Good vs Evil (why evil will win)

[expat_panama]

So then, if we follow our nature, we cannot be "evil"?
If a person is born a psychopath, and they kill people, they're not "evil", they're just "natural"???

Therefore it would seem that NOTHING is evil, everything is just following it's natural laws.

My take is not quite as banal as all that. This whole idea of "good" and "evil" is useful for somethings, but for others we'll need to improve our model of reality.

Some say that evil does not exist and there's a lot to be said for that. Does "unreality" exist? It's not real. Evil is unreality (to me). A psychopath will go out and kill people --but only if allowed to do so, and this is why most people lock up psychopaths and do whatever we can to limit the affects of their nature.

 

[Gregory A]

Of course if we do a search using the King James Version for the phrase "heavenly place" the only hits are for "heavenly places" in Ephesians --it kind of vaguely matches to what ur saying. Or not, hard to tell. My experience w/ the after life is that everything's so unclear that the exact nature is something that we just can't know. yet. It's real but we can't know. Meanwhile we got life in the here and now & my hope is that it's good for u as it is for me.

If we define heaven as being the perfect place and we are free to define 'perfect' then a heavenly place and heaven can be one and the same. That is the future could be heavenly because for one thing it is where we would rather be if we had a choice in where we go when we die. We couldn't be happy anywhere else and so as a location it would meet part of the requirement for perfection.

This thread's neat & important but it's off to a bad start. Example:

It's hard to tell whether that's a question or not, my guess is that this thread is important but begun w/o sufficient thought. My take is that God is, or we can say Reality is --both the same to me. To me a thing that's good is something that adds to the welfare of humankind, but at the same time eventually on this planet the human race will be gone. Forever. To me doing well for humankind is good and the eventual end doesn't contradict it.

And it does look like the human race will be lost. But to what? Inaction? And is this 'evil' or something that's inevetable, a deterministic outcome?

If 'Time' is real then all outcomes have in effect been decided or otherwise can only be the sum of the probabilities that are around us now. I like to think that the future is not written and we can make real changes, but the truth is it looks like we don't have much choice. And you are right we maybe only have at most one hundred years left. But It's because we don't act logically all that much and instead put emotions first. For example it may be better to stop arming Ukraine and end the war sooner, that's rather than take unnecessary risks of the war escalating. (sorry, my word skills are not the best)

There's a lot going on here.

 

[Gregory A]

Killing an animal for food is a positive action or a negative action?

Certainly for the animal that dies, it's pretty negative.

Who's perspective matters?

It is a negative action. But not eating meat, at least for now, is even more negative. That's because to get a more saleable product the rancher/farmer must make sure that their livestock are well looked after, well fed, watered, and free from bruising or animal bitemarks, etc. And if we stop eating meat, then native animals take the place of livestock. But them not dying in a humane way and instead die from predation, starvation, or dehydration. So for the animal that dies a natural death, it is pretty negative. From my perspective, we keep eating meat until lab-grown meat is available.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It is a negative action. But not eating meat, at least for now, is even more negative. That's because to get a more saleable product the rancher/farmer must make sure that their livestock are well looked after, well fed, watered, and free from bruising or animal bitemarks, etc. And if we stop eating meat, then native animals take the place of livestock. But them not dying in a humane way and instead die from predation, starvation, or dehydration. So for the animal that dies a natural death, it is pretty negative. From my perspective, we keep eating meat until lab-grown meat is available.

I don't think you really answered the question.

Had Hitler had nice comfortable sofas, fed the Jews well, and killed them "humanly", would we all be talking about what a great guy he was?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

First up could it be that doing good or doing evil is impossible anyhow as these are concepts only. Do they rely on the existence of a god to make them real. Is an association with morality more than implied and maybe is always needed or is there good or evil involved in everything we do. Can it become something neutral instead? Is intent needed?

Because if the future, should it already exist, be a hellish place, then would not this eventuation be conducive to evil, now? That's when determinism set the future in place regardless of whether it has happened already.

So why if evil exists will it win out over good? I don't really know. But I do know that all of my attempts to prevent something bad that I believe will happen in the future are being blocked for one reason or another, a chronological censorship thing in effect. One that suggests evil has already won the contest. Good and evil may only appear to be concepts but may have an effect regardless. And then It could be that what I believe is the result of delusion on my part. But if so why can't anyone show me where I'm wrong either.

God is far more powerful than Satan.

Evil will win many battles, but in the end, Good will win the war. Satan will eventually be cast into Hell, to suffer eternal torment, along with those who chose to follow hHim, and God's will will prevail.

There is no other possible outcome.

 

[Gregory A]

It's impossible to reason with an atheist. . . And what a dour life it is.

If it's impossible to reason with an atheist and there is no reason why it would be impossible to reason with a non-believer, then logically an atheist is not a non-believer. Atheism is not a non-belief in god but is instead opposition to belief in god. And it's why atheists target religion disregarding the fact that religion's existence is not dependent on there being a God.

 

[Gregory A]

As a fellow agnostic let me play the Devil's advocate. God gave us minds to stop the suffering of little children. It is not his will to interfere in our methods. I am also a cynic. Trillions in Earth's money have been spent on cancer research-no cure. Billions go into looking for a cure each year but no cure is found because once that happens all the research money will dry up. All the money to be made is in looking for cures not finding them. If you were God you would be face palming every day.

This looks like yet another way that capitalists are conspiring to keep us poor, and should be dismissed along with the majority of conspiracy theories for that reason.

 

[Gregory A]

My take is not quite as banal as all that. This whole idea of "good" and "evil" is useful for somethings, but for others we'll need to improve our model of reality.


Some say that evil does not exist and there's a lot to be said for that. Does "unreality" exist? It's not real. Evil is unreality (to me). A psychopath will go out and kill people --but only if allowed to do so, and this is why most people lock up psychopaths and do whatever we can to limit the affects of their nature.

Evil relates to morality. And morality is a survival enhancement mechanism. Evil exists as a concept, and we can say if an outcome is negative then evil has been committed. Negative would be whatever subtracts from our survival.

Reality gives rise to consciousness. Or consciousness gives rise to reality? The question of why there is something instead of nothing is because it can be argued that there is both. Reality exists while we are conscious, whereas there is nothing when we are unconscious.

A psychopath 'may' go out and kill someone but being a psychopath is not a crime because most psychopaths don't kill people, and for that reason are not locked up.

 

[Gregory A]

I don't think you really answered the question.

I think you're right.

Had Hitler had nice comfortable sofas, fed the Jews well, and killed them "humanly", would we all be talking about what a great guy he was?

No we wouldn't because he had no need to kill people. Whereas if we don't raise livestock there will be a trade-off in human deaths. A lot of land in the world is marginal meaning that it is only suitable for grazing animals.

 

[Blues Man]

Killing an animal for food is a positive action or a negative action?

Certainly for the animal that dies, it's pretty negative.

Who's perspective matters?

Is killing an animal for food when it is not necessary a positive or negative action?

 

[Gregory A]

God is far more powerful than Satan.

Evil will win many battles, but in the end, Good will win the war. Satan will eventually be cast into Hell, to suffer eternal torment, along with those who chose to follow hHim, and God's will will prevail.

There is no other possible outcome.

I think God has set things up so that we decide the outcome. It is our free will that will decide this that's if we choose to use it. Rationality can win but things don't look all to good for that to be what appears is happening.

 

[Gregory A]

Is killing an animal for food when it is not necessary a positive or negative action?

It would be negative. But for now, it is less negative than letting people die from starvation.

 

[Blues Man]

It would be negative. But for now, it is less negative than letting people die from starvation.

Hence the word necessary.

But in reality no one in any first world developed country is in any real danger of starvation yet these countries are responsible for most of the consumption of factory farmed meat

 

[Gregory A]

Hence the word necessary.

But in reality no one in any first world developed country is in any real danger of starvation yet these countries are responsible for most of the consumption of factory farmed meat

Sure, but if they switched to vegetarian diets there will be less food available in the world which means third-world countries would be where the deaths occur.

 

[Blues Man]

Sure, but if they switched to vegetarian diets there will be less food available in the world which means third-world countries would be where the deaths occur.

Not really.

At least half of all farmland is used for animal feed rather than crops for human consumption so freeing up more farmland will actually increase food production.

 

[Gregory A]

Not really.

At least half of all farmland is used for animal feed rather than crops for human consumption so freeing up more farmland will actually increase food production.

It would look that way but I'm guessing most farmland in the world would be marginal at best and so if we even as much as stop getting milk from cattle we lose in food production.

 

[Blues Man]

It would look that way but I'm guessing most farmland in the world would be marginal at best and so if we even as much as stop getting milk from cattle we lose in food production.

The crops that the US grows for use as animal feed could feed 800 million people.

Grains soybeans and other crops used for animals feed can be eaten by humans. Not to mention the monocrop farming that the government promotes is what is actually depleting the soil. Growing more varied crops for human consumption would actually improve the quality of our farmlands.

And milk is one of those unnecessary things that we commit far too many resources to

 

[Gregory A]

The crops that the US grows for use as animal feed could feed 800 million people.

Grains soybeans and other crops used for animals feed can be eaten by humans. Not to mention the monocrop farming that the government promotes is what is actually depleting the soil. Growing more varied crops for human consumption would actually improve the quality of our farmlands.

And milk is one of those unnecessary things that we commit far too many resources to

I know what you are saying, but it is a world situation we are talking about. And sure feedlots are in effect wasteful of food (and generate excessive co2) but still there is all that land that can only grow what we can't eat, which is of course grass. And for that reason alone livestock do increase available food supplies. Factory-grown meat may be the future. But then how do we harvest grass where nothing else will grow. It still means large areas of land not being used because they are not suited to wheat for example.

 

[Blues Man]

I know what you are saying, but it is a world situation we are talking about. And sure feedlots are in effect wasteful of food (and generate excessive co2) but still there is all that land that can only grow what we can't eat, which is of course grass. And for that reason alone livestock do increase available food supplies. Factory-grown meat may be the future. But then how do we harvest grass where nothing else will grow. It still means large areas of land not being used because they are not suited to wheat for example.

Any farmland used for animal feed can be used for crops for human consumption.

If we just repurpose the farm land dedicated to animal feed we can produce enough food for the entire human population because a person needs far less food than a cow. Not to mention the water that is used in animal production, We would free up literally billions of gallons of potable water for human use.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think God has set things up so that we decide the outcome. It is our free will that will decide this that's if we choose to use it. Rationality can win but things don't look all to good for that to be what appears is happening.

I don't know that God can know how each individual will use each instance of free will, but he certainly took it all into account.

The greatest power of mankind to fuck things up is nothing compared to God's power to make it all come out according to His plan.