who lived life impeccably, giving up most of his material wealth
bequeathed to him to a greedy relative after he had shown his legal right
to this inheritance, and once risking his life to defenfd religious
dissenters) - evil arisdes out of ignorance. I have been intersested,
perplexed and angered for many years by people (first observed in
South Africa) who claim they are n"not interested in politics", that is,
it suits them to remain ignorant of much that goes on so they can
continue to fool themselves that they are not directly or indirectly
responsible for the human suffering created by the system inthese (white)
people benifit from (materially). Subsequently, I found that it wasn't
only this particular group of people who did this -. it occurs
in various forms in all the countries I have lived in, thiugh inough in
different forms. (Do you know what's happening in El Salvador, for
example? Do you know what goes down in South Africa? Many people
I have met here don't.)
Perheps, if we consider Freud's central concept for
psychic defence mechanisms - repression - we can learn someting of
this poblem, or, perhaps be further mystified: Repression, simply
put, is the act of forgetting, anfd forgetting that one has forgotten -
which takes a lot of effort - try ignoring someone, then ignoring the
fact that you are doing this.
So, given that we generally don't hold people responsible
for acts done out of ignorance (like children, animals and fools), the
question remains of how to ascertain a person's intentions, and to
what extent can we hold him/her responsible for acts done on the basis
of some 'unconscious' drive.
What seems to me clear concerning this, is that persons who
hold themselves up as adspiritual and/or moral advisors to others
(doctors, priests, psychotherapists, politicians....) have a greater
responsibility to follow the Socratic path of doubt in the seeking greater
knowledge and self-awareness - which Socrates tells us we can
travel through taking doubting as our ally rather thanout our foe.
So, we are left with a further question: In what way can
we discern whether someone is genuinely concerned with seeking
Truth, and with the ways of ascertaining the appropriate ways of going
about this quest.
It seems to me that this was a central concern for Plato,
especially in The Republic.
Spinoza seems to pre-figure Freud in being the foirst
western philosopher to advocate getting to know oneself (how one
is passively driven by the passions, which he defines in detail)
hthrough becoming more aware of ones (passiveon-ate) drives.
LI would like to know whetehr anyone knows the etymology
of the word 'evil'?
Murray - USSUNY at Stony Brook.
tfl@security.UUCP (Tom Litant) (06/23/83)
Actually, it was Aristotle who claimed that evil arose from ignorance, and not Plato. If you look at the Republic more carefully, it is intended to be an analogy between injustice in the state and injustice in the individual. Both, according to Plato, arise from an imbalance of sorts. Remember the allegory of the two horses (the appetites, the spirited element) and the charioteer (Reason)? This is a case of balance, and not of pure intellect (all three elements have their place in the individual, according to Plato, just as all three elements: the workers, the soldiers, and the philosopher/king have their place in society). In academic philosophy today, more emphasis is placed on analyzing the nature of moral judgements (`Meta-ethics') than analyzing particular instances for moral properties (`Normative Ethics'). A very good text on metaethics is by a guy named Hudson, and is called, I believe, MODERN MORAL PHILOSOPHY. It got me through my prelims just fine...
phyllis@utcsrgv.UUCP (Phyllis Eve Bregman) (06/24/83)
Tom Litant is correct in citing Aristotle. As well as what Tom mentioned about Plato's "Republic", it is also the case that Plato would not allow the workers to make decisions regarding what is evil. The final decision in all of his discussions regarding abstract absolutes fell to the Philospher Kings. According to the Allegory of the Cave in the "Republic", ordinary people can only see illusions (shadows on the wall), and can talk "around" good, evil and the like, but can never answer the questions of what they are. Modern philosophy mostly disagrees with Plato's Absolutes, and certainly with his notion of Philosopher Kings, but considering some of the discussions found here and in net.religion, I agree with him that, for the most part, people can give examples, but very few can actually define abstract concepts. Phyllis Eve Bregman CSRG, University of Toronto
rh@mit-eddi.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (06/24/83)
Just as there is no evil without good, so there cannot be good without evil (no rose with no thorns.) We do have several cliches in our language that echo this point, but we Westerners apparently never will come to understand the yin and the yang. Why do you think the symbol takes the form of a circle? They tried to make this point in the Star Trek episode (name not known) where Kirk is split in two: a good half, and an evil half. The good half is kind, etc., and the evil half is belligerent, etc. It turns out that he is really crappy at making decisions and generally being a leader without his 'worser half.' Spock, as usual, makes observations about this. Remember, God didn't create Satan (nor Allah America); Satan is merely the other side of God. --Randy rh@mit-eddie
faustus@ucbvax.UUCP (06/25/83)
Phyllis does not answer the question of whether there can be such an absolute value system. It is a lot easier to say that the reason that we cannot define something is that we are not clever enough than to say that the reason is that it does not exist. It is just a convenient way of passing the buck of explaining the world to some other, more wise "Philosophers". Wayne
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (06/26/83)
"just as there is no evil without good so there cannot be good without evil". Sounds nice. Now prove it, or discuss it, or something for those of us who dont agree or dont understand? Are you saying that there must be a concrete GOOD and another concrete EVIL for the universe to function? Are you saying that good and evil are one quality, not two? are you saying that one could not recognise GOOD unless one has seen EVIL? Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
rh@mit-eddi.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (06/27/83)
On good w/o evil and vice versa: it's a sort of Zen thing, I didn't realize it was wanted to be proved. Well, I'll try: Zeno, the Greek philosopher, was mostly responsible for Stoicism. While all but forgotten today, the Stoics believed that pain was good. The best argument I heard went something like: "Say you're walking down the beach, and you cut your foot on some glass. You can't, however, in a 'perfect' world feel pain, so you bleed to death. If the world were less than perfect, you would feel the pain of the cut, would look down and realize you were bleeding profusely, and do something about it." Also, they (sort of) held that without pain, you would have nothing against which you could compare pleasure (the joke "Why did the moron hit himself in the hammer? Because it felt so good when he quit." is a manifestation of this sort of thing. Similarly, without the presence of EVIL, how do we know what is GOOD? Do we assume that good is that which pleases people? Then what about rape and other forms of sadism? The person on the perpetrating end is more than likely being pleased (in his own sick, twisted way). Is it a majority kind of thing? So, if ten people get together and decide the world is a happier place if someone is dead, does that mean that it is GOOD to kill that person? GOOD and EVIL are difficult to define, but I think you can't even talk about one without assuming the existence of the other. --Randy
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (06/27/83)
Im sorry, but I still dont get it. From everything you have said so far there is more than one conclusion that can be drawn. To my mind they are esentially different conclusions. conclusion A is that GOOD and EVIL exist. I print them in capitals because they are essential definite qualities "engraven in stone and unchanging" so to speak. Statements like "God is good" fall into this category. God (at least in the Christian tradition) is by definition GOOD, even all-GOOD. Not only do they exist, but they are absolutes. conclusion B is that good is a quality which people only recognise with respect to less good (evil) things. I do not find that the two are necessarily incompatible (God is GOOD but we only notice this in comparison to the EVIL things that we are exposed to) but they need not be. Instead of good and evil, suppose we talk about fast and slow. CRAYs are fast. TRASH-80s are slow. Dec-10s are fast. My grandmother is *very slow*. Considering that she just got out of the hospital, though, she is walking *very fast indeed*. Are fast and slow "engraven in stone" concepts? Are they absolutes? No. If you want to define EVIL and GOOD it makes a big difference whether they exist as absolutes or not. It also makes a difference whether they are 2 qualities or 1. In the example using computers you discover that "fast" and "slow" are merely human terms used to describe the speed of something. Speed is measurable but "fastness" and "slowness" is only relative to the person making the assertion and his ideas of the relative speeds between the two things being compared. My grandmother should not be compared with a CRAY, not because she or the CRAY do not have measurable speed, but because it is nonsensical to compare them. Even if you believe in an absolutely GOOD God, it does not follow that the quality of "good" or "evil" can be viewed as absolutes. If you build a computer which works at the molecular level and is as fast as any computer can be designed you have still not solved the problem of how fast is my grandmother, and indeed, Dec-10s will still be fast. Laura Creighton
bob@itm.UUCP (07/14/83)
To: Randy and et al,
Concerning: Satan
Randy states: "Just as there is no evil without good,
so there cannot be good without evil( no rose
with no thorns.)"
Randy, I would like to add that in the beginning there was good without
evil. Then Satan(adversary) fell and rebelled against God, taking along
a third of the angels in heaven. You see God gave all His creatures
a freedom of choice. Satan has the following:
1.He possesses Intellect
2 Cor 11:3 Here The apostle Paul shows that Satan had the
ability to deceive. Which requires intelligence.
"But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by
his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the
simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ."
2 He has emotions
Rev 12:17 Satan is show as being filled with rage.
which is a human emotion.
"And the dragon(another name for Satan) was enraged with
the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her
offspring, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the
testimony of Jesus."
3.He has a will 2 Tim 2:26
"and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare
of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will."
4.He is treated as a Morally Responsible Person
Lake of fire was created for Satan and his angels because
God holds them accountable for their actions. God can not and
will not allow evil to go on. "Then He will also say to those
on His left, 'Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal
fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels."
Randy also states thus:
"Remember, God didn't create Satan (nor Allah America);
Satan is merely the other side of God."
--Randy
rh@mit-eddie
Let me show you why I believe that is in total error.
THE NATURE OF SATAN:
A.His character:
1.He is a creature.
Eze 28:14 (in reference to Satan)"You were the anointed
cherub who covers(guards), and I(GOD)placed you there.
You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the
midst of the stones of fire."
B.He is a spirit being
Eph. 6:11,12 "Put on the whole armour of God, that you
may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against
the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of
this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness
in heavenly places."
This is a charge the Apostle Paul gave to the Ephesian Church.
C.He is of the order of angels called cherubim. Eze. 28:14
(verse quoted above)
HIS PERSONALITY TRAITS:
A.He is a murder
John 8:44 (Jesus speaks to the unbelieving Jews)
"You are of you father the devil, and you want to do the
desires of your father. He was a murder from the beginning
and dose not stand in the truth, because there is no truth
in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own
nature; For he is a liar, and the father of lies."
B. He is a liar John 8:44(see above verse)
C.He is a confirmed sinner
1 John 3:8 "the one who practices sin is of the devil;
for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of
God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy
the works of the devil."
D.He is an accuser
Rev 12:10 "And I heard a loud voice in heaven saying,
`Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of
our God and the authority of His Christ have come,
for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down,
who accuses them before our God day and night.'"
Satan accuses three ways; One he accuses us before God
Two he accuses us before each other
Three he accuses us to ourselves.
This is for both believers and unbelievers.
Plus he does accuse God to us. Saying If God really
Loves you why did such and such happen?
E.He is an adversary
1 Pet 5:8 "Be of sober(serious) spirit, be on the alert.
Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring
lion, seeking someone to devour(destroy)."
HIS LIMITATIONS:
A.He is a creature and therefore not omniscient or infinite.
B.He can be resisted by the Christian.
James 4:7 "Submit therefore to God. Resis the devil
and he will flee from you.
C.God places limitations on him
Job 1:12 "Then the Lord said to Satan, `Behold, all that
he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on
him.' So Satan departed from the presence of the Lord."
Before Satan can test God's children, he has to recieve
permission from God. God allows the testing because it
strengthens our faith in Him(God). God will not allow
anything more than what each one of us could stand.
Satan is powerful but God is all powerful. Satan could
do nothing except God allow it. No man can do anything
except God allow it.
Randy, I wrote this from a christian perspective. I know you and
others are not christian. The word of God(the bible) is the christians
authority. I pray that you will receive it as such, and at least
give consideration to what I have written and not just up and reject it.
So from the christian aspect Satan is not another side of God but a
spiritually fallen creature.
Bob Langdon
itm!-Alanta Ga
msdc!itm!bob
itm = In Touch Ministries