All evil, from the definition it can easily be applied.

In the Speluncean Explorers case, necessary evil

^I'm afraid that is no answer; take time to look at the question(s) again.

Do you begin to get the idea (only just the idea) of how much work you will need to do (a) before you lay the issue of "evil" at the feet of "God" or, for that matter, (b) before you can conclude that there is no "God" because of the problem of "evil"?

According to Isaiah 45:7 the Lord that you go to church and worship every Sunday created evil:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

@enigma i ve laid simple enough arguments. Apart from applying the def to ur cases, i said they are all evil, since they stifle human development.

@Horus thanx for the verse. One can conclude that the Christian God is not allgood since he created evil

^^ As I said,you really haven't answered the question(s); I could be kind and say your "answer" begs even more questions.

Take just one: by referring to "necessary" evil  that means you accept that some "evil" is necessary even within your own understanding; is it conceivable that someone with better knowledge and understanding than you see other things you consider out and out "evil" as necessary?

Meanwhile, you never did propose any basis for saying that something is "evil" other than saying it 'stifles human development'. How does e.g. a lion eating a goat "stifle human development". And how does "natural selection" fit in? If we subscribe to "natural selection" - including the so-called "social Darwinism" - how can anything (especially in terms of human action) be evil?

davidylan:


Let me respond to tbaba's post:
1. He is absolutely right, the number 1 reason we are created is to worship the creator. No surprise, no one creates a product that is not meant for a specific purpose of benefit to the maker right?

People made this assumption. . .When did any creator appear to you and told you that?. . .What is the purpose of the asteroid belt in our solar system?. . .The mountain lion also worships the alleged creator eh?. . . .Interesting. . .

4 and 5 are intertwined . . . most people love the concept of "freewill" UNTIL it comes to God. You have free will to live your life as you pls, why is it a problem when you suffer consequences of poor choices? When is it ok for God to intervene?

SOOOOO many people around DO NOT suffer because of poor choices. . .What poor choice did a baby born blind make?. . .What poor choice did a Christian evangelist that was hit by a stray bullet which rendered him paralyzed for the rest of his life on his way to preach the gospel make?. . . .

@enigma by necessary evil in the Speluncean case, i meant it was the only option they had if they wanted to survive. The lion case would appear to a human as evil.

Also, if a higher being selects a lesser evil, he is still evil.

Kay 17:

@enigma by necessary evil in the Speluncean case, i meant it was the only option they had if they wanted to survive. The lion case would appear to a human as evil.

First, I'll remind you that my original question was (a) what was "good", (b) what was "evil" and (c) WHY?

Second I'll show you the logical consequences of this answer: survival is "good"; doing what it takes to survive is "good"; cannibalism when necessary for survival is "good"; thus, necessary "evil" is "good"!

Kay 17:
Also, if a higher being selects a lesser evil, he is still evil.

This means that you accept that there is a God; your only problem is that he is "evil"; if so, fine. Otherwise, this is a useless argument which you will have to withdraw!

The same thing with the use by you and your friend of Isaiah 45: it means you both accept that there is a God; your problem is that he created "evil"; if so, fine. Otherwise, again this is a useless argument which you will have to withdraw!

Enigma:

PS Oh and another thing: ask the so-called atheists* to explain the source and basis of their morality!

Humans are the source of ALL moral principles. . .Morality  and ALL moral principles were created by humans and they choose to accept what is moral and what is immoral mostly based on consensus and what they feel will be best for the society, when stealing other people's lands was what was best for your God;s chosen men we have him telling them to go and invade other people and take their lands because it was flowing with milk and honey. . .What is moral today can be immoral tomorrow and vice versa. . .Morality MUST be learned. . .It started as a result of experimentation. . .Read your bible and you will see how the morality of the people and their God kept evolving. . .Their God started by accepting incest, accepting the killing other people that are outside the race of his chosen people, tolerating and sanctioning slavery, rejecting sick people from entering his temple , being openly sexist, accepting human sacrifice, having a chosen people, telling them its ok to kill others because they do not worship him. . .People(religious leaders) ALWAYS use God as the central authority back in the days when creating moral principles that they themselves created they use God to make it binding. . .If they wanted to marry 4 wives, then the commandment will always come from God, if they want to stop acts like homos[i]e[/i]xuality then God is the moral law giver. . .All moral laws are created by humans , they vary from place to place and are constantly evolving based on consensus, culture and way of life of the people. . .Dominant cultures most times influence the weaker cultures to accept their moral principles after they have invaded them or colonized them. . . Christianity and Islam are good examples. . .

How can there be objective morality if there is no God? How also can there be good and/or evil? If there is no God, how can anything (r.ape, earthquakes, poverty, etc) be evil in the first place? Afterall, their so-called "evolution" teaches "natural selection".

There is NOTHING like objective morality. . . Morality is NOT objective and it varies from places to place. . Back in the days some people in Nigeria happily and willingly sacrifice their twins as sacrifice to their Gods until a superior culture made them stop it. . .Incest was once acceptable even in your own bible same with human sacrifice and killing of others that do not believe in Yahweh. . .Cutting of people's arms is morally acceptable in a society that practices sharia but is frowned upon in the west, in fact sharia law and its moral values is an endearment to muslims but it is considered barbaric by non muslims. . .Marrying of girls as young as 14 is perfectly acceptable and moral in some parts of northern Nigeria (and in some Islamic societies) but it is frowned upon in other parts on Nigeria. . .Animals have rights in some parts of the world but lack it in others, slaughtering a ram in public is considered as a normal thing in Nigeria and it is morally acceptable to some people as a religious duty but it such an act is considered immoral in a place like Denmark. . .If objective morality exist then the God of the bible does NOT exist. . .If killing innocent children for example is an objective moral value then you can not say that such a value came from the God of the bible since we have him telling his chosen men to kill innocent children because their parents worship other Gods and other s[i]i[/i]lly reasons. . .

Ra[i]p[/i]e is evil because it causes unnecessary pain, agony and suffering to the victim and its end result is that it affects every body negatively in the society in one way or the other if it goes unchecked. . . if every body is to go about ra[i]p[/i]ing women there will be no peace in the society cos their relatives will seek revenge and revenge might lead to chaos which can lead to instability in the society so it is only right to criminalize it because failure to do so will lead to chaos in the society. . .Earthquake is evil because it causes a lot of destruction to all forms of life. . .Through years of moral evolution humans have know come to understand that life has value and should be preserved and protected at all times. . .We came from people that sacrifice their kids, women, enemies and animals to their various Gods for either a good harvest or when their is a drought. . .Morality is NOT objective. . .ALL moral laws and principles were created by men. . Men chose and decide what they feel is morally acceptable to them and what is not. . .Morality MIUST be learned and it is ALWAYS evolving and it varies from society to society. . . .

Enigma:

First, I'll remind you that my original question was (a) what was "good", (b) what was "evil" and (c) WHY?

What is good and what is evil is determined by men(society) that is why we have law makers who determine what is moral and immoral. . Morality does NOR come from any God. . .Humans create all the moral values they chose by. . .

Second I'll show you the logical consequences of this answer: survival is "good"; doing what it takes to survive is "good"; cannibalism when necessary for survival is "good"; thus, necessary "evil" is "good"!  

If according to the law of the land cannibalism when necessary is good then it is and will be good. . .If the society says its bad then it is and will remain bad. . Morality is NOT objective. . . .Some societies can accept it and others will not accept it simple. . .

This means that you accept that there is a God; your only problem is that he is "evil"; if so, fine. Otherwise, this is a useless argument which you will have to withdraw!  

The same thing with the use by you and your friend of Isaiah 45: it means you both accept that there is a God; your problem is that he created "evil"; if so, fine. Otherwise, again this is a useless argument which you will have to withdraw!  

I believe he is just trying to show that it is logically inconsistent. . .You can't be all good and go about creating evil( as defined by humans) at the same time. . . .

Mazaje thanx for that point!

@enigma, i ve never said on this forum that natural selection or survival was good. My definition was simple enough to make simple deductions; since in self-defence one takes another life its evil, but necessary not good.

Evil is a fundamental flaw in the system, its a corruption. Man strives as a dominant creature, with immense intellectual ability and inherently aims towards perfection. However he is forced into a contradiction, he armed for perfection but the world is against it.

^^^ Do you accept that there is objective morality? Otherwise what is the basis for classifying anything as "evil" or "good"?

You really still have to come back to my very first question: Is x "evil" or "good" and WHY!

If you go with the view that there is no objective morality, then there really is nothing that makes r.ape, murder, adultery, lying, stealing, covetousness etc "evil"? Is female circumcision (so called FGM) evil? If you go with the view that something is "evil" because a particular society says so, then why attribute "evil" to God in the first place?

Even if we confine it to "natural" evil, what makes an earthquake, a tsunami, even a birth defect "evil"?

Kay 17:

. . .
@enigma, i ve never said on this forum that natural selection or survival was good. My definition was simple enough to make simple deductions; since in self-defence one takes another life its evil, but necessary not good.

Evil is a fundamental flaw in the system, its a corruption. Man strives as a dominant creature, with immense intellectual ability and inherently aims towards perfection. However he is forced into a contradiction, he armed for perfection but the world is against it.

You are basically saying that (at least sometimes) "evil" is expedient because it is necessary. Otherwise, if your "self-defence" person wants simply to do "good" and not "evil" he should allow himself to be killed rather than kill another even in "self-defence"! 

Similarly, the Speluncean explorers should all have simply accepted death if they wanted to do "good" and not "evil" rather than resorting to the "evil" of cannibalism.

Ultimately, if you say "evil" is sometimes necessary and that such necessary "evil" is justifiable, then logically (note the bold) what you are saying is that necessary "evil" is "good" --- and that "evil" can sometimes be "good". 

Enigma:

^^^ Do you accept that there is objective moralty? Otherwise what is the basis for classifying anything as "evil" or "good"?

Morality is NOT objective. . . .It varies fromplace to place and is ALWAYS evolving. . . . .The basis for classifying anything as evil or good is based on the society because men create ALL moral values and codes of conduct. . .Morality is mostly based on consensus and what they feel is best for them and will lead to less chaos in their society or what they believe will make them flourish and co exist in peace. . . .Even if we are to accept that morality is objective you are yet to show that any God is the source of human morality because if we are to use the example of not killing innocent children as an objective moral value humans hold then your God then fails to be its source cos we have him telling his chosen men in the bible to kill innocent children. . .A source of objective moral value can not be seen going against such a principle. . . .

If you go with the view that there is no objective morality, then there really is nothing that makes r.ape, murder, adultery, lying, stealing, covetousness etc "evil"? Is female circumcision (so called FGM) evil?

Your argument is pointless and baseless. .  .R[i]a[/i]pe is bad because it causes  pain  and distress to the victims, lying is NOT bad in some cases. . . Murder is wrong because it causes pain and distress to the the victim and his relatives. . . if left  unchecked it will lead to chaos in the society. . . .Female circumcision is evil because it affects the reproductive organ of the females and leads to compliactions during child birth in some cases. . .And there is no reason why women should not enjoy s[i]e[/i]x. . . . .

If you go with the view that something is "evil" because a particular society says so, then why attribute "evil" to God in the first place?

Because he was just trying to show you how illogical it is to claim that a God that is said  to be all good yet believed to be the creator of evil. . .

Even if we confine it to "natural" evil, what makes an earthquake, a tsunami, even a birth defect "evil"?

The pain, agony and destruction they cause make them evil. . . .

If not because of my funny phone, i would highlighted the very very very clear parts of what i was saying. Never said necessary evil was good but tragic.

However, part of my view dont u agree with?

Kay 17:

If not because of my funny phone, i would highlighted the very very very clear parts of what i was saying. Never said necessary evil was good but tragic.

However, part of my view dont u agree with?

There is nothing like necessary evil as such. . .Killing a person as an act of self defense is not evil. . .At least the society that I live in says its right and not wrong. . .You can kill a person when he is trying to kill you for no just reason and you won't be punished in fact you will be praised in some places. . .He is just trying to go with the baseless assumption and farce argument that God is the source of human morality when reality and the fact is that humans are the source of all their moral principles and moral codes of conduct. . . .No God has anything to do with human morality since its humans that chose what is good and bad for them to live by. . . .

^^^ within a moral code, its either right or wrong

Enigma is making really sound points here.

Evil and Good are subjective terms. Subjective to a conceived or believed threshold. For one who believes in God, this threshold might be marked by God's intentions and the respective contraries.

Therefore in a worldview that does not recognize God (like atheism) what is this threshold? How do you know something is really evil? Or absolutely good [/i]enough to be called [i]good? What is the measure?

We cannot say it is simply a common human moral perception, because we very well know that human moral perceptions are a motleyed mixbag, which brings us right back to evil and good being subjective terms.

Then, we cannot say an atheist, having no such clearly defined threshold for good and evil, can rightly define good and evil without an influx of his/her own bias.

Thelstan:

Enigma is making really sound points here.

Evil and Good are subjective terms. Subjective to a conceived or believed threshold. For one who believes in God, this threshold might be marked by God's intentions and the respective contraries.

Therefore in a worldview that does not recognize God (like atheism) what is this threshold? How do you know something is really evil? Or absolutely good [/i]enough to be called [i]good? What is the measure?

We cannot say it is simply a common human moral perception, because we very well know that human moral perceptions are a motleyed mixbag, which brings us right back to evil and good being subjective terms.

Then, we cannot say an atheist, having no such clearly defined threshold for good and evil, can rightly define good and evil without an influx of his/her own bias.

Do you think there is any threshold with the Christian God? I hope you know that he recommends slavery, commands genocide and is perfectly willing to punish children for sins of their parents.
What many people don't seem to realize is that with God, all things are permitted.

thehomer:

Do you think there is any threshold with the Christian God? I hope you know that he recommends slavery, commands genocide and is perfectly willing to punish children for sins of their parents.
What many people don't seem to realize is that with God, all things are permitted.

This opinion is verily biased.

To start with, "God" in my previous post need not refer to the Christian worldview. But for the sake of context in your reply, let us first take the Christian God as an example.

Secondly, whether the Christian God recommends anything for people or not, or[i] punishes a category[/i] of people or not, is not the issue here. The thrust of the matter is that the Christian God somewhat defines a Threshold, no matter how fair or unfair YOU [/b]may think it is; and the Christians can define their own perceptions of good and evil [b]RELATIVE [/i]to that Threshold, and maybe believed to be valid as at that point in time.

Generally, any God-believing person (whichever God such a one believes in) has an absolute Threshold or a set of Absolute Thresholds (each one for the deities  he deems most supreme) and this earmarks (a) definition(s) of Thresholds by which he/she can define good and evil.

When you say with God all things are permitted, once again you have made a biased and blanket statement. Which God? And what are the all things? To whom are they permitted?

[i]For each and every believer in some God, not all things are permitted. For a Muslim, who believes in Allah (SAW) some things are haram (forbidden) BUT ONLY for those who will believe Allah (SAW) as their God. That is a threshold, and it will not define verges of evil and good for, say, a Jew for whom other things are for example, kosher (sacred) because he/she is a believer in YHWH.

There is always a threshold for one who believes in some God(s), by which they define their observations and experiences as good or evil, relative to the thresholds believed about the God(s). For an atheist, no such thresholds exist. How can an atheist then concern herself with expressions of good and evil. Good and evil relative to what exactly? Popular opinion? 

Hi Thelstan

Welcome to Nairaland. You 'sound' vaguely familiar though.

Cheers.

Hi Enigma

Yes I should sound familiar sir. A leopard can't hide its spots. And thanks, yeah it's been a while,

Cheers!

Chop knuckle, then (and very nice to 'see' you especially if you are who I think).

*Chops knuckle*

Thanks bro.

Yes I'm 100% sure I'm the person you, by 99% I guess, think I am.

@the

there are cases of destruction, disability which immediately strike our minds as evil. However, if you see good as what God does without any barrier or choice involved, then he is not a moral being, who is capable of being good.

Kay 17:

@the

there are cases of destruction, disability which immediately strike our minds as evil. However, if you see good as what God does without any barrier or choice involved, then he is not a moral being, who is capable of being good.

I don't get your point because not all religions consider God, respectively, as a moral being. And what is the rationale for preferring a moral being? Moral with respect to what?

Morality is subjective too, and so for you to say God is moral, God must be moral with respective to something beyond himself. For a belief in an absolute God who does not rely on any other construct, this will not figure.

I would restrict God to the Muslim and Christian versions, since they claim their Gods are omnibenevolent. But to claim that whatever God does is good, undermines the fact that moral values are inherent in acts not agents.

Evil goes beyond subjective, its clearly the opposition to the full development of human potential. I feel evil is the conflict btw man and his surrounding. Like a design flaw.

Kay 17:

I would restrict God to the Muslim and Christian versions, since they claim their Gods are omnibenevolent. But to claim that whatever God does is good, undermines the fact that moral values are inherent in acts not agents.

Those are not the only two religions that uphold a view of an omnibenevolent supreme God. And whatever the case, why should WE ALL be limited to the restrictions of your own bias, especially since you do not even believe in the God in context? Now you're taking the theist's threshold and using it to define an atheist's threshold of good and evil.

Kay 17:

Evil goes beyond subjective, its clearly the opposition to the full development of human potential. I feel evil is the conflict btw man and his surrounding. Like a design flaw.

Why should the world be anthropocentric? Why should your definition of evil revolve around human beings? Do you believe evil can involve, for instance, animals or other aspects of nature besides human beings?

You said "full development of human potential". Isn't human potential often fully developed at the expense of some other humans? Can't you see that good and evil will still be subjective to bias, in that case?

Thelstan:

This opinion is verily biased.

And the claim that God is moral isn't biased?

Thelstan:

To start with, "God" in my previous post need not refer to the Christian worldview. But for the sake of context in your reply, let us first take the Christian God as an example.

Sure. So which God are you referring to?

Thelstan:

Secondly, whether the Christian God recommends anything for people or not, or[i] punishes a category[/i] of people or not, is not the issue here. The thrust of the matter is that the Christian God somewhat defines a Threshold, no matter how fair or unfair YOU [/b]may think it is; and the Christians can define their own perceptions of good and evil [b]RELATIVE [/i]to that Threshold, and maybe believed to be valid as at that point in time.

Actually, it is the issue. A major part of the issue. If the Christian God defines a threshold of evil actions, then how can one say that it is moral? Or that we get the idea of morality from it?

Thelstan:

Generally, any God-believing person (whichever God such a one believes in) has an absolute Threshold or a set of Absolute Thresholds (each one for the deities  he deems most supreme) and this earmarks (a) definition(s) of Thresholds by which he/she can define good and evil.

In other words, good and evil depend on the person's idea of God's desires. How is this not subjective?

Thelstan:

When you say with God all things are permitted, once again you have made a biased and blanket statement. Which God?

The God the person believes in.

Thelstan:

And what are the all things?

All the actions he commands.

Thelstan:

To whom are they permitted?

Whoever believes in him strongly enough.

Thelstan:

[i]For each and every believer in some God, not all things are permitted. For a Muslim, who believes in Allah (SAW) some things are haram (forbidden) BUT ONLY for those who will believe Allah (SAW) as their God. That is a threshold, and it will not define verges of evil and good for, say, a Jew for whom other things are for example, kosher (sacred) because he/she is a believer in YHWH.

Sure. One thing common to them is that if their God commands them to commit genocide, they must go ahead and do it. Doing otherwise will be a sin.

Thelstan:

There is always a threshold for one who believes in some God(s), by which they define their observations and experiences as good or evil, relative to the thresholds believed about the God(s). For an atheist, no such thresholds exist. How can an atheist then concern herself with expressions of good and evil. Good and evil relative to what exactly? Popular opinion? 

For the God believer, there are no thresholds. Whatever God commands must be done. If he commands you to commit genocide, you better go ahead and do it.
If the believer forms his own thresholds, then they don't believe deeply in that God or don't think his commands are worthy to be obeyed.

thehomer:

And the claim that God is moral isn't biased?

Where have I said God is moral? Rather, I said the below:

Thelstan:

I don't get your point because not all religions consider God, respectively, as a moral being. And what is the rationale for preferring a moral being? Moral with respect to what?

Morality is subjective too, and so for you to say God is moral, God must be moral with respective to something beyond himself. For a belief in an absolute God who does not rely on any other construct, this will not figure.

thehomer:

Sure. So which God are you referring to?

Isn't the word "God" subjective to each theist? You're an atheist, and you're making claims about God to a theist. How does that work until you define what you mean by God, just as you do not believe in the idea?

thehomer:

Actually, it is the issue. A major part of the issue. If the Christian God defines a threshold of evil actions, then how can one say that it is moral? Or that we get the idea of morality from it?

Nobody asked you to take your idea of morality from a God you do not believe in.

thehomer:

In other words, good and evil depend on the person's idea of God's desires. How is this not subjective?

Have I not already said that evil and good are subjective terms within the context of an understanding or acceptance of "God", contrary to what the OP states?

thehomer:

The God the person believes in.

All the actions he commands.

Whoever believes in him strongly enough.

Sure. One thing common to them is that if their God commands them to commit genocide, they must go ahead and do it. Doing otherwise will be a sin.

And you know this by personal observation, by second-hand reports or by private experience?

thehomer:

For the God believer, there are no thresholds. Whatever God commands must be done. If he commands you to commit genocide, you better go ahead and do it.
If the believer forms his own thresholds, then they don't believe deeply in that God or don't think his commands are worthy to be obeyed.

This digresses from the thrust of THIS discussion. The OP is an atheist. So I ask; for atheism as a worldview, what delineates your own express definitions of evil and good since a construct God is not within any of your worldviews? Is it popular opinion? Or you're also anthropocentric like Kay 17?

Thelstan:

Where have I said God is moral? Rather, I said the below:

What idea of God are you referring to? I thought you wished to go with the Christian God for starters. You need to pick the idea of God you're referring to for me to know what I'm to deal with.

Thelstan:

Isn't the word "God" subjective to each theist? You're an atheist, and you're making claims about God to a theist. How does that work until you define what you mean by God, just as you do not believe in the idea?

I'm using the particular theist's idea of what God is. I don't have to believe in the Christian God to understand what Christians believe.

Thelstan:

Nobody asked you to take your idea of morality from a God you do not believe in.

Actually, you are doing that when you point to God as some sort of standard.

Thelstan:

Have I not already said that evil and good are subjective terms within the context of an understanding or acceptance of "God", contrary to what the OP states?

Sure but some theists think they are objective terms and introduce God as the resolution to that idea. That is the view of many Christians. This is why I need to know your idea of God. I was proceeding on the assumption that we were discussing the Christian idea of God.

Thelstan:

And you know this by personal observation, by second-hand reports or by private experience?

Knowledge of what Christians believe and the words of Christian speakers.

Thelstan:

This digresses from the thrust of THIS discussion. The OP is an atheist. So I ask; for atheism as a worldview, what delineates your own express definitions of evil and good since a construct God is not within any of your worldviews? Is it popular opinion? Or you're also anthropocentric like Kay 17?

No it doesn't digress from the thrust of this discussion because God was being considered as a solution to the idea of good and evil.
Atheism isn't a worldview.
My point is that God isn't a good response to resolving the idea of good and evil.
It isn't popular opinion but that the idea of good and evil is based on the well being of conscious creatures.
So, what point are you trying to make? Is God an appropriate standard for deciding what is good and evil?