The Tiger Problem

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

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well I don't agree with it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

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

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't specify the intention to cause harm.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

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

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

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

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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???

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      American, sub-25.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ad hominem mora gay with no arguments, 12, third world

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If an adult tiger lacks for nothing WHY WOULD IT FRICKING EAT HUMANS YOU MORON

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Manichaeism but that's besides the point

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    God I fricking hate philosophers

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm trans btw

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Don’t worry we hate you too

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

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

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

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

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            OK, prove the tiger objectively causes harm.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >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

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >an adult tiger lacks for nothing

    It lacks food necessary for its survival.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *