ava Nish: smiley
ava zugzwang: stolen
ava Nish: smiley
ava
The real unbeliever,
unlike the believer,
doesn’t have to bother
with such things as the
so-called ‘problem of
evil’ because evil
doesn’t exist. Things
have simply evolved
this way. Evil is just a
name we perhaps give
to our left-over instincts
of self preservation
from the time when we
were brute beasts; that
force which drove us to
kill, thieve and do
whatever necessary to
preserve ourselves and
our offspring at all
costs. Put another way,
‘evil’ is just a label
which we, either
individually or
collectively, decide
subjectively is ‘bad’.
The same thing goes
for the concept of
‘wrong’. How could
anything be – in an
objective sense –
‘wrong’? And what of
truth, honesty, sin,
falsity, beauty, art and
so on? All these things
too are just subjective,
human ideas, the result
of the evolution of
human thought. The
obvious conclusion is
that these ideas too
have no objective,
intrinsic worth.
(19:46) Thu, 1 Nov 12
ava
^ Excuse the wall of text
(07:13) Wed, 14 Jun 17
ava
In keeping with the premise of multiple subjective realities as opposed to a more singular objective reality, "wrong" or "right" does not truly exist. As you say, the concepts that define something as one or the other may exist in one subjective viewpoint but not in another.

I would argue however that, "evil" still exists even within your definition.

You say we often define "left-over instincts of self preservation from the time when we were brute beasts; that force which drove us to kill, thieve and do whatever necessary to preserve ourselves and our offspring at all costs." as evil. You are not wrong, but that is not a complete list of what is commonly deemed "evil".

Pragmatism and self-interest, may not exactly be virtuous by most standards but it serves a purpose that we can all understand. But what of the motives that have no bearing on our survival or that of our children? The motives that are not born of necessity, would you not consider those "evil"?

For instance, an armed man enters my home at night were I to shoot him dead, I would have committed an "evil" act, murder. But it is necessary to preserve my own life and that of my family and so it is deemed "right" by society. If I go out into the street and shoot a man because I simply felt like it I have committed an "evil" act but in this case society would deem it "wrong".

Society defines "wrong" and "right" by consensus, they are drawn up from our most commonly held viewpoints and beliefs. This enables society to function as a cohesive whole to a greater or lesser extent. Thus "right" as opposed to "wrong" become things that enable society to function as opposed to things that prevent society from functioning. This is why our concept of ethics and morals is always changing. This fact alone cripples the argument for its objective worth but since we are subjective beings who view life through a subjective lens, we can and often do find subjective worth is something whose objective worth is questionable.
(06:05) Wed, 14 Jun 17
ava
Yeah. Really!!!
(19:31) Thu, 8 Jun 17
ava
Oh really...
(11:31) Fri, 11 Jul 14
ava
Thanx but i wud like to know others view on this topic? Is it true or false? Hummm? What do u think abt it?
(20:15) Thu, 1 Nov 12
ava
Eeem u jst gave me a lecture buddy smiley
(20:04) Thu, 1 Nov 12