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
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>If it causes harm, it is evil.
No one says that.
Doesn't matter if they do, the argument is formally valid.
Well I don't agree with it.
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 fricking moronic
>the argument is formally valid
But your presupposition isn't valid. Your argument is better an argument against "logic" than anything else.
Can you think of instances where evil doesn't cause harm? Or being caused harm by something that isn't evil?
>being caused harm by something that isn't evil
A tiger killing and eating to sustain itself. Nature is not, and cannot, be evil.
I didn't specify the intention to cause harm.
Neither did anon, so I don't see how nonspecific intention affects his argument
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.
Yes but this argument isn't controversial at all. Still admissible within a privationist framework
moronic 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.
Then what's the difference between a good man and an evil man?
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
That's fine, but a creator god "making the best of a bad job" has nothing to do with the Abrahamic idea of God
There is no such thing as evil. Why do you moronic moral gays 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???
American, sub-25.
ad hominem mora gay with no arguments, 12, third world
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).
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.
If an adult tiger lacks for nothing WHY WOULD IT FRICKING EAT HUMANS YOU MORON
A privationist doesn't believe that needing to eat food is the expression of a lack.
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.
We're talking about the harm that predators inflict on their prey in the wild.
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.
>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
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 have a nice day with swiftness.
irrelevant. You're just importing your CIA thought packets (anthropocentrism, if you're so smart why don't you just have a nice day??? brainlet templates, etc.) into an argument that makes no commitment on these issues either way.
Manichaeism but that's besides the point
God I fricking hate philosophers
I'm trans btw
Don’t worry we hate you too
true. not just tigers but all cats are pretty evil. you can tell. people that like cats literally have brain worms
>1. If it causes harm, it is evil.
>2. Punishing criminals causes them harm.
>3. Therefore punishing criminals is evil.
>2. Punishing criminals causes them harm
No it doesn’t
>harm
>the occurrence of a change for the worse
From the criminal's perspective it does if they disagree with the punishment.
>From the criminal's perspective
So not from an objective perspective
>from an objective perspective
Where are you getting one of those?
OK, prove the tiger objectively causes harm.
>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
>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.
>an adult tiger lacks for nothing
It lacks food necessary for its survival.
>If it causes harm its evil
Christians dont say that, so what are Gnostics right avour exactly? Who is this even refuting?
OP's a moron so their straw men are going to be even more moronic. 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.