The Root of all Evil : The God Delusion
POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Thursday, December 17, 2015 06:12
VIEWED: 49488
PAGE 24 of 32
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I would say 'evil' is: that which stands as a barrier to the continuation of the species; with the directness, and scale of the action determining how 'evil' it is.
So which is more evil: using a birth control pill which fairly directly reduces the number of people? Or not using the pill; which while in the short term reduces the number of people, but in the long run may prevent a population spike which will ultimately drive a population crash from which we might not recover?
Who decides this? Personal decision, which is driven by factors which often have little to do with the impact to the world; or by the state, which is trying to keep catastrophy at bay?
I will note that the USA has taken a very different path on this matter than, say, China.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LeadB, thanks for finding a counterexample that's less revolting than mine. 
By the propagation of the species argument, birth control, one-child policies, etc. could be considered more evil than anything else.
Birth rates in Europe would suggest that even the combination of peace, education and female emancipation would be regarded as evil.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's rather disturbing you see it that way, or you're just stretching to find reasons why that definition is wrong
Originally posted by Khyron:
This is going to sound really horrible and I apologise for it, but it actually underlines my point that that definition isn't completely workable a bit more. So let's assume the rape victim isn't a healthy, fertile woman, let's assume instead that it's somebody who's a burden to society, a mentally handicapped person or an old pensioner long past child-bearing age. In a way, these acts would be considered to be even more evil by society than the rape of a healthy young woman, even though these two would be representative of people not actively contributing to the advancement of the society, perhaps even hindering it if it's a society that can't really afford to support them.
.In a species that relies on cooperation to survive, attacking weaker members is detrimental to the survival of the overall cooperative, even if it may seem at first to be an action, on the face of it, that strengthens the speicies.
What a burden Stephen Hawking is, on those of us more physically able, eh.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
i) I wasn't stretching, it was well in line with my initial rape counterexample. See LeadB's post to see that counterexamples are easy to come by.
ii) I really don't see how, generally, weaker members of a species help to advance it, no matter how social the species. But fine, let's say an old lady living alone in the woods who hasn't had anything to do with society in decades one day gets raped in her log cabin. That's an act that would still be considered evil by society, even though she wasn't part of society and didn't contribute to its advancement.
iii) I said mentally handicapped, and I'm betting you know that too. I respect you, Citizen, but don't twist my arguments around, I can get very grumpy with people if they do that.
iv) Bored now, so I'll exit this discussion for a bit.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Please forgive me, I meant no offence, it just seems that you are determined to find 'counterexamples' without fully thinking through the ramifications.
Originally posted by Khyron:
i) I wasn't stretching, it was well in line with my initial rape counterexample.
Quote:I don't see it as a counter example at all. I explain further in my next post.
See LeadB's post to see that counterexamples are easy to come by.
Quote:Who said anything about the advancement of society? I was talking about the survival of the species, the two are not the same thing. Would the advancement of the Nazi state be cogent to the overall survival of the species?
ii) I really don't see how, generally, weaker members of a species help to advance it, no matter how social the species. But fine, let's say an old lady living alone in the woods who hasn't had anything to do with society in decades one day gets raped in her log cabin. That's an act that would still be considered evil by society, even though she wasn't part of society and didn't contribute to its advancement.
The point is in order to assume this isn't evil under my definition you have to look at it in a very specific, and narrow way, and ignore the ramifications.
Quote:I'm sorry if you saw it that way, but my intention was never to twist your argument. I had no comment on your argument with my statement about Hawking at all, I was making my own point. The argument *could* be made that Stephen Hawking was nothing more than a burden on the species, due to his physical ailments. Yet if you take all factors into account his contribution is far from restricted to the physical.
iii) I said mentally handicapped, and I'm betting you know that too. I respect you, Citizen, but don't twist my arguments around, I can get very grumpy with people if they do that.
This works with the mentally handicapped as well. I rather suspect the way we currently treat the mentally handicapped, although ostensibly humane, may be considered 'evil' by future generations. By merely placing them in institutions, or treating them for perceived faults, we may be preventing them from realising potential we can't currently quantify, in the same way Stephen Hawking would likely have been prevented from realising his potential in past centuries.
Quote:Your choice, I apologise if you thought I was trying to insult you.
iv) Bored now, so I'll exit this discussion for a bit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If neither is producing mental, or physical harm to either individuals, or the cooperative, and neither through incidence or design can lead to over population nor a population crash then by my definition neither are 'evil'.
Originally posted by leadb:
So which is more evil: using a birth control pill which fairly directly reduces the number of people? Or not using the pill; which while in the short term reduces the number of people, but in the long run may prevent a population spike which will ultimately drive a population crash from which we might not recover?
The criteria are fixed, but the actions aren't, necessarily. For instance I once read a Dystopian future novel, where one of the characters was lamenting the evils of private housing. From their situation it is absolutely true, private housing reduces the share of living space for the majority, and increases the chance of disease, amongst other things.
The problem is you're asking if something is evil, devoid of it's repercussions, intent, and environment. Is taking food from someone suffering from an over eating disorder 'evil' in the sense that it will harm them? No, it's actually helping them, and so leads to aiding the overall survival of the species. Conversely, would taking food from a starving person be 'evil'?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, at this point in time there's no way that murder and rape and the like will have an impact on the survival of a highly successful species such as humans, and as such, by the proposed definition, wouldn't be evil, so I thought that you were talking about advancement of society in the context of humans. But you're not, so in that case replace "advancement of society" with "survival of the species" in my old-lady-in-the-woods example.
Quote:I don't and there's no need to apologise, I'm genuinely bored at the moment, need to think about some other stuff for a while. Too bad the French Open is rained out, although I do have some studying to do...
Originally posted by citizen:Your choice, I apologise if you thought I was trying to insult you.
But I'll give your argument another think-through later tonight, although at the moment I can't see my position changing. See you later (or tomorrow).
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:If neither is producing mental, or physical harm to either individuals, or the cooperative, and neither through incidence or design can lead to over population nor a population crash then by my definition neither are 'evil'.
Originally posted by leadb:
So which is more evil: using a birth control pill which fairly directly reduces the number of people? Or not using the pill; which while in the short term reduces the number of people, but in the long run may prevent a population spike which will ultimately drive a population crash from which we might not recover?
The criteria are fixed, but the actions aren't, necessarily.
It appears I failed to provide enough context; for which I appologize.
Earlier, Citizen asserted: "I would say 'evil' is: that which stands as a barrier to the continuation of the species; with the directness, and scale of the action determining how 'evil' it is."
Quote:
The problem is you're asking if something is evil, devoid of it's repercussions, intent, and environment.
Um, it wasn't devoid of repercussions, though of course had assumptions. Assumption: 'overpopulation can drive a population crash.'
Quote:
Is taking food from someone suffering from an over eating disorder 'evil' in the sense that it will harm them? No, it's actually helping them, and so leads to aiding the overall survival of the species. Conversely, would taking food from a starving person be 'evil'?
I have perceived I was in error in offering a counter to the 'rape' discussion. I'm prolonging a discussion which I've personally already considered resolved; which is 'Is religion the root of all evil?', which which I'm quite clear the answer is 'no'. I believe this attempt to define evil is, while perhaps ammusing, is not likely to help in answering the question on the floor.
(Minor note: Simply taking food from someone with an eating disorder is not necessarily helpful to the person. I know what you meant, though; just don't like to see that sterotype re-inforced.)
====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm
Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
With your definitions, there really doesn't seem to be any difference between the two anyhow.
An Atheist who admits they are fallible believes there is no god but understands that they are not perfect and thus could be wrong, an Agnostic doesn't believe either way.
And I just thought of something else too. The assumption that denying god is dangerous rests on the assumption that if god exists he-she-it-they is vindictive about non-belief. I'm not a religious scholar but I've read a little bit about a few different religions and of the ones I've read about vindictiveness for non-belief seems to be in the minority by a fair margin.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I really don't want to go too far down this path, personally, I think it is silly to try and prove the 'title' of this thread as true. It is patently false.
While certainly we can refine what is good and evil, I'm willing to wager you will find that of those posting here, once all the 'fireworks are done', we will agree on 90% what constitutes good Vs. evil.
Since the topic is "going to discuss whether the "God Delusion" is the root of all evil" I can close this topic down immediately. The answer is no. Sad to say, I'm not perfect. I have committed evil, and said evil is not, and was not, religiously inspired, motivated, intitiated, caused, or any other way tied to religion. I will say I regret such occaisions, and do henceforth intend to reduce my evil and increase my good. However, this is sufficient to prove the point, you really don't need anything more.
I think my interest in Malachite's proposal stems less from its utility in the discussion at hand and more from my interest in the topic as such. I think it warrants an entry into our string of Important Conversations.
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME