The problem with Evil

Prawnapple

Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
591
In a deterministic world, there is no ought, there is only is. And sorry, but you do need to esteem some things as a matter of functioning in the world. For example, a civilised person esteems words because they live by them. The question then becomes what the most appropriate thing to esteem is. And I'm suggesting to you, that from a deterministic perspective, that the original unification appears to be the obvious choice. I mean, that basically fits with the view you are endorsing, no? You go so far as to assert it and believe the truth of it, would you not also say you believe in it?
Okay, I see what you mean and yes I have to agree on that point.
 

Prawnapple

Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
591
I'm not so sure "ought" exists in the same manner with determinism. Which I'm completely fine with. Just pointing it out. AFAIK the ought problem assumes "good" is absolute (And fail to define "good" in the process). But with determinism "good" is relative - morality is a social practice after all. Thus you can derive an ought from an is relative to any goal. At least insofar as my layman understanding is concerned.

i.e. If you want to lose weight (is) you ought to eat less calories.

EDIT: having just read the wiki on this I found my own conclusion and this both funny and intriguing:
"Many modern naturalistic philosophers see no impenetrable barrier in deriving "ought" from "is", believing it can be done whenever we analyze goal-directed behavior. "

I seriously was not aware how aligned my own thinking is with formal proponents. lol. Well at least I go further to define morality :)

Side note: The first mover problem always seems to assume God. Why must the first cause be intelligent? That's another thought I had while catching up on this thread.
100% correct. Goal oriented, it works. What doesn't work for instance, would be to say, one ought to lose weight. However, as you've stated, if the goal is weight loss, then you should eat fewer calories.

Side note: The first mover problem always seems to assume God. Why must the first cause be intelligent? That's another thought I had while catching up on this thread.
Couldn't agree more. It's assumed to be X or Y when it could be either or neither.
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
4,016
Side note: The first mover problem always seems to assume God. Why must the first cause be intelligent? That's another thought I had while catching up on this thread.
Well, I suppose the reasoning goes that intelligence is basically the ability to detect the truth, and that effectively amounts to detecting the first cause and being in unison with it. So it's kinda natural to see it as intelligent given that humans have to anthropomorphise things in order to relate to them in the first place.
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
4,016
@Bobbin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

The unmoved mover (Ancient Greek: ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ, romanized: ho ou kinoúmenon kineî, lit. 'that which moves without being moved')[1] or prime mover (Latin: primum movens) is a concept advanced by Aristotle as a primary cause (or first uncaused cause)[2] or "mover" of all the motion in the universe.[3] As is implicit in the name, the "unmoved mover" moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action. In Book 12 (Greek: Λ) of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: self-contemplation. He equates this concept also with the active intellect. This Aristotelian concept had its roots in cosmological speculations of the earliest Greek pre-Socratic philosophers and became highly influential and widely drawn upon in medieval philosophy and theology. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, elaborated on the unmoved mover in the Quinque viae.

First philosophy
Aristotle argues, in Book 8 of the Physics and Book 12 of the Metaphysics, "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world".[4]
In the Physics (VIII 4–6) Aristotle finds "surprising difficulties" explaining even commonplace change, and in support of his approach of explanation by four causes, he required "a fair bit of technical machinery".[5] This "machinery" includes potentiality and actuality, hylomorphism, the theory of categories, and "an audacious and intriguing argument, that the bare existence of change requires the postulation of a first cause, an unmoved mover whose necessary existence underpins the ceaseless activity of the world of motion".[6] Aristotle's "first philosophy", or Metaphysics ("after the Physics"), develops his peculiar theology of the prime mover, as πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον: an independent divine eternal unchanging immaterial substance.[7]
 

Prawnapple

Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
591
Something I found on Twitter:

"Evolution created humans and "consciousness", we had nothing to do with it. We take credit for the accomplishments of evolution and responsibility for its messy nature. Taking credit and shouldering the responsibility of the process are byproducts of the process."

This pretty much sums up my feelings on "life, the universe and everything". :p
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
4,016
Something I found on Twitter:

"Evolution created humans and "consciousness", we had nothing to do with it. We take credit for the accomplishments of evolution and responsibility for its messy nature. Taking credit and shouldering the responsibility of the process are byproducts of the process."

This pretty much sums up my feelings on "life, the universe and everything". :p
Consciousness is an advanced stress detection mechanism that guides the genetic drift of genomes to the points that are optimal from an anti-entropic perspective. :p
 

FrankCastle

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
6,629
I think the males just challenged one another physically for the females until one with a particularly hard head kept winning Then his offspring of offspring started focusing more and more on this technique until it became a behavioral norm. It's basically a battering ram with legs, quite effective - with the bonus of protection as DMKnight mentioned. That hard headed buffalo great great grandfather really had an advantage :)

All life abides by the principle of survival, quite obviously - else it wouldn't live. Survival is the most powerful influencer of us in my view. So you can apply it to animals just as you do to humans. Even our vastly complicated social interaction and capacity for learning and thought are all in the name of/or influenced by survival - at least it'd be ineffective in terms of success if it were not.

Survival is relative by the way :) Hence you can be a sad millionaire. And I believe your state of survival helps construct the vast mesh of associations you use for intelligent/learned behavior.

If female buffalo's choose their mates on the basis of headbutting, I wonder what female humans go for :unsure: I suppose that's one take away you can ponder.
Human females choose very specific traits ie financial security and confidence, fundamental keys to survival, so its not far off from the head butting scenario.
A confident man has control over his immediate space and therefore owns it - kind of like territorial urinating. Wealth are the tools to control this space.

Back to the concept of evil. I think if there's a disruption with the Id, ego and superego we get evil.
 
Top