Evil As An Explanation

[PoliticalChic]

The fundamental fact is that evil is the "default value" in human behavior. Left to his own devices and without any countervailing influences, a given person will be selfish, vindictive, cruel, and hedonistic.

But when things go well, the family, the church, the school, and the community in general tend to mitigate those evil inclinations.

So when someone does something evil, the question is not, "Why did he do it?" The question is, 'Why did his environment fail to stifle his evil impulses?"

The interesting study is of communities where "anti-social" behavior is rare; what is it that was successful, and can it be applied elsewhere for similar results?

I would posit that Christianity has done wonders to suppress evil influences and to promote altruism, kindness, and social justice (although I despise that term) over the past 200 years, and the endless campaign by the Left to de-legitimize and destroy Christianity has been largely successful, with predictable results.

".... the family, the church, the school, and the community in general tend to mitigate those evil inclinations."

Perhaps they serve as a barrier against the instigator of evil.

 

[PoliticalChic]

God/the Bible says ''the love of money, is the root of all evil''

so not money alone or in and of itself,

but the LOVE of money

God/the Bible says ''the love of money, is the root of all evil''

so not money alone or in and of itself,

but the LOVE of money

From the OP:
An essential element in recognizing evil, in the context I mean it, is that evil is often gratuitous.
There are gradations of evil, true enough, but usually we know the motivation: money, power, love....personal aggrandizement that leads the weak of character to murder, steal, injure, torture....to attain profits of some sort.

Soooo.....what if we can't see any personal gain from an evil act?

then it is probably not true evil....

as example, if a mentally ill person kills for absolutely no reason...to us, it seems like nothing could be more evil than to kill for no reason, but I can assume, to God....well....He sees the WHOLE PICTURE and knows the mental illness was the real cause and not what we earthlings call and see as evil.

What if they're not mentally ill?

very good questions PC, but I honestly do not know the answers.... I'm only guessing as to what God meant about the love of money being the root of all evil...

I see evil all around me, and most of it does not involve money or greed, that I can see through my human eyes, though there is definitely a good deal of it it from that....from my point of view....

I would have to really get in to the passage I mentioned, finding out other comments the bible may have on evil, and see if I could try to discern what God was REALLY trying to tell us, in that passage that seems to put everything on to the shoulders of, The Love of Money.....?

And Merry Christmas PC, and a Happy New Year too! In case I don't go in to another one of your threads before then!

1. These two sentences seem at odds with each other...

"I'm only guessing as to what God meant about the love of money being the root of all evil...

I see evil all around me, and most of it does not involve money or greed, ..."


2. "And Merry Christmas PC, and a Happy New Year too! In case I don't go in to another one of your threads before then!"
And my best wishes for you and yours, too!

 

[Care4all]

God/the Bible says ''the love of money, is the root of all evil''

so not money alone or in and of itself,

but the LOVE of money

God/the Bible says ''the love of money, is the root of all evil''

so not money alone or in and of itself,

but the LOVE of money

From the OP:
An essential element in recognizing evil, in the context I mean it, is that evil is often gratuitous.
There are gradations of evil, true enough, but usually we know the motivation: money, power, love....personal aggrandizement that leads the weak of character to murder, steal, injure, torture....to attain profits of some sort.

Soooo.....what if we can't see any personal gain from an evil act?

then it is probably not true evil....

as example, if a mentally ill person kills for absolutely no reason...to us, it seems like nothing could be more evil than to kill for no reason, but I can assume, to God....well....He sees the WHOLE PICTURE and knows the mental illness was the real cause and not what we earthlings call and see as evil.

What if they're not mentally ill?

very good questions PC, but I honestly do not know the answers.... I'm only guessing as to what God meant about the love of money being the root of all evil...

I see evil all around me, and most of it does not involve money or greed, that I can see through my human eyes, though there is definitely a good deal of it it from that....from my point of view....

I would have to really get in to the passage I mentioned, finding out other comments the bible may have on evil, and see if I could try to discern what God was REALLY trying to tell us, in that passage that seems to put everything on to the shoulders of, The Love of Money.....?

And Merry Christmas PC, and a Happy New Year too! In case I don't go in to another one of your threads before then!

1. These two sentences seem at odds with each other...

"I'm only guessing as to what God meant about the love of money being the root of all evil...

I see evil all around me, and most of it does not involve money or greed, ..."


2. "And Merry Christmas PC, and a Happy New Year too! In case I don't go in to another one of your threads before then!"
And my best wishes for you and yours, too!

Know that I am only talking about the topic from a biblical standpoint or view....

All I am saying is that I see things that I believe are evil, and don't seem to have a relationship to money.....and I am saying that this does not mean that God doesn't see the whole picture from an omniscient standpoint and/or separates our definition of 'evils'.... for all I know, every time 'evil' is mentioned in the Bible, there is a different word for. depending on the meaning of it, in Arabic or Hebrew or Greek and we are globbing all of them together in to one word, evil... Vs. the different types of "love" that the bible has a different word for.... same could be the case of 'evil'

 

[PoliticalChic]

From the OP:
An essential element in recognizing evil, in the context I mean it, is that evil is often gratuitous.
There are gradations of evil, true enough, but usually we know the motivation: money, power, love....personal aggrandizement that leads the weak of character to murder, steal, injure, torture....to attain profits of some sort.

Soooo.....what if we can't see any personal gain from an evil act?

then it is probably not true evil....

as example, if a mentally ill person kills for absolutely no reason...to us, it seems like nothing could be more evil than to kill for no reason, but I can assume, to God....well....He sees the WHOLE PICTURE and knows the mental illness was the real cause and not what we earthlings call and see as evil.

What if they're not mentally ill?

very good questions PC, but I honestly do not know the answers.... I'm only guessing as to what God meant about the love of money being the root of all evil...

I see evil all around me, and most of it does not involve money or greed, that I can see through my human eyes, though there is definitely a good deal of it it from that....from my point of view....

I would have to really get in to the passage I mentioned, finding out other comments the bible may have on evil, and see if I could try to discern what God was REALLY trying to tell us, in that passage that seems to put everything on to the shoulders of, The Love of Money.....?

And Merry Christmas PC, and a Happy New Year too! In case I don't go in to another one of your threads before then!

1. These two sentences seem at odds with each other...

"I'm only guessing as to what God meant about the love of money being the root of all evil...

I see evil all around me, and most of it does not involve money or greed, ..."


2. "And Merry Christmas PC, and a Happy New Year too! In case I don't go in to another one of your threads before then!"
And my best wishes for you and yours, too!

Know that I am only talking about the topic from a biblical standpoint or view....

All I am saying is that I see things that I believe are evil, and don't seem to have a relationship to money.....and I am saying that this does not mean that God doesn't see the whole picture from an omniscient standpoint and/or separates our definition of 'evils'.... for all I know, every time 'evil' is mentioned in the Bible, there is a different word for. depending on the meaning of it, in Arabic or Hebrew or Greek and we are globbing all of them together in to one word, evil... Vs. the different types of "love" that the bible has a different word for.... same could be the case of 'evil'

"Know that I am only talking about the topic from a biblical standpoint or view...."

You know that that would include Milton's iteration of Satan, too.


"Three hundred and fifty years ago, the poet John Milton wrote one of the greatest characters in all of British literature: Lucifer, the antagonist of the epic poem Paradise Lost. Feared by Puritans, fêted by Romantics, and reinvented by everybody else, Milton’s fallen archangel has worn many different masks over the centuries, from Moby-Dick’s Captain Ahab to television’s Tony Soprano and Walter White. Curiously, the deeply modern Lucifer could also be considered one of the greatest characters in American literature, even though he was created more than a century before the United States was founded."
ttps://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/03/whats-so-american-about-john-miltons-lucifer/519624/

 

[RWNJ]

Proof of......good and evil being descriptive terms?

ermmkay

Are you suggesting that you don't recognize an evil action????

No, I am suggesting that evil is a descriptive term invented by humans to communicate their views of certain behaviors.

Back to the point: there are evil acts for which no motive can be ascertained.

Why ignore one possibility....the one which nearly everyone agreed to prior to the ...flawed.....Enlightenment?

I don't deny there is good and evil ~ I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Morals being objectively based upon a God ...



imposes an issue:

1. If said god is Omnipotent, they possess the ability to change.

2. If said god can change, Morals are then subject to change; therefore, not objective.....
but subjective based upon said god's whims.

3. If said god cannot change....said god is not, by definition, omnipotent.

The paradox of Objective Morality as it pertains to an Omnipotent being.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

Evil is simple to define. Just remember the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you do something to someone that you would not like them doing to you, it's probably evil.

It is the "you" that is in question.

Why do people commit evil acts for which no motive can be found?

There is always a motive. We may not know what it is, but it's there.

Really?

a. "Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock"
Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock

b. "Texas Church Shooting: More Than Two Dozen Parishioners Killed Federal officials said the motive for the shooting was unclear. " More than two dozen parishioners killed in rural Texas church shooting

Just because a motive can't be found, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. People do not do things for no reason at all. There is always a reason. Even if it's just the simple fact that someone hates their life and want to kill themselves and take as many with them as possible.

 

[RWNJ]

From the OP:
An essential element in recognizing evil, in the context I mean it, is that evil is often gratuitous.
There are gradations of evil, true enough, but usually we know the motivation: money, power, love....personal aggrandizement that leads the weak of character to murder, steal, injure, torture....to attain profits of some sort.

Soooo.....what if we can't see any personal gain from an evil act?

then it is probably not true evil....

as example, if a mentally ill person kills for absolutely no reason...to us, it seems like nothing could be more evil than to kill for no reason, but I can assume, to God....well....He sees the WHOLE PICTURE and knows the mental illness was the real cause and not what we earthlings call and see as evil.

What if they're not mentally ill?

very good questions PC, but I honestly do not know the answers.... I'm only guessing as to what God meant about the love of money being the root of all evil...

I see evil all around me, and most of it does not involve money or greed, that I can see through my human eyes, though there is definitely a good deal of it it from that....from my point of view....

I would have to really get in to the passage I mentioned, finding out other comments the bible may have on evil, and see if I could try to discern what God was REALLY trying to tell us, in that passage that seems to put everything on to the shoulders of, The Love of Money.....?

And Merry Christmas PC, and a Happy New Year too! In case I don't go in to another one of your threads before then!

1. These two sentences seem at odds with each other...

"I'm only guessing as to what God meant about the love of money being the root of all evil...

I see evil all around me, and most of it does not involve money or greed, ..."


2. "And Merry Christmas PC, and a Happy New Year too! In case I don't go in to another one of your threads before then!"
And my best wishes for you and yours, too!

Know that I am only talking about the topic from a biblical standpoint or view....

All I am saying is that I see things that I believe are evil, and don't seem to have a relationship to money.....and I am saying that this does not mean that God doesn't see the whole picture from an omniscient standpoint and/or separates our definition of 'evils'.... for all I know, every time 'evil' is mentioned in the Bible, there is a different word for. depending on the meaning of it, in Arabic or Hebrew or Greek and we are globbing all of them together in to one word, evil... Vs. the different types of "love" that the bible has a different word for.... same could be the case of 'evil'

Actually, the correct interpretation is "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."

The love of money is what motivates people to lie, steal, cheat, gamble, embezzle, and even murder. People who have a love for money lack the godliness and contentment that is true gain in God’s eyes. But the true source of evil is sin. Paddock was a sinner. He was antisocial to the point that he refused to talk to people if he didn't have to. He obviously had some serious issues. Something caused him to do what he did. We may never know what it was, but it exists. People do not commit such acts unless they are driven by hatred. He tried to kill as many people as possible. That requires a LOT hatred.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you suggesting that you don't recognize an evil action????

No, I am suggesting that evil is a descriptive term invented by humans to communicate their views of certain behaviors.

Back to the point: there are evil acts for which no motive can be ascertained.

Why ignore one possibility....the one which nearly everyone agreed to prior to the ...flawed.....Enlightenment?

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

Evil is simple to define. Just remember the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you do something to someone that you would not like them doing to you, it's probably evil.

It is the "you" that is in question.

Why do people commit evil acts for which no motive can be found?

There is always a motive. We may not know what it is, but it's there.

Really?

a. "Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock"
Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock

b. "Texas Church Shooting: More Than Two Dozen Parishioners Killed Federal officials said the motive for the shooting was unclear. " More than two dozen parishioners killed in rural Texas church shooting

Just because a motive can't be found, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. People do not do things for no reason at all. There is always a reason. Even if it's just the simple fact that someone hates their life and want to kill themselves and take as many with them as possible.

"Just because a motive can't be found, doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

Exactly my point.


And, it may be something that you may not want to admit exists......

 

[PoliticalChic]

then it is probably not true evil....

as example, if a mentally ill person kills for absolutely no reason...to us, it seems like nothing could be more evil than to kill for no reason, but I can assume, to God....well....He sees the WHOLE PICTURE and knows the mental illness was the real cause and not what we earthlings call and see as evil.

What if they're not mentally ill?

very good questions PC, but I honestly do not know the answers.... I'm only guessing as to what God meant about the love of money being the root of all evil...

I see evil all around me, and most of it does not involve money or greed, that I can see through my human eyes, though there is definitely a good deal of it it from that....from my point of view....

I would have to really get in to the passage I mentioned, finding out other comments the bible may have on evil, and see if I could try to discern what God was REALLY trying to tell us, in that passage that seems to put everything on to the shoulders of, The Love of Money.....?

And Merry Christmas PC, and a Happy New Year too! In case I don't go in to another one of your threads before then!

1. These two sentences seem at odds with each other...

"I'm only guessing as to what God meant about the love of money being the root of all evil...

I see evil all around me, and most of it does not involve money or greed, ..."


2. "And Merry Christmas PC, and a Happy New Year too! In case I don't go in to another one of your threads before then!"
And my best wishes for you and yours, too!

Know that I am only talking about the topic from a biblical standpoint or view....

All I am saying is that I see things that I believe are evil, and don't seem to have a relationship to money.....and I am saying that this does not mean that God doesn't see the whole picture from an omniscient standpoint and/or separates our definition of 'evils'.... for all I know, every time 'evil' is mentioned in the Bible, there is a different word for. depending on the meaning of it, in Arabic or Hebrew or Greek and we are globbing all of them together in to one word, evil... Vs. the different types of "love" that the bible has a different word for.... same could be the case of 'evil'

Actually, the correct interpretation is "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."

The love of money is what motivates people to lie, steal, cheat, gamble, embezzle, and even murder. People who have a love for money lack the godliness and contentment that is true gain in God’s eyes. But the true source of evil is sin. Paddock was a sinner. He was antisocial to the point that he refused to talk to people if he didn't have to. He obviously had some serious issues. Something caused him to do what he did. We may never know what it was, but it exists. People do not commit such acts unless they are driven by hatred. He tried to kill as many people as possible. That requires a LOT hatred.

"But the true source of evil is sin."

We may be getting close to agreement.

Postmodernism, that is post-Enlightenment, is the refusal to admit that there is 'sin,' or truth, ......or evil.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. It's a sign of the times: the refusal to see evil as a motivating force….or an individual….that caused folks to commit evil acts is based on the supreme faith in the human intellect.


Two problems with relying on the human mind:

a. it is eminently susceptible to rationalizations, meaning we can convince ourselves of anything we wish to
and
b. perhaps as a corollary of the above, we fail to see every possibility of our actions…..and that's why our actions often lead to ills we hadn't anticipated.



The Enlightenment, as a case in point. So thrilled with the explanations that science could provide, the intelligentsia jumped to the conclusion that it should be used as the guide for society…..reason and science to replace religion and morality.

"With the Enlightenment…evil was increasingly exiled to the realm of the exotic, the glamorous, the alien- the luridly supernatural, the unreasonable, the irrational and the superstitious zones beyond the reach of science."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 99






But if evil does exist, as a force, or if Lucifer exists….what could possibly benefit it, him, more than society failing to admit its existence?

 

[ding]

Morals being objectively based upon a God ...



imposes an issue:

1. If said god is Omnipotent, they possess the ability to change.

2. If said god can change, Morals are then subject to change; therefore, not objective.....
but subjective based upon said god's whims.

3. If said god cannot change....said god is not, by definition, omnipotent.

The paradox of Objective Morality as it pertains to an Omnipotent being.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

I don't deny there is good and evil ~ I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Morals being objectively based upon a God ...



imposes an issue:

1. If said god is Omnipotent, they possess the ability to change.

2. If said god can change, Morals are then subject to change; therefore, not objective.....
but subjective based upon said god's whims.

3. If said god cannot change....said god is not, by definition, omnipotent.

The paradox of Objective Morality as it pertains to an Omnipotent being.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

Evil is simple to define. Just remember the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you do something to someone that you would not like them doing to you, it's probably evil.

It is the "you" that is in question.

Why do people commit evil acts for which no motive can be found?

First of all evil is not extant. It doesn't exist in and of itself. Evil is the absence of good.

So men do not do "evil" for evil's sake. The do evil for the sake of their own good.

Then they rationalize that what they did was not "evil."

Been going on for thousands of years.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

I don't deny there is good and evil ~ I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Morals being objectively based upon a God ...



imposes an issue:

1. If said god is Omnipotent, they possess the ability to change.

2. If said god can change, Morals are then subject to change; therefore, not objective.....
but subjective based upon said god's whims.

3. If said god cannot change....said god is not, by definition, omnipotent.

The paradox of Objective Morality as it pertains to an Omnipotent being.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

Evil is simple to define. Just remember the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you do something to someone that you would not like them doing to you, it's probably evil.

It is the "you" that is in question.

Why do people commit evil acts for which no motive can be found?

First of all evil is not extant. It doesn't exist in and of itself. Evil is the absence of good.

So men do not do "evil" for evil's sake. The do evil for the sake of their own good.

Then they rationalize that what they did was not "evil."

Been going on for thousands of years.

"...men do not do "evil" for evil's sake. The do evil for the sake of their own good."


Show me.

a. "Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock"
Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock

b. "Texas Church Shooting: More Than Two Dozen Parishioners Killed Federal officials said the motive for the shooting was unclear. " More than two dozen parishioners killed in rural Texas church shooting

 

[ding]

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

I don't deny there is good and evil ~ I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Proof of......good and evil being descriptive terms?

ermmkay

Are you suggesting that you don't recognize an evil action????

No, I am suggesting that evil is a descriptive term invented by humans to communicate their views of certain behaviors.

C.S. Lewis rebuts:

Every one has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind
of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?" — "That's my seat, I was there first" — "Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm" — "Why should you shove in first?" — "Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine" — "Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other
man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football. Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the "laws of nature" we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong "the Law of Nature," they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law — with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it. We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses. This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What
was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair. I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to — whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked. But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong — in other words, if there is no Law of Nature — what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

 

[ding]

I don't deny there is good and evil ~ I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Morals being objectively based upon a God ...



imposes an issue:

1. If said god is Omnipotent, they possess the ability to change.

2. If said god can change, Morals are then subject to change; therefore, not objective.....
but subjective based upon said god's whims.

3. If said god cannot change....said god is not, by definition, omnipotent.

The paradox of Objective Morality as it pertains to an Omnipotent being.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

Evil is simple to define. Just remember the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you do something to someone that you would not like them doing to you, it's probably evil.

It is the "you" that is in question.

Why do people commit evil acts for which no motive can be found?

First of all evil is not extant. It doesn't exist in and of itself. Evil is the absence of good.

So men do not do "evil" for evil's sake. The do evil for the sake of their own good.

Then they rationalize that what they did was not "evil."

Been going on for thousands of years.

"...men do not do "evil" for evil's sake. The do evil for the sake of their own good."


Show me.

a. "Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock"
Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock

b. "Texas Church Shooting: More Than Two Dozen Parishioners Killed Federal officials said the motive for the shooting was unclear. " More than two dozen parishioners killed in rural Texas church shooting

It pleases them to do that. People do things that please them for their own good.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

Evil is simple to define. Just remember the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you do something to someone that you would not like them doing to you, it's probably evil.

It is the "you" that is in question.

Why do people commit evil acts for which no motive can be found?

First of all evil is not extant. It doesn't exist in and of itself. Evil is the absence of good.

So men do not do "evil" for evil's sake. The do evil for the sake of their own good.

Then they rationalize that what they did was not "evil."

Been going on for thousands of years.

"...men do not do "evil" for evil's sake. The do evil for the sake of their own good."


Show me.

a. "Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock"
Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock

b. "Texas Church Shooting: More Than Two Dozen Parishioners Killed Federal officials said the motive for the shooting was unclear. " More than two dozen parishioners killed in rural Texas church shooting

It pleases them to do that. People do things that please them for their own good.

You can do better than this......I hope.


This:
a. "Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock"
Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock

And this:

b. "Texas Church Shooting: More Than Two Dozen Parishioners Killed Federal officials said the motive for the shooting was unclear. " More than two dozen parishioners killed in rural Texas church shooting


....provide no benefit to either individual.

But, do, to the Prince of Darkness.


"Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires."
Romans 6:12


"its" may be "his"

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Can evil overcome every human instinct...no matter how powerful that instinct???

Let's see:

"…yesterday as Padrica Caine Hill pleaded guilty to murdering her two small children and trying to strangle the third.

Hill had started out the morning of April 9, 1988, driving her husband to work, chatting about her plan to get the oil changed in the car. Instead, she went to their home on Quincy Place NE and smoked crack. She made the children breakfast. She dressed them. She let them watch cartoons.

Then she strangled 8-year-old Kristina and 4-year-old Eric Jr. with a clothes line. She attempted to strangle 2-year-old Jennifer, but left her breathing softly, the cord still wrapped around her neck. …
She Smoked Crack, Then Killed Her Children; `I Hadn't Planned on It,' D.C. Mother Says of Stranglings - The Washington Post | HighBeam Research



"When the police come, Padrica Hill says she loves her children. Why did she kill them? "I don't know," she answers in apparently genuine bewilderment. "I hadn't planned on it."
Morrow, Op. Cit.

I hadn't planned on killing my own children?????????


When evil is powerful enough to supplant even the desire of a mother to keep her own children from harm…..doesn't that imply that evil is something outside of human nature???





"Many writers have said that one of evil's higher accomplishments has been to convince people that it does not exist."
ESSAY: Evil

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[RWNJ]

10. Can evil overcome every human instinct...no matter how powerful that instinct???

Let's see:

"…yesterday as Padrica Caine Hill pleaded guilty to murdering her two small children and trying to strangle the third.

Hill had started out the morning of April 9, 1988, driving her husband to work, chatting about her plan to get the oil changed in the car. Instead, she went to their home on Quincy Place NE and smoked crack. She made the children breakfast. She dressed them. She let them watch cartoons.

Then she strangled 8-year-old Kristina and 4-year-old Eric Jr. with a clothes line. She attempted to strangle 2-year-old Jennifer, but left her breathing softly, the cord still wrapped around her neck. …
She Smoked Crack, Then Killed Her Children; `I Hadn't Planned on It,' D.C. Mother Says of Stranglings - The Washington Post | HighBeam Research



"When the police come, Padrica Hill says she loves her children. Why did she kill them? "I don't know," she answers in apparently genuine bewilderment. "I hadn't planned on it."
Morrow, Op. Cit.

I hadn't planned on killing my own children?????????


When evil is powerful enough to supplant even the desire of a mother to keep her own children from harm…..doesn't that imply that evil is something outside of human nature???





"Many writers have said that one of evil's higher accomplishments has been to convince people that it does not exist."
ESSAY: Evil

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems like you're trying to claim that evil is an outside force. This is not true. People are evil. Some are just better at hiding it than others. Even Christians have evil impulses. It's part of our human nature. Evil lurks in every heart. The ones who commit evil acts are the ones who embrace it. Satan cannot force anyone to do anything. To believe that is to negate free will. People do evil because they WANT to do it.

 

[ding]

Evil is simple to define. Just remember the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you do something to someone that you would not like them doing to you, it's probably evil.

It is the "you" that is in question.

Why do people commit evil acts for which no motive can be found?

First of all evil is not extant. It doesn't exist in and of itself. Evil is the absence of good.

So men do not do "evil" for evil's sake. The do evil for the sake of their own good.

Then they rationalize that what they did was not "evil."

Been going on for thousands of years.

"...men do not do "evil" for evil's sake. The do evil for the sake of their own good."


Show me.

a. "Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock"
Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock

b. "Texas Church Shooting: More Than Two Dozen Parishioners Killed Federal officials said the motive for the shooting was unclear. " More than two dozen parishioners killed in rural Texas church shooting

It pleases them to do that. People do things that please them for their own good.

You can do better than this......I hope.


This:
a. "Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock"
Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock

And this:

b. "Texas Church Shooting: More Than Two Dozen Parishioners Killed Federal officials said the motive for the shooting was unclear. " More than two dozen parishioners killed in rural Texas church shooting


....provide no benefit to either individual.

But, do, to the Prince of Darkness.


"Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires."
Romans 6:12


"its" may be "his"

Can't do better than the truth. People do not do evil for the sake of evil.

 

[ding]

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

I don't deny there is good and evil ~ I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Proof of......good and evil being descriptive terms?

ermmkay

Are you suggesting that you don't recognize an evil action????

No, I am suggesting that evil is a descriptive term invented by humans to communicate their views of certain behaviors.

In closing, C.S. Lewis concludes that our behaviors prove we believe there is a universal right and wrong.

It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologise to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left: I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practise ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money — the one you have almost forgotten — came when you were very hard up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done — well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behaviour to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how
irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it — and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much — we feel the Rule or Law pressing on us so — that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that
we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Can evil overcome every human instinct...no matter how powerful that instinct???

Let's see:

"…yesterday as Padrica Caine Hill pleaded guilty to murdering her two small children and trying to strangle the third.

Hill had started out the morning of April 9, 1988, driving her husband to work, chatting about her plan to get the oil changed in the car. Instead, she went to their home on Quincy Place NE and smoked crack. She made the children breakfast. She dressed them. She let them watch cartoons.

Then she strangled 8-year-old Kristina and 4-year-old Eric Jr. with a clothes line. She attempted to strangle 2-year-old Jennifer, but left her breathing softly, the cord still wrapped around her neck. …
She Smoked Crack, Then Killed Her Children; `I Hadn't Planned on It,' D.C. Mother Says of Stranglings - The Washington Post | HighBeam Research



"When the police come, Padrica Hill says she loves her children. Why did she kill them? "I don't know," she answers in apparently genuine bewilderment. "I hadn't planned on it."
Morrow, Op. Cit.

I hadn't planned on killing my own children?????????


When evil is powerful enough to supplant even the desire of a mother to keep her own children from harm…..doesn't that imply that evil is something outside of human nature???





"Many writers have said that one of evil's higher accomplishments has been to convince people that it does not exist."
ESSAY: Evil

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems like you're trying to claim that evil is an outside force. This is not true. People are evil. Some are just better at hiding it than others. Even Christians have evil impulses. It's part of our human nature. Evil lurks in every heart. The ones who commit evil acts are the ones who embrace it. Satan cannot force anyone to do anything. To believe that is to negate free will. People do evil because they WANT to do it.

"People are evil. Some are just better at hiding it than others. "

I always enjoy autobiographical posts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is the "you" that is in question.

Why do people commit evil acts for which no motive can be found?

First of all evil is not extant. It doesn't exist in and of itself. Evil is the absence of good.

So men do not do "evil" for evil's sake. The do evil for the sake of their own good.

Then they rationalize that what they did was not "evil."

Been going on for thousands of years.

"...men do not do "evil" for evil's sake. The do evil for the sake of their own good."


Show me.

a. "Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock"
Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock

b. "Texas Church Shooting: More Than Two Dozen Parishioners Killed Federal officials said the motive for the shooting was unclear. " More than two dozen parishioners killed in rural Texas church shooting

It pleases them to do that. People do things that please them for their own good.

You can do better than this......I hope.


This:
a. "Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock"
Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock

And this:

b. "Texas Church Shooting: More Than Two Dozen Parishioners Killed Federal officials said the motive for the shooting was unclear. " More than two dozen parishioners killed in rural Texas church shooting


....provide no benefit to either individual.

But, do, to the Prince of Darkness.


"Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires."
Romans 6:12


"its" may be "his"

Can't do better than the truth. People do not do evil for the sake of evil.

Since you were unable to explain the two examples I provided, and they run counter to the cliches you propounded, you certainly won't be able to deal with post # 55.


Seems I'll just have to await a more astute observer of the human condition.