is evil essential or realist?

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator:Metacrock

Post Reply
User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:
is evil essential or realist?

Post by Metacrock » Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:48 pm

this is a discuhttp://metacrock.blogspot.comssion with fleet from this board. I discuss it on blog, I would like discussion here
Rehab. man was it a drag. I can still barely walk. There was one cool night when I was playing old Beatles songs like "hard days night" and "Can't buy me love" a tribute on PBS so I had the sound way up on the tv. People started dancing in the hall and gathered outside my room and had a sort of party using snacks from the vending machine.

Here is an old post from way back in 2010 but it still has come cash value in the market of ideas. I'll post the comments to it next time:
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts:2187
Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location:Tianjin, China

Re: is evil essential or realist?

Post by mdsimpson92 » Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:58 pm

Perhaps a better term for evil is not the absence of good but its negation. That would make sense from any form of realist ethics. It isn't just non-good it is the loss of the good.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: is evil essential or realist?

Post by met » Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:33 am

If evil is the loss of good, is that a consequentialst idea, miles?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts:2187
Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location:Tianjin, China

Re: is evil essential or realist?

Post by mdsimpson92 » Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:31 pm

met wrote:If evil is the loss of good, is that a consequentialst idea, miles?

Maybe. If we are trying to make it more than descriptive. For virtue ethics, good and evil are with regards to what traits lead to Eudaimonia. There is certainly a teleological bent to it.

For deontological thought, it may be the failure to do one's duty.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: is evil essential or realist?

Post by met » Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:29 am

If we define evil solely in terms of 'loss of good' it seems like, for better or for worse, we're going to have trouble distinguishing between active malice and passive callousness. Like, between walking past a drowning man and pushing him in?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Jim B.
Posts:1445
Joined:Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: is evil essential or realist?

Post by Jim B. » Fri Jan 09, 2015 3:25 pm

met wrote:If we define evil solely in terms of 'loss of good' it seems like, for better or for worse, we're going to have trouble distinguishing between active malice and passive callousness. Like, between walking past a drowning man and pushing him in?
Maybe that's what evil is, a willful disregard of the good? We all have temptations on a regular basis to be selfish, to vindicate our pride, and so on. What if evil is allowing those temptations to manifest in action?

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts:2187
Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location:Tianjin, China

Re: is evil essential or realist?

Post by mdsimpson92 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:10 pm

Jim B. wrote:
met wrote:If we define evil solely in terms of 'loss of good' it seems like, for better or for worse, we're going to have trouble distinguishing between active malice and passive callousness. Like, between walking past a drowning man and pushing him in?
Maybe that's what evil is, a willful disregard of the good? We all have temptations on a regular basis to be selfish, to vindicate our pride, and so on. What if evil is allowing those temptations to manifest in action?
Perhaps, though that tends to lean more of virtue ethics. If that is the case, is there such a thing as evil results?
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts:2187
Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location:Tianjin, China

Re: is evil essential or realist?

Post by mdsimpson92 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:10 pm

Jim B. wrote:
met wrote:If we define evil solely in terms of 'loss of good' it seems like, for better or for worse, we're going to have trouble distinguishing between active malice and passive callousness. Like, between walking past a drowning man and pushing him in?
Maybe that's what evil is, a willful disregard of the good? We all have temptations on a regular basis to be selfish, to vindicate our pride, and so on. What if evil is allowing those temptations to manifest in action?
Perhaps, though that tends to lean more of virtue ethics. If that is the case, is there such a thing as evil results?
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

Jim B.
Posts:1445
Joined:Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: is evil essential or realist?

Post by Jim B. » Sun Jan 11, 2015 2:41 pm

[quote="mdsimpson92]Perhaps, though that tends to lean more of virtue ethics. If that is the case, is there such a thing as evil results?[/quote]

Why would that tend to lean more towards virtue ethics? I see virtue and deontic as complementary, with virtue more onthe motivational side and deontic more on the justification side. As you mentioned, virtue used as sole justification tends towards being circular.

Jim B.
Posts:1445
Joined:Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: is evil essential or realist?

Post by Jim B. » Sun Jan 11, 2015 2:44 pm

mdsimpson92 wrote:
Jim B. wrote:
met wrote:If we define evil solely in terms of 'loss of good' it seems like, for better or for worse, we're going to have trouble distinguishing between active malice and passive callousness. Like, between walking past a drowning man and pushing him in?
Maybe that's what evil is, a willful disregard of the good? We all have temptations on a regular basis to be selfish, to vindicate our pride, and so on. What if evil is allowing those temptations to manifest in action?
Perhaps, though that tends to lean more of virtue ethics. If that is the case, is there such a thing as evil results?

Why would that tend to lean more towards virtue ethics? I see virtue and deontic as complementary, with virtue more onthe motivational side and deontic more on the justification side. As you mentioned, virtue used as sole justification tends towards being circular

Post Reply