[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 54 KB, 640x480, Tiger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23293260 No.23293260 [Reply] [Original]

An argument against the claim that evil can only proceed from a lack in Being. Since an adult tiger lacks for nothing:

1. If it causes harm, it is evil.
2. Predators cause harm.
3. Therefore, predators are evil.

Which means the food cycle is evil, which means it cannot be the creation of an all-good, all-powerful God, which means the Gnostics were right. QED

>> No.23293274

>>23293260
>If it causes harm, it is evil.
No one says that.

>> No.23293277

>>23293274
Doesn't matter if they do, the argument is formally valid.

>> No.23293283

the material realm is inherantly imperfect, but must exist due to unchanging laws of pysics.
the creator god simply made the best possible out of this realm so that we that are stuck here can reach for the higher realm.
at least this is how I see it

>> No.23293284

>>23293283
That's fine, but a creator god "making the best of a bad job" has nothing to do with the Abrahamic idea of God

>> No.23293285

>>23293277
Well I don't agree with it.

>> No.23293297

There is no such thing as evil. Why do you retarded moral fags keep getting your panties in a twist over a word you can't even reliably define. Just because a person le does something you don't like doesn't mean you can reduce it to a vague metaphysical concept since it made you wet yourself. Then you proceed to define the same for everyone else because they have two arms and two legs and eat the same thing you eat and smile when babies chuckle, then afterwards, you start making laws and divinations about what ought to be done considering what one feels to be evil, and then one night, after a raiding party burns your whole village because they did not agree with your naive sense of evil, you stare at the sky and wonder why your god--another contrived metaphysical entity, allows evil to exist???

>> No.23293301

>>23293297
American, sub-25.

>> No.23293310

What if God had to focus on what does not exist on top of what exists, and so its attention is divided, and thus its attention over us is imperfect, and thus evil exists.

What I mean with "focus on what does not exist", is the absolute necessity of checking out whether he is being manipulated by a higher god, or whether morality should exist in the first place (and there is indecision and thus imperfection inside even with that sole questioning only).

>> No.23293323

>>23293310
You might be interested in Schelling's essay on Freedom. The source of evil is that which is in God which is not God, just as a subject is defined by what they are not. The same principle applies to God.

>> No.23293335

>>23293260
If an adult tiger lacks for nothing WHY WOULD IT FUCKING EAT HUMANS YOU MORON

>> No.23293339

>>23293335
A privationist doesn't believe that needing to eat food is the expression of a lack.

>> No.23293350

>>23293339
I don't think you understand. A tiger that is whole of being would never target humans. Man eaters are uniformly a result of them being impaired in some form which prevents them from hunting their usual prey.

>> No.23293352

>>23293301
ad hominem mora fag with no arguments, 12, third world

>> No.23293355

>>23293350
We're talking about the harm that predators inflict on their prey in the wild.

>> No.23293360

God I fucking hate philosophers

>> No.23293363

>>23293355
Come back when you can find a real religion where animals have souls that are of equal essence and substance to the human one. A child causes "harm" to a plant by eating his greens.

>> No.23293365

>>23293363
>Come back when you can find a real religion where animals have souls that are of equal essence and substance to the human one
irrelevant

>> No.23293375

>>23293365
I recommend excavating your brain from your ballooned up skull if you find this simple point difficult to understand. If the existence of animal is of equal import to that of a human, then there is nothing differentiating their existence from that of any living being. Thus, your sheer existence is causing harm to something and you must kill yourself with swiftness.

>> No.23293398

>>23293375
irrelevant. You're just importing your CIA thought packets (anthropocentrism, if you're so smart why don't you just kill yourself??? brainlet templates, etc.) into an argument that makes no commitment on these issues either way.

>> No.23293584

>>23293360
I'm trans btw

>> No.23293916

>>23293277
the logic is valid, yeah, but its like preschooler level logic. meanwhile it's based on an unsubstantiated, basically unprovable premise, making the argument pretty fucking retarded

>> No.23294141

>>23293277
>the argument is formally valid
But your presupposition isn't valid. Your argument is better an argument against "logic" than anything else.

>> No.23294149

>>23294141
Can you think of instances where evil doesn't cause harm? Or being caused harm by something that isn't evil?

>> No.23294161

>>23293260
true. not just tigers but all cats are pretty evil. you can tell. people that like cats literally have brain worms

>> No.23294253

>1. If it causes harm, it is evil.
>2. Punishing criminals causes them harm.
>3. Therefore punishing criminals is evil.

>> No.23294260

>>23293260
> which means the Gnostics were right
Based

>> No.23294261

>>23294253
Good one. Might just bite the bullet on this.

>> No.23294267

>>23293260
>which means the Gnostics were right
Leap in logic

The idea of a personally malevolent God is incongruent with reality, and the idea of a benevolent higher power than this God (Monad) is just delegating the Problem of Evil rather than getting around it or answering it

Captcha: 2GAY

>> No.23294268

>>23294253
>2. Punishing criminals causes them harm
No it doesn’t

>> No.23294279

>>23294268
>harm
>the occurrence of a change for the worse
From the criminal's perspective it does if they disagree with the punishment.

>> No.23294290

>>23293260
>If it causes harm, it is evil
?? This doesn't follow, because it's just a synthetic statement without any reasoning. You might as well have
>If it causes harm, it's good
as your starting presupposition, which makes all the same things you called evil into good things using the exact same logic.

>> No.23294307

>>23293260
>an adult tiger lacks for nothing

It lacks food necessary for its survival.

>> No.23294314

>>23294279
>From the criminal's perspective
So not from an objective perspective

>> No.23294317

>>23294314
>from an objective perspective
Where are you getting one of those?

>> No.23294327

>>23294314
OK, prove the tiger objectively causes harm.

>> No.23294377

>>23294149
>being caused harm by something that isn't evil
A tiger killing and eating to sustain itself. Nature is not, and cannot, be evil.

>> No.23294401

>>23294377
I didn't specify the intention to cause harm.

>> No.23294408

>>23294377
This. Saying a tiger is evil is like saying a hail storm is evil. OP's argument would be better if stated:
>1. A person who harms the innocent for their own pleasure is evil.
>2. Sexual predators harm the innocent for their own pleasure.
>3. Therefore sexual predators are evil.

>> No.23294425

>>23294401
Neither did anon, so I don't see how nonspecific intention affects his argument

>> No.23294428

>>23294408
Yes but this argument isn't controversial at all. Still admissible within a privationist framework

>> No.23294446

>>23293277
Retarded argument. Causing harm can only be evil if it stems from a lack of Being. No predator lacks Being (for all predators are necessarily beings) so predation is not and can not be evil.

>> No.23294455

>>23294446
Then what's the difference between a good man and an evil man?

>> No.23294643

>>23293260
>If it causes harm its evil
Christians dont say that, so what are Gnostics right avour exactly? Who is this even refuting?

>> No.23296364

>>23294643
OP's a retard so their straw men are going to be even more retarded. The fact you can use the same logic to prove under the same system everything in the universe is yellow has completely escaped their notice.

>> No.23296378

>>23293363
Manichaeism but that's besides the point

>> No.23296638

>>23293360
Don’t worry we hate you too