God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.

Right. This is an answer that I cannot argue with. I certainly don't know everything, and a God (if He exists) quite possibly would. Or, at least, would know more than me.
It boils down to "Trust that God is good and has good intentions and we just don't know everything about the situation involved."Which just leaves the question unanswered. Maybe God has a good reason, maybe God has a bad reason. Who knows? True. I just don't see any reason to "assume God is the ultimate good reality." So this doesn't mean anything after that.
Mostly because I can think of a "more good" reality than this one. Therefore, either my imagination is a greater good-reality than God is capable of making... or God just isn't the ultimate good reality in the first place. Either way, though... my imagination is proof that this reality isn't "the most good."Of course, perhaps my imagination isn't possible.. for some reason that God knows and we don't. But that's just the thing... we don't know that. Therefore, it is irresponsible for us to "assume" that God is the ultimate good reality, precisely because we don't know. Quite possible again. Which, again, leaves us trusting in God.
Maybe God's greater goal is "worth it" to have so many innocent lives destroyed. Maybe it isn't. Who knows? I made it up from my imagination. You're free to prove me wrong. Evil -> Those actions that are defined as "bad" or "unwanted" by the person who is affected by the action.
Good -> Those actions that are defined as "good" or "desired" by the person who is affected by the action. I agree. Which is why my definitions of Good/Bad are derived from the person who the action is against... I actually have no say in the matter. Anyone being "the arbiter and ultimate judge" of good and evil is a dangerous road. To me, God is included in this as well. Might/creating/coming-first does not make right. Of course. We all have the privilege. Every intelligent being does.
People group up into societies and form a collectively-agreed-upon morality as well. That's how it works. The person who is affected by the action. Any other way leaves it open to being corrupted. Even if God does the deciding, it's still left open to being corrupted by God's followers. Yes. Of course, this is why morality is such a confusing subject... because there are no "always right" answers.
This is exactly why moral paradoxes exist. And it's exactly why moral arguments exist, because no two people judge everything to be exactly the same... because it's all subjective. I think you need to sort out your own thoughts first. Which is it?
Is God not judged by the same standards? Or is morality always the same no matter who's involved? I'm not dismissing Him. I'm just calling Him evil for not helping in situations where He could easily help out.
If those situations actually don't exist... then I won't call Him evil.
If they do exist, then He's evil....but it doesn't really change anything. I mean, I don't even believe He exists, so (to me) it doesn't really matter one way or the other. That's the thing, though. We don't know if God "is" ultimate good. You're just claiming it.I do agree, though... that IF God is ultimate good... then all your points follow. I just don't think that's how things work. I don't think there is a basis for ultimate good. I don't think it exists. From what we know of morals, they're all over the place. Some different from culture to culture, some similar, some can't find agreement within cultures. Sounds to me like they're all just made up and everyone's trying the best they can.

Every time anyone says anyone else is evil, it's always "in the most arbitrary subjective way." That's the way morals work, they're subjective.
The judgment is always as useless and as powerful as that. Only as far as I chase your side comments down irrelevant rabbit holes.
I'm still on point, and you still haven't said anything that detracts from my main statement:

quote:

---

IF God exists.
IF God can easily prevent a rape.
IF there is no safety risk to God in preventing a rape.
IF God understands what rape is and that a particular innocent victim would not want to be raped.
IF "evil" includes not helping others when you're quite capable of helping them at no risk or loss of resources to yourself.
IF God does not prevent rapes given all the above,

​

THEN God is evil.

---

Your closest attempt is with saying that God needs to consider the rapists' interests as well.
This only makes sense if God does not care about free will.The rapist is choosing to remove the free will of the victim.
If God cares about the rapists' interests... then God is allowing the removal of free will of the victim.God is prioritizing the rapists' interests over the victim's interests... well, that sounds evil. If I had the chance to cure cancer, but all I had to do was rape an innocent victim... I'm not sure if it would be worth it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it would be evil for me to make that decision.What makes you think curing cancer is worth raping innocent victims?Or, regardless of that... what makes you think God can't stop a rape from occurring and still allow the rapist to cure cancer?Even if I concede that God isn't evil when He allows a rape to happen so that the rapist can go on to cure cancer... what about the scenarios (like the one I provided) where this doesn't happen, where the rapist goes on to live out the rest of their lives exactly as they would if the rape occurred... it's just that the rape doesn't occur? Is God evil then?

Yeah. Like you said, it boils down to "Raphael trusts God" and "Stile does not trust God." And, no, I do not think we will change each other's minds. If the idea of a God works for you, and the Bible "rings true" to you as well, then yes, I would agree that you have adequately defended my argument from the Biblical standpoint. I try not to attack another's faith. I think such things are important, and people should believe in the things they feel are true, for whatever personal reasons they hold.Of course, since I do not trust God, and neither does the Bible "ring true" to me... I find your defense personally unsatisfactory.
I would suggest that my argument does indeed hold water as long as one does not put such trust in God and the Bible. My argument is more... mundane. And it is those mundane issues that I choose to argue against.If you're going to say "but I believe in God." Then I am forced to simply accept your belief.
But... if someone says something like... "I believe God never lets bad things happen ever!"... well, there's a mundane aspect in there that I can argue against. Because obviously, bad things do happen.But, well, that's the difference. You trust in God to have things figured out, and I just... don't.
I am open to learning about God's ideas, though. If God ever lets me in on the secret of how things actually are "figured out"... then I wouldn't hold anything against Him.You asked a few questions for curiosity's sake, I'll try to answer those as honestly as I can: I think the idea is skewed a bit here.
Yes, I do not think there is such a thing as "absolute right".
But no, this does not mean that *any scenario* can be found "right" just because there's no absolute.That is, I don't think there's ever a circumstance where (a God) creating/coming first would ever make an action right.Again, I think "right" is defined by those who are affected by the action.
This creates an absolute frame-of-reference for myself where I am now restricted.
I mean, it's not based on anything concrete... I just made it up... but within that context, there are absolutes.Therefore, in order for something coming first and being "right" is concerned, it would have to be more of a by-product and not really be based on "coming first." Like this:Let's say God created a world, and all the humans were very happy and approved the world they lived in and were extremely thankful that the God had made it the way He did.Then... since the people affected (the humans) by the action (God creating the world) judge the action as "good"... then God's creation was good.Here we have God creating/coming first and ending up good.
But the "good" isn't decided on God creating/coming first... it's decided by those who were affected by the action. It's just a point-of-interest that God happened to create/come first. The creating/coming first doesn't have any bearing on the good/bad judgment. I agree. But I wouldn't say that they are "undeniably wrong." I would simply phrase it as "pretty much everybody agrees that they don't want these things to happen to them."And, well, why would they?Who wants to be killed?
Who wants to be raped?
Who wants to be a slave?
Who wants to be discriminated against?I don't think everyone is against such actions because they are wrong.
I think that these actions are wrong because everyone is against them.

The rapist has their interests - they want to rape someone.
The victim has their interests - they do not want to be raped.The rapist wants to involve other people and force them to be a part of the rapist's interests to get what they want.
The victim does not want to involve other people or force other people to do anything to get what they want, they just want to be left alone.That's the difference.Evil = when your actions affect someone else and the person affected deems those actions to be unwanted.So, we have 2 possible outcomes:1 - The action takes place - Is it evil? The victim (here) doesn't want to be raped, so yes.. the action is evil.
2 - The action doesn't take place - Is it evil? There is no action, so the event cannot be evil.Given the event taking place above, God has His choice:3a - Take no action - Allow the evil action to happen.
3b - Prevent the evil action.Prioritizing the rapist's interests (evil action) over the victim's interests (not evil) is condoning evil.
Unless, of course, there is something preventing you from doing so - like a risk to your own personal safety.What would prevent God from doing so and be a satisfying excuse for allowing the evil to continue? --- That's the question. Maybe there is no satisfying answer and God is evil. Maybe there is an answer and we're just not privy to it because God is mysterious. But, it doesn't look good at this point if we look at the information we do have available to us. Because it involves hurting an innocent victim.Edited by Stile, : Some stuff got deleted.Edited by Stile, : Ah, nvm... I was using an arrow (<-) and it messed up the coding for the message. Took it as a comment for the coding of the page, maybe? Not sure.

Sorry for the long response, ringo. I know you like the shorter replies. I just got to rambling and decided to keep all of it. It's more just for discussion in general than a direct response to you.Morality is a very complicated subject, it's difficult to keep things short. No. I did not think it was necessary to clarify that we're talking about consenting adults, my apologies.
Dealing with children and those you're supposed to teach is a difficult area because so many lines get crossed. I don't think I'm ready to tackle that arena, yet. That depends on if the person decides they actually did want to continue living at a later time or not.
If the person never, ever is thankful for you saving them... then yes, it was evil to prevent their suicide. Why wouldn't it be?
That's why (in Canada, at least) we're currently changing laws so that suicide is legal and acceptable. Other people shouldn't be able to force you to live if you really want to die. I'm a proponent of that. It's figuring out whether you "really want to die" or not that's the hard part. But it's certainly wrong to have others make that decision for you if it's not in your best interests. No, it isn't.
Me voting for someone you don't like isn't an action (in and of itself) that affects you. It's just an action that I do that you don't like.
That's not the same thing.Now, the person-voted-into-power may decide to take actions that affect many, many people.
Some of those people will judge the action(s) to be evil.
Some of those people will judge the action(s) to be good.
When this happens, the action in and of itself is never "good" or "bad" on the whole. It's simply divided up for each and every single person involved. For every person who's affected that is hurt... the action was evil. For every person who's affected that is thankful... the action was good.But, since moral judgments are imaginary, this is as expected.
And, of course, this is a large source for most of the moral conundrums we all run into on a daily basis.
When running into these sorts of scenarios the proper course of action is to try your best, investigate the results, and adapt your behavior accordingly for future similar scenarios. This question no longer deal with the evil/good judgment of the action. It's now asking if the rapist is justified to do the action anyway.
Even if the victim isn't innocent... the action of raping them when they do not want to be raped is still evil.
But can the evil action be justified? I can't think of an example off the top of my head for rape, but one does likely exist.But even if an evil action is justified... that doesn't make it "a good action." The action itself is still evil. You just decided to do it for whatever reasons you decided on. Others are still free to accept your justification for doing the evil act or reject it. You yourself are free to think it was justified for you to perform the evil action. The point is to remember that you are not the one who decides if the action is evil or not... that is out of your control.
And then, regardless of whether or not you feel justified or everyone around you says you're justified... the "evil/good" of the action is still only decided by the person who was affected.The point is to have a system that works, while at the same time resists corruption.
By having other people judge good/bad for your actions or justified/not justified for your actions... the system is incorruptible.You can certainly "not care" about what others think... and form societies with like-minded people...
But calling something "not evil" or "justified" just because you personally think so is a breeding ground for corruption of the system and manipulation of weaker individuals.If you're looking for nuances... the craziest is that people are quite capable of changing their minds.For example, let's say:I just met a new friend at work.
We get to talking, they let me know that they've never had chocolate before (just go with me, I'm tired... ).
We go out after work to relax and I buy some chocolate and give it to them when we meet up.1. They are very happy to receive the gift. They finally get to try some chocolate! --- The action of me giving them chocolate is a good action.
2. Unfortunately, they turn out to be allergic to chocolate. It upsets their stomach and they end up missing their child's recital. They are upset that I ever gave them chocolate in the first place --- The action of me giving them chocolate is an evil action.
3. Turns out, that their allergy to chocolate was just an initial reaction. They get over it, and their immune system learns to deal with chocolate and it becomes one of their favourite snacks. They are again very thankful than I started them on the chocolate road. --- The action of me giving them chocolate is good again!!Morality is not a simple or easy subject.
That's because morality is about dealing with other people (or "intelligent beings," even).
And people are not simple or easy subjects.This may not be the best system possible, but it's certainly the best I've ever heard of.

No, it doesn't.
The voting doesn't affect you (unless you're a candidate).
The putting-into-power of someone doesn't affect you (unless you were in the running). When the person in power decides to do something that affects you... now we have an action that involves you (or the person who's complaining about your vote).That action can be evil or good.
And in that context (getting back to your point) you would not be absolved of all complicity in the action.
Your part will be "lesser", of course, since you voted them in and didn't do the action itself... also depending on if you knew they were going to go ahead with such actions or not... But it's still there.THEN, your vote can be indirectly evil or good.
But, without an action that's affecting other people... there's no evil or good.Writing a name on a piece of paper doesn't involve other people... there's no evil or good.
If it leads to involving other people... well, then what did it lead to? What action involved other people? THAT action is what's evil or good.It's like... if I were to give a present to my wife and she loves it, then the action of giving-that-present-to-my-wife was good.
Someone else can be very upset that I gave a present to my wife.
But... since the action I took only involved my wife... that other person's feelings are irrelevant to the morality of giving-a-present-to-my-wife.Now, if the present I gave to my wife was a gun and she shot someone else with it... now we can consider the morality of giving-a-present-to-my-wife again from the perspective of the person who was shot. However, notice how this extension requires an action that involves a consequence that affects that other-person.Same with the voting.
Voting in-and-of-itself doesn't affect other people.
But, when actions do affect other people, we may be able to trace it back to the voting. If so, then the voter can have a hand in the evil/good action. Of course.
Take a classic mine-cart moral example:A mine cart is going down a track, you control which track it goes on, but cannot stop it.
Track 1: It will kill 2 people.
Track 2: It will kill 3 people.Both options include evil and good (assuming all the people involved want to live).
Assuming everything else is equal... killing 2 people is better than killing 3 people."Better" doesn't make killing 2 people "good."
Killing 2 people is still "evil."But choosing to kill 2 people instead of 3 can be justified by choosing "the lesser of two evils." Of course. You just have to explain the justification. That's the entire basis for my question from the previous thread. Maybe God is justified for allowing evil in the world. I'd just like to know how, given all the qualities about Him that He's supposed to have.What is the justification? Huh. Good question.I guess it would be more familiar as "good, but unintentional."
Like if someone was trying to hurt a person, but whatever-action-they-took ended up helping them instead.It's good, but unintentional. Good, but unjustifiable. I'm not sure what you mean.
It is treading pretty close to allowing corruption to enter the system again.
Unless, of course, the justification is judged by other people... that's the part that resists corruption. Good and evil are always in the eye of the beholder, that's the way people work. This part isn't made up by me, it's a simple fact that different people judge situations differently.The point of my system is simply to say that "the beholder" should never be the person who's initiating the action.
That's what leads to corruption.As long as "the beholder" is other people... hopefully the one affected by the action... then corruption is restricted.Or, if you're talking in some sort of absolute sense of "meaningless"... then I must agree. In this sense, all morality is "meaningless." It's only as meaningful as we intelligent beings care to give it meaning.

Voting = one person writing a name on a piece of paper. No other people involved.
Firing a shotgun on a crowded bus = doing something that affects the crowd around you.I don't see how your analogy is working.
How are you claiming that these two things are similar?I mean, it could easily be my example to show you how the two things are different... one involves yourself and a piece of paper and no other people. The other involves you setting off a really loud noise in a crowd of other people who are affected by the noise.They are not the same. Exactly.
People are not systematic and absolute, they are fluid and constantly changing.Therefore, the system for morality that governs "dealing with other people" needs to deal with that fluidity and constant change.Again... your tone seems to imply that you're arguing against me, but everything you say is actually agreeing with me 100%.
I find this incredibly confusing.We can assume "everything else is equal" if it's my example and I set the parameters.
I certainly agree with you that real-life isn't that easy and it takes investigation and motivation to learn how you're affecting other people.The inclusion of investigation and motivation to learn how you're affecting other people is a good thing for a moral system to incorporate. But... I am, very specifically, using "argumentum ad dictionarium."I've been very clear about the fact that I've made up these definitions for evil and good and morality. Where else would they come from?The thing is... everyone who speaks of morality or good or bad is using "argumentum ad dictionarium." We've all made up our own definitions for good/bad things. That's why morality is so difficult, because different people each have their own ideas. Some will agree on certain things, and others won't. But none of it is "absolutely incorrect" because such a thing simply doesn't exist for a subjective topic such as morality. Absolutely not.1 - We must be using the definitions I've provided.
2 - The people being killed must not want to be killed (easy to assume, tough to prove without them around any longer...).If both of those can be shown to be true, then yes, it would be "absolutely, within the context of morality as I've defined it."If you mean in some sort of global, objective sense... well, of course not... morality is not absolute like that. Of course they can.
As I've said, in order to keep corruption out of the system, the justification needs to be judged by other people in your society.And, again, justification does not make the action "not evil." It just means the group of people you live with probably won't punish you for your actions.I don't see how any of this gets anywhere close to my words losing meaning.
If anything... it's any other moral system at all that has words "lose meaning."How would any other moral system deal with the same action wanted by some, but despised by others?
--If it's a definitive "good" or action, we're left with people not liking good things? How does that make any sense? Who decides that it's a definitive "good" action in the first place? How can we verify it?If good/bad are to have honest meanings.. they must be decided on by the person affected by the action. Otherwise, they're useless.

I do not think rape is absolutely bad. That's why I keep saying that rape is only bad when the victim doesn't want to be raped.
That's not absolute, it's just highly likely.Allowing rape to occur being evil is also not absolute. I've provided a list of qualifications for when it would be evil. Exactly. And society is made up of people affected by actions... which is who I'm saying decides what's good or bad. We seem to agree on this.

That's right.
Just like everything is absolute if you refine it's context and stay within that context.You just told me that society decides what's good and bad.So, is rape absolutely bad within the context of a society that has decided rape is bad? That's another system to define morality, yes.So, who's way is better? Yours or mine?I'm saying your way of looking at it allows for corruption.
"Oh, you may not like it, but I'm going to keep doing it to you because our society has decided that this is a good thing. Therefore, I'm doing a good thing by hurting you over, and over, and over again..."I'm saying my way of looking at it removes this ability for corruption to exist. And also retains all the subjective-explanatory power of the "society defines morals" system. All the good stuff, but removing some of the bad stuff. Improvement.I'm not saying your way is impossible.
I'm not saying your way isn't how most people see things right now.
I'm not saying your way isn't explained in social psychology books.
I'm not saying my way is more popular.I'm just saying my way removes the ability for corruption. And, if you agree that removing corruption from a system of morality is a good thing... then I'm also saying that my way is "better."

This is a very good point, I've spent a lot of time thinking about it.
My way of looking at things goes like this:If the abused person actually wants to be abused, then it's wrong for you to stop it.
However, if you do stop it, and the abused person eventually comes to realize that it's better this way, and they are thankful that you stopped it... then it was good for you to stop it.This does leave the issue that if you stop the abuse, and the abused person is always angry/upset about no longer being abused... then the abuse was actually a good thing, and it was wrong of you to stop it.What's the alternative, though?
What does your method do for the situation? Your method would involve forcing a person to stop doing something that they want to do. Who gets to decide that? For what other situations do they get to decide for everyone?What if someone likes to smoke, but we know that smoking is bad for us...
According to your system, if it's bad for them, it's good for you to stop them from doing it? It's good for you to stop someone from smoking because we know it's bad for them? Regardless of whether or not they like smoking, understand the ramifications and choose to accept the consequences anyway?Yes, there is a difference between smoking and abuse. But where is that line drawn? Who draws that line? How do we prevent such lines being used to corrupt the system?It is a difficult situation, and both sides have issues.My side has the issue that the abuse will continue if the abuser really does want it to continue (is it still "abuse", even, then?)
My side has the advantage that corruption can never enter the system at all.Your side has the advantage that abuse never happens (but, what if someone actually does want it?)
Your side has the issue that such a precedent can be used for corrupt purposes to control people's habits in many other areas of interest.I deem the plus/minus of my way to be more desirable than the plus/minus of your way. Yes, again, this is the difference in our positions.
You trust that God has our best interests in mind for these absolute statements.
I don't think people are absolute, so I don't think that any absolute statements work when dealing with a system of morality. Regardless of them coming from God or not. I would love such a thing too.
My problem is that this simply does not describe reality.In reality, people are different. People like different things. People are bothered by different things.
Morality is a system that governs dealing with people.
If we care about those people, we'll develop a system that accepts the fact that people are different and works with that.Some people are going to choose not to smoke because it's bad for you.
Other people are going to choose to smoke because they accept the consequences and want to do it anyway.So, does the "unchanging God" say that smoking is good or bad?
My method says that not smoking is good for those who don't want to smoke.
And smoking is good for those who want to smoke (and understand/accept the consequences).God may be unchanging, but even God's method of dealing with people needs to account for the fact that people are not unchanging.
Unless, of course, God's morality isn't concerned with caring about people... But that doesn't seem right, and you get back to the original paradox.

Of course not.Even people are not limited by how society defines them or their actions.
But we can still judge people.
And we can still judge God.Some of those people simple don't care about those judgments.
It's quite possible that God doesn't care about our judgments.None of that makes the judgments go away. They're simply a statement of how the people feel about the situation. Responsibility is not the issue.Even if God didn't create the world and wasn't responsible for us in any way, if He was still all-powerful and decides not to stop rapes... then He's still evil. Why wouldn't He be?Responsibility has nothing to do with it. "The ability to prevent evil" is all that is needed. If God has "the ability to prevent evil" at no risk to Himself, and is aware of the evil in our world, and chooses not to.. then God is evil. Yes, quite possible. Maybe God just doesn't care about us getting hurt enough to prevent the damage. Maybe God has other priorities.
Do those other priorities justify not stopping evil? That's the question. Let's say this is true.
Then God is still evil if He can prevent rapes and chooses not to.
God's justification for allowing the evil to continue is "I'm using my miracles through you!"...I would guess that such a justification would be unsatisfying to a rape victim.

That's right.I didn't bring the term into the discussion, you did. If you no longer want to use the term, I'm good with that. If a society decides what's good or bad, but individual cases still differ.. then society isn't deciding what's good and bad, something else is.
If individual cases still differ.. then perhaps it's the individuals involved who get to make the call. If so, then you agree with me.If not... who's making the call? Why should their call even matter? I'm not suggesting this, this is the way it is. Regardless of anyone using my system or your system or God's system or whatever... each individual is defining and using their own system. That's simply a fact. I'm not saying that my system would make everyone turn into good people.I'm simply saying that my system would remove the ability for corruption... remove the ability to hide behind false information. Remove the ability to do an evil act and call it good and persuade others into thinking it's good just because someone says so.In my system, the only way someone could lie about something being good when it's actually bad, is if that person themselves is the only one getting hurt. That's not corruption, that's stupidity. I'm fine with allowing stupidity if it removes corruption. I would agree.But removing corruption (the ability to persuade others into thinking something is good when it's actually bad) from a system of morality certainly is possible. I've shown you how. All you have to do is allow the person affected by the action to be the judge on whether or not the action was good or bad.Allowing anyone else at all to be the judge only opens the door for someone to tell someone else what they like and dislike. That just doesn't make any sense at all.Edited by Stile, : No. I'm not telling anyone what I edited. My secrets are mine and mine alone!

Regardless of whether or not the rest of your ideas follow from this assumption... Why would we make this assumption in the first place?
Is there any reason to think that this is true?
Is there any benefits that come from thinking this is true? I think it's everyone's job. Anyone who says they care, anyway.

And I agree with that.
Like I said before:

What happens when society deems something good, but an individual deems it bad?
And you get this situation:
"Oh, you may not like it, but I'm going to keep doing it to you because our society has decided that this is a good thing. Therefore, I'm doing a good thing by hurting you over, and over, and over again..."In my system, this cannot happen. Because the individual defines it as bad... so the person doing it to them either has to stop, or has to accept that they are doing something bad and look for justification (acceptance from the rest of society... bringing attention to the issue to the rest of society).With your system, it can simply continue? No one cares about that single person because "it's good anyway?" How are such things dealt with?Until what, enough individuals agree that it's bad so that they change the opinion of society? But.. that's the system I'm advocating anyway... that defining morally good/bad comes from individuals.