Is it?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ichneumonwasp,

Yes, the "greater good" argument (usually in combination with the possibility of free will) can be used to explain the so-called Problem of Evil. There are other explanations as well. The Problem of Evil is fairly well-known, and a good article on the topic can be found here.

-Bri

Know the arguments. Don't buy them. Do you think they adequately address the problem of natural evil?

It seems to me that the most popular approach lately is to invoke the "greater good" argument. I have two problems with it. One is this: God is a utilitarian? If God were going to have a moral structure don't you think deontology would be more "perfect"? I really have a hard time believing that God, if he exists, would be a consequentialist.

The second issue is this: the whole line of argument seems to remove evidence from the equation. Absolutely anything could occur and we would have to argue, "Well, God must have a reason because he is all-good; we just can see all the details." The argument is not logically necessary, but it is unfalsifiable. I don't see any particular reason why anyone should ever accept it.


ETA

Holy **** I just realized that the whole basis of Christianity is Utilitarian. The suffering of one for the good of the many. Hmmmmm, maybe God is a Utilitarian.

 

[slingblade]

Why should religion provide evidence for its claims?

Example A. Proof that you are not even remotely acquainted with logic, reason, or critical thought.

As long as there are no contradictions, religion is "an alternative point of view on reality", a personal viewpoint. Eliminating contradictions is the important part.

There are contradictions. Myriad contradictions. Which see: The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

Please note: that was me, providing evidence for my claim. You know you were going to ask me for it. What you don't know is the irony inherent in that.

 

[uruk]

That's not entirely a valid argument. Morality would involve refraining from performing actions that might foreseeably result in harm to others. If you were all-knowing, that would inevitably compel you to behave according to a different (not higher or lower) standard of behavior than those who are not all-knowing since ALL consequences of your action would be forseeable (in other words, you would understand the full implications of every action). Therefore, you would not only have to act differently, but in some cases in ways that would seem to be immoral to those who are not all-knowing.

Still, your point holds that it would be immoral for us to act in a way that would forseeably harm others, even if we thought that we were being directed by God to do so.

-Bri

That still runs into the problem of "the ends justifying the means".
The idea that god causing unconcievable death and suffering for some larger plan that we cannot fathom that ends with a "greater good" result does not sit right with me.
We hold to ourselves that the committing bad and immoral acts are not justified even if the result is something good. How "good" can that good be if horrible things were performed to achieve that good?

If the morals that god hands down to us are absolute and immutable then under no condition or context do those immoral acts become moral acts later on.
If god says murder is immoral under what conditions does it become moral?
When god does it for the greater good? Does the greater good justify the immoral act of murder?

 

[Bri]

Know the arguments. Don't buy them. Do you think they adequately address the problem of natural evil?

I don't know. Depends what you consider "adequately." I think that it is possible that one or more is true, just as it's possible that God exists. That said, there is little evidence that God exists.

It seems to me that the most popular approach lately is to invoke the "greater good" argument. I have two problems with it. One is this: God is a utilitarian? If God were going to have a moral structure don't you think deontology would be more "perfect"? I really have a hard time believing that God, if he exists, would be a consequentialist.

You're using several terms with which I am unfamiliar. Care to "dumb it down" a little bit for me?

The second issue is this: the whole line of argument seems to remove evidence from the equation. Absolutely anything could occur and we would have to argue, "Well, God must have a reason because he is all-good; we just can see all the details." The argument is not logically necessary, but it is unfalsifiable. I don't see any particular reason why anyone should ever accept it.

Well, here I tend to disagree. True, there is little evidence that God exists, but if God exists I don't find it that unlikely that evil would exist also, assuming that there are greater goods. For example, if it is a greater good for us to have the free will to choose good over evil, then it makes logical sense that evil must exist in order for the greater good to exist.

That still runs into the problem of "the ends justifying the means".
The idea that god causing unconcievable death and suffering for some larger plan that we cannot fathom that ends with a "greater good" result does not sit right with me.
We hold to ourselves that the committing bad and immoral acts are not justified even if the result is something good. How "good" can that good be if horrible things were performed to achieve that good?

It's true that if we cannot fathom the ends (as is usually the case since we aren't all-knowing) then the ends cannot justify the means. God, on the other hand, knows exactly what the ends will be, and therefore the same cannot necessarily be said for him.

That said, we do things all the time that would be considered evil if in another context, but we allow them when we feel that they are for the greater good. For example, governments often take over land that is owned by an individual if it is for the greater good. Another example is the death penalty.

In God's case, one argument is that our having free will is a greater good than a world without evil.

If the morals that god hands down to us are absolute and immutable then under no condition or context do those immoral acts become moral acts later on.

Few acts are immutably immoral under all conditions and contexts.

If god says murder is immoral under what conditions does it become moral?

You're using the loaded term "murder" instead of "killing" here. Since "murder" is defined as unjustified (immoral) killing, then under no circumstance is murder moral. However, there are many circumstances where killing is not considered murder, and is justified.

When god does it for the greater good? Does the greater good justify the immoral act of murder?

Yes, it would. Self defense, punishment, and war are all justified reasons for killing, and are considered moral if they serve the greater good.

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

...
I don't know. Depends what you consider "adequately." I think that it is possible that one or more is true, just as it's possible that God exists. That said, there is little evidence that God exists.
-Bri
...

God is such an abstract concept. What would you consider evidence that God \ god exists?

 

[Bri]

JetLeg,

What evidence have you got?

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

Because in order to say something is true, you must provide evidence for those claims. And, while it might be a personal point of view to the believer, as soon as he/she/it acts on another person in the name of that point of view, they need to have evidence to support that action.

Ok, I want to understand with what exactly you do not agree -

Each person has a right to his own point of view
Points of view with regard to existance of gods and their qualities are subjective, a matter of faith
So each person can posit any number and qualities of gods that he wants to, and only check to rule out contradictions

 

[JetLeg]

JetLeg,

What evidence have you got?

-Bri

I don't have any evidence at all. But it makes no sense to ask for evidence for an immaterial god. Therefore one can posit any number and qualities of immaterial G\god\s that he wants to.

 

[jimlintott]

Ok, I want to understand with what exactly you do not agree -

Each person has a right to his own point of view
Points of view with regard to existance of gods and their qualities are subjective, a matter of faith
So each person can posit any number and qualities of gods that he wants to, and only check to rule out contradictions

Your right to your point of view ends when it has a negative impact on my state of being.

For proof of god(s) I will require evidence that is physical not philosophical in nature. If the only place you can prove the existence of god(s) is in your mind you have to realize that is the only place they exist.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Care to "dumb it down" a little bit for me?

Sure, sorry about that. I assume you know utilitarianism -- the greatest good for the greatest number (sometimes with pleasure thrown in for good, depending on which thinker you're talking about), which is based on outcomes or consequences (hence consequentialist). In other words, the "greater good" arguments all have God looking out for the outcomes rather than caring about what is truly "good". Deontology is concerned with duty and right action, the most famous example being Kant's "categorical imperative" or his later formulation of the "ends principle" (always treat others as though they are an end rather than a means to an end).

It seems strange to say of God that he does not work from an ends principle but that he really only cares about consequences.

But I later realized that is what Christianity is ultimately based upon -- the sacrifice of one for the many.

Well, here I tend to disagree. True, there is little evidence that God exists, but if God exists I don't find it that unlikely that evil would exist also, assuming that there are greater goods. For example, if it is a greater good for us to have the free will to choose good over evil, then it makes logical sense that evil must exist in order for the greater good to exist.

While I think that works well for human evil I am having a hard time fitting that into a structure that explains natural evil. You can try and invoke the Garden of Eden story as people using free will to introduce evil into the world through their action (or frame it as van Inwagen's fanciful restatement of the same thing but within an evolutionary backdrop), but that story just seems silly and it ignores a mound of evidence. Lions had canines long before humans walked this earth and parasites existed long before as well. Human free will is not responsible for earthquakes and tsetse flies.

The only solution that I think treats evil seriously and makes logical sense is if evil is a force in the world and the devil is real. It's a completely wacky idea, but I don't see another good solution for the problem of natural evil.

 

[Bri]

I don't have any evidence at all. But it makes no sense to ask for evidence for an immaterial god. Therefore one can posit any number and qualities of immaterial G\god\s that he wants to.

I simply said that there is no evidence for God, and you don't seem to dispute that.

Nonetheless, why would it make no sense to ask for evidence of an immaterial God? Can't an immaterial God interact with the world, and thereby provide evidence of his existence?

Sure, one can posit as many immaterial gods as one likes. Yet there is little evidence for any god.

Just because God could exist doesn't mean God does exist. The same can be said about leprechauns.

-Bri

 

[jond]

Ok, I want to understand with what exactly you do not agree -

Each person has a right to his own point of view
Points of view with regard to existance of gods and their qualities are subjective, a matter of faith
So each person can posit any number and qualities of gods that he wants to, and only check to rule out contradictions

You are welcome to believe anything you want. Just keep it to yourself. Don't preach to me the about the absolute divinity of GOD X, Y or Z if you don't have evidence to back it up. Don't fly planes into buildings just because your imaginary friend says to do so. How hard is that to understand? We only get one shot at this life, don't screw mine up because you think you've got another one coming to you.

As for the contradictions, slingblade covered that a couple posts back.

 

[Mashuna]

I don't have any evidence at all. But it makes no sense to ask for evidence for an immaterial god. Therefore one can posit any number and qualities of immaterial G\god\s that he wants to.

Of course, as long as you realise that it's just making up stories. Your immaterial, non-evidential God can be whatever you want. It just isn't real.

 

[Bri]

Sure, sorry about that. I assume you know utilitarianism -- the greatest good for the greatest number (sometimes with pleasure thrown in for good, depending on which thinker you're talking about), which is based on outcomes or consequences (hence consequentialist). In other words, the "greater good" arguments all have God looking out for the outcomes rather than caring about what is truly "good". Deontology is concerned with duty and right action, the most famous example being Kant's "categorical imperative" or his later formulation of the "ends principle" (always treat others as though they are an end rather than a means to an end).

It seems strange to say of God that he does not work from an ends principle but that he really only cares about consequences.

But I later realized that is what Christianity is ultimately based upon -- the sacrifice of one for the many.

The argument that evil may exist because having free will to choose to do good over evil is better than not having evil at all doesn't seem to apply to your description of consequentialism. Specifically, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the sacrifice of the one for the many.

While I think that works well for human evil I am having a hard time fitting that into a structure that explains natural evil. You can try and invoke the Garden of Eden story as people using free will to introduce evil into the world through their action (or frame it as van Inwagen's fanciful restatement of the same thing but within an evolutionary backdrop), but that story just seems silly and it ignores a mound of evidence. Lions had canines long before humans walked this earth and parasites existed long before as well. Human free will is not responsible for earthquakes and tsetse flies.

I imagine that if there was no such thing as "natural evil" (I assume you're referring to natural disasters and the like) the temptation might be to shut yourself off from other people. Perhaps having the opportunity to help other people in the face of natural disasters is a greater good than having no natural disasters.

The only solution that I think treats evil seriously and makes logical sense is if evil is a force in the world and the devil is real. It's a completely wacky idea, but I don't see another good solution for the problem of natural evil.

I don't know if this is true, but a lot of people do believe in the devil. Of course, there is as little evidence for the devil as there is for God. However, I don't see how it's necessary to believe in the devil in order to believe in God.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

As for the contradictions, slingblade covered that a couple posts back.

I'm sorry, but the Skeptic's Annotated Bible does not prove contradictions given the vast array of interpretations (both literal and non-literal) that can be applied to the Bible. Google any contradiction from the Skeptics Annotated Bible and you'll find plenty of explanations and justifications.

That is not to say that there is a shred of evidence that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, or even that God exists. It is simply to say that proving contradiction in the Bible is a lot more difficult than some people want to think.

-Bri

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The argument that evil may exist because having free will to choose to do good over evil is better than not having evil at all doesn't seem to apply to your description of consequentialism. Specifically, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the sacrifice of the one for the many.

No, no, I think you misunderstand me. The point I was making is that God is a consequentialist in this scheme. We supposedly cannot tell what is really going on because God works on a much larger scale, so we are not able to judge his actions since we can't see the big picture. But his actions are determined by the greatest good for the greatest number, not because of any inherent good in the action itself. Doesn't that srike you as odd?

I imagine that if there was no such thing as "natural evil" (I assume you're referring to natural disasters and the like) the temptation might be to shut yourself off from other people. Perhaps having the opportunity to help other people in the face of natural disasters is a greater good than having no natural disasters.

But I don't think such answers take the issue seriously enough. I know the argument from "soul building", but there seem to be such natural evils in the world that can't be explained from this paradigm. Give people an opportunity to shine -- well why is that really necessary?

Let's take the example of a single forlorn starving child that no one knows about. She sits in an unobserved corner of Darfur riddled with parasites, wracked with pain, and she dies.

The all-powerful and all-ggod God allows this to occur so that theoretically someone could look good saving her even though he knows that no one will or even can because they don't even know about her?



I

 

[uruk]

It's true that if we cannot fathom the ends (as is usually the case since we aren't all-knowing) then the ends cannot justify the means. God, on the other hand, knows exactly what the ends will be, and therefore the same cannot necessarily be said for him.

The point was not what the ends are, the point was acts to get to those ends. It does not matter what the ends are just if comitting immoral acts were justified in achieving those ends.
By our standards no ends justify an immoral act to achieve those ends. A good end does not make the immoral act moral. Just that an immoral act was commited to achieve a good end.

That said, we do things all the time that would be considered evil if in another context, but we allow them when we feel that they are for the greater good. For example, governments often take over land that is owned by an individual if it is for the greater good. Another example is the death penalty.

A government can take over someone's land if it is considered for the greater good, but does that make the act moral or justified? I don't think the person who had his land taken away would consider that a "good" act. It may have been a neccessary act when taken in a larger context but it is still an act of theft, just a "legal" theft.

In God's case, one argument is that our having free will is a greater good than a world without evil.

But that does make evil good. Evil is still evil.
So having evil around is a consequence of having free will.
Free will is good. And whatever it takes (Having evil around) to get free will is justified. Therefore (having) evil (around) is justified.
But isn't evil mutualy exclusive of good?

Few acts are immutably immoral under all conditions and contexts.

In actuality was is moral and immoral depends on society.
But some argue that god's laws are immutable. whatever god says goes no matter what.

You're using the loaded term "murder" instead of "killing" here. Since "murder" is defined as unjustified (immoral) killing, then under no circumstance is murder moral. However, there are many circumstances where killing is not considered murder, and is justified.

Which means there is a difference between murder and killing. So if god murders does that mean the murder becomes moral because god is committing the murder?

Yes, it would. Self defense, punishment, and war are all justified reasons for killing, and are considered moral if they serve the greater good.


-Bri

So if god kills in self defence the killing will be moral and justified. Who does god need self defence from?
So if god kills for punishment the killing is moral and justified. So what transgression does god consider worthy of the punishment of death?
So if god kills in a war the killing is justified. who does god war with? and who is getting killed?

 

[fagin]

Do you envision that this oculd explain the problem of natural evil? I still have a hard time understanding how a child dying of overwhelming parasitic infestation could be considered good or relate to some other master plan.

Nature is neither good nor evil. Organisms fight to survive. Without consciousness of self, there can be no morality.

 

[Bri]

But his actions are determined by the greatest good for the greatest number, not because of any inherent good in the action itself. Doesn't that srike you as odd?

The situation I described would not be a matter of God determining the greatest good for the greatest number, but rather God determining that our having free will to choose good over evil is more important than not having evil. His actions could very well be towards that (or any other) end that in fact ARE inherently good even if you don't accept the argument that God might be a consequentialist.

But I don't think such answers take the issue seriously enough. I know the argument from "soul building", but there seem to be such natural evils in the world that can't be explained from this paradigm. Give people an opportunity to shine -- well why is that really necessary?

Because perhaps it is a greater good for people to help each other than to shut themselves off from the world. If the only opportunity for evil to befall you would be from other people, you would likely feel compelled to stay away from other people. Also, it is unclear that the conditions necessary for true freedom of choice to help others is presented only by the evil of human beings.

Let's take the example of a single forlorn starving child that no one knows about. She sits in an unobserved corner of Darfur riddled with parasites, wracked with pain, and she dies.

The all-powerful and all-ggod God allows this to occur so that theoretically someone could look good saving her even though he knows that no one will or even can because they don't even know about her?

Her suffering is likely the result of someone choosing to do evil , or at least choosing not to do good. Given that there is enough food and medicine in the world to alleviate the sort of suffering you describe, the fact that she suffers is largely the result of human choice in the form of complacency. So perhaps human beings having the choice to help their fellow human beings is a greater good than human beings having no free will but never suffering.

-Bri

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't know if this is true, but a lot of people do believe in the devil. Of course, there is as little evidence for the devil as there is for God. However, I don't see how it's necessary to believe in the devil in order to believe in God.

-Bri

Sorry, had to leave before I could get to this point.

It isn't necessary to believe in the devil in order to believe in God, but it may be necessary if you want to hang onto a particular conception of God. If God has all the omni attributes that are commonly ascribed and since we have natural evils in the world and since the free will theodicies don't seem to work to explain natural evils (unless you want to accept the Adam and Eve story literally) the best explanation for that type of God with all the evil seems to be the existence of a dark side.