Scientific Morality and the Problem of Evil

[dianaiad]

In a very recent thread, the following was written by Divine Insight:

So the scientific morality is far more realistic. It doesn't even recognize that there are evil people. It simply recognized mental illness and that people who do bad things are simply driven to do them because of mental problems.

I was struck by it, a sort of 'throw away' comment in a post addressing something very different. Anything I wanted to say had absolutely nothing to do with the thread in which it was found.

So...new thread.

Subject to the definition of 'evil,' of course, which I define as any action done for selfish, immoral or unethical reasons, to deliberately cause harm, no matter how slight. Natural phenomena are not evil; they simply exist. Actions which may seem evil in the eyes of an observer may not be evil, depending on the knowledge of the actor, his motive and his ultimate purpose.

If someone disagrees with the above definition, please provide yours before engaging in this thread so that we will all know what we are talking about.

OK, definition given: here's the question.

The Problem of Evil is often considered to be a big obstacle to the Abrahamic idea of God; many consider it to be the one thing that disproves such a deity.

However, if DI is correct about 'scientific morality,' then there IS no evil. If there is none, how can it be a problem?

............is there really no evil?

Are all so-called evil acts the result of mental illness, so that the doers of evil cannot be blamed or held accountable?

[Ionian_Tradition]

OK, definition given: here's the question.

The Problem of Evil is often considered to be a big obstacle to the Abrahamic idea of God; many consider it to be the one thing that disproves such a deity.

However, if DI is correct about 'scientific morality,' then there IS no evil. If there is none, how can it be a problem?

One possible answer may be that the problem of evil is merely intended to serve as a "reductio ad absurdum" of sorts. By assuming the theist's definition of evil, the skeptic seeks to demonstrate that a world comprised of events consistent with this definition in some way contradicts certain theological principles concerning God's essential nature. Thus by assuming a theistic moral paradigm, it may be shown that theism is, in some way, self-referentially incoherent (hence the problem).

............is there really no evil?

Are all so-called evil acts the result of mental illness, so that the doers of evil cannot be blamed or held accountable?

To paraphrase an argument put forward by eminent analytic philosopher Galen Strawson:

P1: In order to be held responsible for the decisions one makes, a moral agent must first be responsible for the way he or she is.

P2: Moral agents are not responsible for the way they are.

Conclusion: Therefore, moral agents are not morally responsible.



In other words, because our decisions are causally predicated upon a host of desires, preferences, beliefs and convictions we do not consciously select, we cannot rationally be held responsible for the behavior resulting form the decisions instructed by dispositions we did not choose.

If Dr. Strawson is correct, and choices are predicated upon dispositional states we do not consciously select, doers of "evil" are perhaps better thought of as the unfortunate product of deterministic circumstance.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 37 by Jashwell]

I just don't think you understand me. If morality is subjective it doesn't exist. If morality is winning or making the best move then you justify many merciless moves made in history.

If we use your chess analogy the Christian is meant to live as Jesus did, the sacrificial pawn. Losing in the here and now so that others may win later. But this is not like surrendering, it's more like converting a pawn into a queen.

Anyway if you say x is subjective you are denying the existence of X. Why do atheists find pride in not believing in fairy tales and gods and are proud of still believing in morality?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 38 by Bust Nak]

Ok, but so what if a mental illness might be beneficial in the future? Evolution work fine without any foresight, it is what is beneficial now that matters.

Beneficial to who? To you, because you want to maximise your reproductive chances. Label someone as mentally I'll, control them and reduce the possible of sexual competitors.

Right, but you don't, and here we are, communicating despite the subjective nature of interpretation.

That's a kindness from me and no reflection that subjectivity is not absurd.

Gravity is objective. Nothing makes it objective, it simply is.
Mathematics is objective. Nothing makes it objective, it simply is.
Logic is objective. Nothing makes it objective, it simply is.
By suggesting that someone needs to make morality objective, is to suggest it isn't objective to begin with. Morality is not objective like gravity is, because morality is not objective at all.

Then why not accept that morality doesn't exist? Why insist on giving it some pseudo objective power?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 37 by Jashwell]

I just don't think you understand me. If morality is subjective it doesn't exist. If morality is winning or making the best move then you justify many merciless moves made in history.

No, morality is less about the practice, that's ethics.
I would also emphasize that it appears to be more focused on raising the lower groups of society than merely raising the higher groups further.

If we use your chess analogy the Christian is meant to live as Jesus did, the sacrificial pawn. Losing in the here and now so that others may win later. But this is not like surrendering, it's more like converting a pawn into a queen.

Yeah, they're different examples. The sacrificial pawn is more an example of practical ethics, but also of the fact that merely losing a pawn does not mean you've lost the game.

Surrendering is an example that morality can be universal in the way surrendering is a universally (if not objectively) bad way of winning a game of chess.

Anyway if you say x is subjective you are denying the existence of X. Why do atheists find pride in not believing in fairy tales and gods and are proud of still believing in morality?

No, you are saying x does not exist independent of a subject.
Like:

Free Will
Love
Hope
Pain (experience thereof)
(Some) Personality Disorders
Beauty
Art
Fun
Concepts (in general)
Consciousness (the personal experience thereof, only under vague definitions)

Qualia (experiences & sensations) in general

Regardless of whether any of those exist independent of the subject, they are important to that subject, and most concepts are wide spread among humans.
Some things like pain are universal not just across humans but other species - but the feeling of pain itself is subjective.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Jashwell]

Yes and atheists, those that can stare into the abyss, have to surrender those ideas. It's why I am not an atheist.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 45 by Wootah]

... No, none of those relate to theism/atheism at all.

Are you saying we should surrender to the fact that love exists, morality may be universal and not relative, fun exists, etc, while you don't have to believe any of those things because you're a theist?

Theism is the belief in a deity. It doesn't relate to the issue of morality whatsoever, nor have you provided a universal or objective morality, merely a subjective one.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 46 by Jashwell]

It relates to the issue of subjectivity/objectivity. Why do you believe in things that do not materially exist?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 47 by Wootah]

God doesn't relate to morality any more than my next door neighbour.

What do you mean by "Why do you believe in things that do not materially exist?"
It seems fairly obvious that concepts exist conceptually and experiences exist subjectively.
Both of these things are relevant, important, and govern behaviour.

I don't believe that they exist materially. (and when you say "I don't believe that exists", you refer to existing in reality)
What exactly are you trying to get at?

[Bust Nak]

Beneficial to who? To you, because you want to maximise your reproductive chances. Label someone as mentally I'll, control them and reduce the possible of sexual competitors.

To whom? Beneficial to the individual's own chance of reproducing, in this context, the one suffering from mental illness.

As for your accusation. I do want to maximise my reproductive chances, but you are getting the cause and effect mixed up. I don't label people to give myself a leg up, that they aren't as competitive as I am, is why they get that label unfit. Evolution is blind process, it doesn't care who reproduce or who doesn't. It simply does its work.

That's a kindness from me and no reflection that subjectivity is not absurd.

That we are still communicating, your kindness granted, is a reflection that subjectivity is not absurd.

Then why not accept that morality doesn't exist? Why insist on giving it some pseudo objective power?

It's a label for things that we approve/disapprove of. That much certainly exists, we do infact, approve or disapprove of certain behaviors. As for giving it any power, don't look at us. It's not subjectivists who treat morality as if it has pseudo objective power. Number and the strength of arms, now that has objective power.

Anyway if you say x is subjective you are denying the existence of X.

That's a rather odd thing to say. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Is food taste subjective? I wouldn't deny the existence of either beauty or taste.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 49 by Bust Nak]

To whom? Beneficial to the individual's own chance of reproducing, in this context, the one suffering from mental illness.

As for your accusation. I do want to maximise my reproductive chances, but you are getting the cause and effect mixed up. I don't label people to give myself a leg up, that they aren't as competitive as I am, is why they get that label unfit. Evolution is blind process, it doesn't care who reproduce or who doesn't. It simply does its work.

Not my accusation, my understanding of evolution. I'm not confused, I'm giving you an opportunity to see your beliefs 'in the light'. If evolution is real and is a blind process then you cannot know whether a mental illness is an advantage or not. Given the incidence of mental illness in the population you also have to conclude that mental illness offers some survival benefit to the individual or the population. Given that is so, then why are you labelling mental illness as a negative. I can only summise you are hoping to get a survival or reproductive benefit from doing so.

And of course the above is absurd - mental people need help - but I don't think we can justify it from evolutionary beliefs which makes evolution beliefs immoral.

But yeah the lion probably says, "I don't have big teeth to eat the deer, they just aren't as competitive as me I just label them as food because they are unfit."

That we are still communicating, your kindness granted, is a reflection that subjectivity is not absurd.

So it's raining in Spain right now? Why would you say that? Subjectivity is qua absurd.

It's a label for things that we approve/disapprove of. That much certainly exists, we do infact, approve or disapprove of certain behaviors. As for giving it any power, don't look at us. It's not subjectivists who treat morality as if it has pseudo objective power. Number and the strength of arms, now that has objective power.

Yes might makes right. Survival of the fittest is moral. Come on, you know the moral position is usually standing against the numbers.

Be that guy: http://www.retronaut.com/2012/02/man-re ... lute-1936/