/lit/ - Literature

>>18813901
>Stop asking for arguments if you don't even understand them, dipshit.
I'm waiting for somebody to present a coherent argument. On what basis do you say I don't understand something which hasn't even been provided yet?
>If Evil is not a positive substance, then a father raping his daughter implies some "nonzero" quantity of light and goodness
Yes, there is no human who has a complete lack of "goodness", it is always a matter of degrees. Even somebody performing an action perceived as disordered, such as smoking heroin, is attempting to reach the Good, although he is going about it in a disordered way.
>which is the efficient cause of that man raping his daughter
No, the efficient cause of a rape is not that nonzero quantity of goodness (which is a quality of the human), but rather the human himself. To put it into perspective, you wouldn't say that the efficient cause of a rape is the hair of a person (one of his qualities), but rather the rapist himself.
>Evil does not exist but possesses its own causality too
Evil does not possess its own causality. Like you said, it cannot, if it doesn't have an independent existence.
>>18813937
>some actions have a regular causality while other actions stem from a privation
All actions have a regular causality.
>Nothing can come from a privation, dumb fuck.
I never claimed that anything could, you are arguing against a strawman.
>You don't want the truth though
I am happy to contend with any arguments you decide to put forward.
>I can tell you're a brainwashed nigger who only wants to proselytize.
I haven't even mentioned my religion. This is a philosophical debate.
>Maybe you'll finally see your mistakes when something truly shitty happens to you and you're forced to confront evil
Basing your metaphysics on your subjective emotions doesn't seem like a very intelligent strategy.

>>18813945
For example:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Then, we can discuss whether the initial two propositions are true through argumentation, or whether the two propositions necessitate the conclusion.
You can also provide any other type of logical argument, but it would help to follow some sort of "proposition -> proposition -> [...] -> conclusion"-type structure.

>>18813952
>can't provide an argument
At least you admit you are unable to contend.

>>18813961
Your question was basically, "Why do non-moral agents (pidgeon, tree, etc.) not perform actions we would classify as immoral?", to which I answered "because they are not rational moral agents". How did I not answer your question?