Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

[ding]

... I find it amazing that any Jew could believe that God was responsible or capable of creating evil.

God created everything. Your theory the absence of god (whatever this could be, because nothing is without god) creates evil, is not plausible. Again: When someone kills someone else then there are many factors in this "game". For example a weapon has to be produced, transported, dealed, sold, bought ... - a situation has to be created - a meeting arranged - and so on and so on - and then someone kills someone with a bullet. Nowhere is any absence of anything - except the absence of the respect for life. The whole evil system is wrongdoing - and not absence.

And again. God created the devil. And he knew before he created the devil what will happen. He knew also what Eve and her children will do. And so on.

It's not a theory. Evil is the absence of good.

Soap is the absence of a sword. So what?

If you want to believe that God created evil. Be my guest.

I'm not god, I don't know what he created and how - but I think he created (and creates and will create) everything - what's a little bit more than we know. I'm convinced he made a good job. And as crazy as it sounds - it is possible that Leibniz was indeed right and we live in the best of all possible worlds ... or multiverses ... or whatever this is, where we live in. A "best of all possible worlds" is for example a world, which is not perfect, but able to grow better.

Maybe this will help.


From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter X, Titled "God is not the Creator of Evil" Pages 265-267

The Mutakallemim, as I have already told you, apply the term non-existence only to absolute non-existence, and not to the absence of properties. A property and the absence of that property are considered by them as two opposites, they treat, e.g., blindness and sight, death and life, in the same way as heat and cold. Therefore they say, without any qualification, nonexistence does not require any agent, an agent is required when something is produced. From a certain point of view this is correct. Although they hold that non-existence does not require an agent, they say in accordance with their principle that God causes blindness and deafness, and gives rest to anything that moves, for they consider these negative conditions as positive properties. We must now state our opinion in accordance with the results of philosophical research. You know that he who removes the obstacle of motion is to some extent the cause of the motion, e.g. if one removes the pillar which supports the beam he causes the beam to move, as has been stated by Aristotle in his Physics (VIII., chap. iv.) ; in this sense we say of him who removed a certain property that he produced the absence of that property, although absence of a property is nothing positive. Just as we say of him who puts out the light at night that he has produced darkness, so we say of him who has destroyed the sight of any being that he produced blindness, although darkness and blindness are negative properties, and require no agent.

Seems to me Maimonides confuses psychology and pyhsics.

In accordance with this view we explain the following passage of Isaiah : " I form the light and create (bore) darkness : I make peace, and create (bore) evil" (Isa. xlv. 7), for darkness and evil are non-existing things.

What's totally stupid, Maimonides - oh sorry, you are dead and never speak bad about the dead - because the night is dark, how everyone knows. But that's onyl the physical side of the problem. Psychologically you speak about ignorance in case of "darkness". An in this context ignorance (or darkness) is the normal situation which needs to be enlightened. And the darkness which is psychologically an evil darkness is an intentional ignorance - the will not to know what someone is able to know.

Consider that the prophet does not say, I make ('oseh) darkness, I make ('oseh) evil, because darkness and evil are not things in positive existence to which the verb "to make" would apply ; the verb bara "he created" is used because in Hebrew this verb is applied to non-existing things, e.g. "In the beginning God created" (bara), etc. ; here the creation took place from nothing.

But is the nothing dark or black? It is nothing!

Only in this sense can non-existence be said to be produced by a certain action of an agent. In the same way we must explain the following passage: " Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing," etc. (Exod. iv. I I). The passage can also be explained as follows: Who has made man able to speak ? or can create him without the capacity of speaking, i.e., create a substance that is incapable of acquiring this property? for he who produces a substance that cannot acquire a certain property may be called the producer of that privation. Thus we say, if any one abstains from delivering a fellow-man from death, although he is able to do so, that he killed him. It is now clear that according to all these different views the action of an agent cannot be directly connected with a thing that does not exist;

That's what I tried to tell ding, Marmonides, but he did not like to listen or was not able to understand this.

only indirectly is non-existence described as the result of the action of an agent, whilst in a direct manner an action can only influence a thing really in existence ; accordingly, whoever the agent may be, he can only act upon an existing thing.

After this explanation you must recall to memory that, as has been proved, the [so-called] evils are evil only in relation to a certain thing, and that which is evil in reference to a certain existing thing, either includes the non-existence of that thing or the non-existence of some of its good conditions.

By the way: We have in Germany a similar problem now about 900 years after your death, Marmonides. In our constitution is written the word "race" and some ... let me call them 'liberals' ... like to eliminate this word, because 'race' is not real. But the meaning is in this case: no one may be - or is it "must be" in English? - discriminated because of his race. I this context it is unimportant whether a race really exists or not - because every discrimination because of race must stop.

The proposition has therefore been laid down in the most general terms, " All evils are negations."

Oh oh oh - take care now, Maimonides. Which from of negations? The negation of an apple cake is a complete world - only without this apple cake. And in this negated world exist lots of things we don't know.

Thus for man death is evil ; death is his non-existence.

For all life death is evil. And god is life.

Illness, poverty, and ignorance are evils for man ; all these are privations of properties. If you examine all single cases to which this general proposition applies, you will find that there is not one case in which the proposition is wrong except in the opinion of those who do not make any distinction between negative and positive properties, or between two opposites, or do not know the nature of things,--who, e.g., do not know that health in general denotes a certain equilibrium, and is a relative term. The absence of that relation is illness in general, and death is the absence of life in the case of any animal. The destruction of other things is likewise nothing but the absence of their form.

Some hundred years you will think in another way when you see what a little virus is able to do. It's not the absence of god, which produces dangerous viruses. And what you are not able to know in your century: Sometimes something happens without any special reason. So the world is not fully understandable, if we think only in causes and effects.

After these propositions, it must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil,

And indirectly? Do you think god is a muddel?

or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible.

Hmm ... a hypothetic Muslim coud say now "No - that is possible. God can do whatever he likes to do: He is god." The question is perhaps: Why go things wrong? Some times it is good, if some thing go wrong.

His works are all perfectly good.

I said it to ding in this way: Music is good - to sing is good. But not every music is good and not every song is good.

He only produces existence, and all existence is good ; whilst evils are of a negative character, and cannot be acted upon. Evil can only be attributed to Him in the way we have mentioned. He creates evil only in so far as He produces the corporeal element such as it actually is; it is always connected with negatives, and is on that account the source of all destruction and all evil. Those beings that do not possess this corporeal element are not subject to destruction or evil ; consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence. The book which enlightened the darkness of the world says therefore, " And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good " (Gen. i. 31). Even the existence of this corporeal element, low as it in reality is, because it is the source of death and all evils, is likewise good for the permanence of the Universe and the continuation of the order of things, so that one thing departs and the other succeeds. Rabbi Meir therefore explains the words " and behold it was very good" (tob me'od) ; that even death was good in accordance with what we have observed in this chapter. Remember what I said in this chapter, consider it, and you will understand all that the prophets and our Sages remarked about the perfect goodness of all the direct works of God. In Bereshit Rabba (chap. i.) the
same idea is expressed thus : " No evil comes down from above."

That's also what I tried to explain ding. Sometimes shit happens - what not means god hates someone. The problem is perhaps just simple: If we can go into a good direction there have also to be bad directions - and because no one knows a concrete perfect way we need contact to god for our journey. Perhaps he likes it to cuddle and to snuggle?

I'm sure it does seem that way to you because you believe God created evil. I think that is a ridiculous proposition.

Only to make this clear: As far as I know I never said god created evil. I said I believe god created everything - without any exception. And I don't see any sense in your "absence"-logic. If something is not here, then I just simple do not know what is not here. I'm sure the world could be a more perfect world, if something would be here, what is not here. But it also could be, something will be more worse with something, what is not here.

It seemed to me that you were arguing that God created evil.

G-d did create the evil inclination.
And I've provided the reference.
Which you failed to address.

My argument is that your claim about Maimonides agreeing with your idea about man's inability to do evil has been disproven by your own post.

You can't defend it.

Actually I showed you that the great Jewish Rabbi’s said that everything God created is good. You can’t comprehend that the negation of good is not God creating an evil inclination. The inclination God created is good because everything God created is good. You lose.

 

[ding]

... I find it amazing that any Jew could believe that God was responsible or capable of creating evil.

God created everything. Your theory the absence of god (whatever this could be, because nothing is without god) creates evil, is not plausible. Again: When someone kills someone else then there are many factors in this "game". For example a weapon has to be produced, transported, dealed, sold, bought ... - a situation has to be created - a meeting arranged - and so on and so on - and then someone kills someone with a bullet. Nowhere is any absence of anything - except the absence of the respect for life. The whole evil system is wrongdoing - and not absence.

And again. God created the devil. And he knew before he created the devil what will happen. He knew also what Eve and her children will do. And so on.

It's not a theory. Evil is the absence of good.

Soap is the absence of a sword. So what?

If you want to believe that God created evil. Be my guest.

I'm not god, I don't know what he created and how - but I think he created (and creates and will create) everything - what's a little bit more than we know. I'm convinced he made a good job. And as crazy as it sounds - it is possible that Leibniz was indeed right and we live in the best of all possible worlds ... or multiverses ... or whatever this is, where we live in. A "best of all possible worlds" is for example a world, which is not perfect, but able to grow better.

Maybe this will help.


From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter X, Titled "God is not the Creator of Evil" Pages 265-267

The Mutakallemim, as I have already told you, apply the term non-existence only to absolute non-existence, and not to the absence of properties. A property and the absence of that property are considered by them as two opposites, they treat, e.g., blindness and sight, death and life, in the same way as heat and cold. Therefore they say, without any qualification, nonexistence does not require any agent, an agent is required when something is produced. From a certain point of view this is correct. Although they hold that non-existence does not require an agent, they say in accordance with their principle that God causes blindness and deafness, and gives rest to anything that moves, for they consider these negative conditions as positive properties. We must now state our opinion in accordance with the results of philosophical research. You know that he who removes the obstacle of motion is to some extent the cause of the motion, e.g. if one removes the pillar which supports the beam he causes the beam to move, as has been stated by Aristotle in his Physics (VIII., chap. iv.) ; in this sense we say of him who removed a certain property that he produced the absence of that property, although absence of a property is nothing positive. Just as we say of him who puts out the light at night that he has produced darkness, so we say of him who has destroyed the sight of any being that he produced blindness, although darkness and blindness are negative properties, and require no agent.

Seems to me Maimonides confuses psychology and pyhsics.

In accordance with this view we explain the following passage of Isaiah : " I form the light and create (bore) darkness : I make peace, and create (bore) evil" (Isa. xlv. 7), for darkness and evil are non-existing things.

What's totally stupid, Maimonides - oh sorry, you are dead and never speak bad about the dead - because the night is dark, how everyone knows. But that's onyl the physical side of the problem. Psychologically you speak about ignorance in case of "darkness". An in this context ignorance (or darkness) is the normal situation which needs to be enlightened. And the darkness which is psychologically an evil darkness is an intentional ignorance - the will not to know what someone is able to know.

Consider that the prophet does not say, I make ('oseh) darkness, I make ('oseh) evil, because darkness and evil are not things in positive existence to which the verb "to make" would apply ; the verb bara "he created" is used because in Hebrew this verb is applied to non-existing things, e.g. "In the beginning God created" (bara), etc. ; here the creation took place from nothing.

But is the nothing dark or black? It is nothing!

Only in this sense can non-existence be said to be produced by a certain action of an agent. In the same way we must explain the following passage: " Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing," etc. (Exod. iv. I I). The passage can also be explained as follows: Who has made man able to speak ? or can create him without the capacity of speaking, i.e., create a substance that is incapable of acquiring this property? for he who produces a substance that cannot acquire a certain property may be called the producer of that privation. Thus we say, if any one abstains from delivering a fellow-man from death, although he is able to do so, that he killed him. It is now clear that according to all these different views the action of an agent cannot be directly connected with a thing that does not exist;

That's what I tried to tell ding, Marmonides, but he did not like to listen or was not able to understand this.

only indirectly is non-existence described as the result of the action of an agent, whilst in a direct manner an action can only influence a thing really in existence ; accordingly, whoever the agent may be, he can only act upon an existing thing.

After this explanation you must recall to memory that, as has been proved, the [so-called] evils are evil only in relation to a certain thing, and that which is evil in reference to a certain existing thing, either includes the non-existence of that thing or the non-existence of some of its good conditions.

By the way: We have in Germany a similar problem now about 900 years after your death, Marmonides. In our constitution is written the word "race" and some ... let me call them 'liberals' ... like to eliminate this word, because 'race' is not real. But the meaning is in this case: no one may be - or is it "must be" in English? - discriminated because of his race. I this context it is unimportant whether a race really exists or not - because every discrimination because of race must stop.

The proposition has therefore been laid down in the most general terms, " All evils are negations."

Oh oh oh - take care now, Maimonides. Which from of negations? The negation of an apple cake is a complete world - only without this apple cake. And in this negated world exist lots of things we don't know.

Thus for man death is evil ; death is his non-existence.

For all life death is evil. And god is life.

Illness, poverty, and ignorance are evils for man ; all these are privations of properties. If you examine all single cases to which this general proposition applies, you will find that there is not one case in which the proposition is wrong except in the opinion of those who do not make any distinction between negative and positive properties, or between two opposites, or do not know the nature of things,--who, e.g., do not know that health in general denotes a certain equilibrium, and is a relative term. The absence of that relation is illness in general, and death is the absence of life in the case of any animal. The destruction of other things is likewise nothing but the absence of their form.

Some hundred years you will think in another way when you see what a little virus is able to do. It's not the absence of god, which produces dangerous viruses. And what you are not able to know in your century: Sometimes something happens without any special reason. So the world is not fully understandable, if we think only in causes and effects.

After these propositions, it must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil,

And indirectly? Do you think god is a muddel?

or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible.

Hmm ... a hypothetic Muslim coud say now "No - that is possible. God can do whatever he likes to do: He is god." The question is perhaps: Why go things wrong? Some times it is good, if some thing go wrong.

His works are all perfectly good.

I said it to ding in this way: Music is good - to sing is good. But not every music is good and not every song is good.

He only produces existence, and all existence is good ; whilst evils are of a negative character, and cannot be acted upon. Evil can only be attributed to Him in the way we have mentioned. He creates evil only in so far as He produces the corporeal element such as it actually is; it is always connected with negatives, and is on that account the source of all destruction and all evil. Those beings that do not possess this corporeal element are not subject to destruction or evil ; consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence. The book which enlightened the darkness of the world says therefore, " And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good " (Gen. i. 31). Even the existence of this corporeal element, low as it in reality is, because it is the source of death and all evils, is likewise good for the permanence of the Universe and the continuation of the order of things, so that one thing departs and the other succeeds. Rabbi Meir therefore explains the words " and behold it was very good" (tob me'od) ; that even death was good in accordance with what we have observed in this chapter. Remember what I said in this chapter, consider it, and you will understand all that the prophets and our Sages remarked about the perfect goodness of all the direct works of God. In Bereshit Rabba (chap. i.) the
same idea is expressed thus : " No evil comes down from above."

That's also what I tried to explain ding. Sometimes shit happens - what not means god hates someone. The problem is perhaps just simple: If we can go into a good direction there have also to be bad directions - and because no one knows a concrete perfect way we need contact to god for our journey. Perhaps he likes it to cuddle and to snuggle?

I'm sure it does seem that way to you because you believe God created evil. I think that is a ridiculous proposition.

Only to make this clear: As far as I know I never said god created evil. I said I believe god created everything - without any exception. And I don't see any sense in your "absence"-logic. If something is not here, then I just simple do not know what is not here. I'm sure the world could be a more perfect world, if something would be here, what is not here. But it also could be, something will be more worse with something, what is not here.

It seemed to me that you were arguing that God created evil.

God created everything. For example he created the devil. And he knew what will happen. He created Anders Behring Breivick and his narcissism - perhaps better to say he had created a world in which this is possible. For a long time he shot down teens - because he fought against an hypothetic invasion of Muslims. That's what totally stupid and evil propaganda is able to make out of human beings.

That sounds very much like you are still arguing that God created evil.

 

[ding]

The negation of good is the absence of good.

Everything God created is good.


This isn’t that hard to understand.

 

[rylah]

... I find it amazing that any Jew could believe that God was responsible or capable of creating evil.

God created everything. Your theory the absence of god (whatever this could be, because nothing is without god) creates evil, is not plausible. Again: When someone kills someone else then there are many factors in this "game". For example a weapon has to be produced, transported, dealed, sold, bought ... - a situation has to be created - a meeting arranged - and so on and so on - and then someone kills someone with a bullet. Nowhere is any absence of anything - except the absence of the respect for life. The whole evil system is wrongdoing - and not absence.

And again. God created the devil. And he knew before he created the devil what will happen. He knew also what Eve and her children will do. And so on.

It's not a theory. Evil is the absence of good.

Soap is the absence of a sword. So what?

If you want to believe that God created evil. Be my guest.

I'm not god, I don't know what he created and how - but I think he created (and creates and will create) everything - what's a little bit more than we know. I'm convinced he made a good job. And as crazy as it sounds - it is possible that Leibniz was indeed right and we live in the best of all possible worlds ... or multiverses ... or whatever this is, where we live in. A "best of all possible worlds" is for example a world, which is not perfect, but able to grow better.

Maybe this will help.


From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter X, Titled "God is not the Creator of Evil" Pages 265-267

The Mutakallemim, as I have already told you, apply the term non-existence only to absolute non-existence, and not to the absence of properties. A property and the absence of that property are considered by them as two opposites, they treat, e.g., blindness and sight, death and life, in the same way as heat and cold. Therefore they say, without any qualification, nonexistence does not require any agent, an agent is required when something is produced. From a certain point of view this is correct. Although they hold that non-existence does not require an agent, they say in accordance with their principle that God causes blindness and deafness, and gives rest to anything that moves, for they consider these negative conditions as positive properties. We must now state our opinion in accordance with the results of philosophical research. You know that he who removes the obstacle of motion is to some extent the cause of the motion, e.g. if one removes the pillar which supports the beam he causes the beam to move, as has been stated by Aristotle in his Physics (VIII., chap. iv.) ; in this sense we say of him who removed a certain property that he produced the absence of that property, although absence of a property is nothing positive. Just as we say of him who puts out the light at night that he has produced darkness, so we say of him who has destroyed the sight of any being that he produced blindness, although darkness and blindness are negative properties, and require no agent.

Seems to me Maimonides confuses psychology and pyhsics.

In accordance with this view we explain the following passage of Isaiah : " I form the light and create (bore) darkness : I make peace, and create (bore) evil" (Isa. xlv. 7), for darkness and evil are non-existing things.

What's totally stupid, Maimonides - oh sorry, you are dead and never speak bad about the dead - because the night is dark, how everyone knows. But that's onyl the physical side of the problem. Psychologically you speak about ignorance in case of "darkness". An in this context ignorance (or darkness) is the normal situation which needs to be enlightened. And the darkness which is psychologically an evil darkness is an intentional ignorance - the will not to know what someone is able to know.

Consider that the prophet does not say, I make ('oseh) darkness, I make ('oseh) evil, because darkness and evil are not things in positive existence to which the verb "to make" would apply ; the verb bara "he created" is used because in Hebrew this verb is applied to non-existing things, e.g. "In the beginning God created" (bara), etc. ; here the creation took place from nothing.

But is the nothing dark or black? It is nothing!

Only in this sense can non-existence be said to be produced by a certain action of an agent. In the same way we must explain the following passage: " Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing," etc. (Exod. iv. I I). The passage can also be explained as follows: Who has made man able to speak ? or can create him without the capacity of speaking, i.e., create a substance that is incapable of acquiring this property? for he who produces a substance that cannot acquire a certain property may be called the producer of that privation. Thus we say, if any one abstains from delivering a fellow-man from death, although he is able to do so, that he killed him. It is now clear that according to all these different views the action of an agent cannot be directly connected with a thing that does not exist;

That's what I tried to tell ding, Marmonides, but he did not like to listen or was not able to understand this.

only indirectly is non-existence described as the result of the action of an agent, whilst in a direct manner an action can only influence a thing really in existence ; accordingly, whoever the agent may be, he can only act upon an existing thing.

After this explanation you must recall to memory that, as has been proved, the [so-called] evils are evil only in relation to a certain thing, and that which is evil in reference to a certain existing thing, either includes the non-existence of that thing or the non-existence of some of its good conditions.

By the way: We have in Germany a similar problem now about 900 years after your death, Marmonides. In our constitution is written the word "race" and some ... let me call them 'liberals' ... like to eliminate this word, because 'race' is not real. But the meaning is in this case: no one may be - or is it "must be" in English? - discriminated because of his race. I this context it is unimportant whether a race really exists or not - because every discrimination because of race must stop.

The proposition has therefore been laid down in the most general terms, " All evils are negations."

Oh oh oh - take care now, Maimonides. Which from of negations? The negation of an apple cake is a complete world - only without this apple cake. And in this negated world exist lots of things we don't know.

Thus for man death is evil ; death is his non-existence.

For all life death is evil. And god is life.

Illness, poverty, and ignorance are evils for man ; all these are privations of properties. If you examine all single cases to which this general proposition applies, you will find that there is not one case in which the proposition is wrong except in the opinion of those who do not make any distinction between negative and positive properties, or between two opposites, or do not know the nature of things,--who, e.g., do not know that health in general denotes a certain equilibrium, and is a relative term. The absence of that relation is illness in general, and death is the absence of life in the case of any animal. The destruction of other things is likewise nothing but the absence of their form.

Some hundred years you will think in another way when you see what a little virus is able to do. It's not the absence of god, which produces dangerous viruses. And what you are not able to know in your century: Sometimes something happens without any special reason. So the world is not fully understandable, if we think only in causes and effects.

After these propositions, it must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil,

And indirectly? Do you think god is a muddel?

or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible.

Hmm ... a hypothetic Muslim coud say now "No - that is possible. God can do whatever he likes to do: He is god." The question is perhaps: Why go things wrong? Some times it is good, if some thing go wrong.

His works are all perfectly good.

I said it to ding in this way: Music is good - to sing is good. But not every music is good and not every song is good.

He only produces existence, and all existence is good ; whilst evils are of a negative character, and cannot be acted upon. Evil can only be attributed to Him in the way we have mentioned. He creates evil only in so far as He produces the corporeal element such as it actually is; it is always connected with negatives, and is on that account the source of all destruction and all evil. Those beings that do not possess this corporeal element are not subject to destruction or evil ; consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence. The book which enlightened the darkness of the world says therefore, " And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good " (Gen. i. 31). Even the existence of this corporeal element, low as it in reality is, because it is the source of death and all evils, is likewise good for the permanence of the Universe and the continuation of the order of things, so that one thing departs and the other succeeds. Rabbi Meir therefore explains the words " and behold it was very good" (tob me'od) ; that even death was good in accordance with what we have observed in this chapter. Remember what I said in this chapter, consider it, and you will understand all that the prophets and our Sages remarked about the perfect goodness of all the direct works of God. In Bereshit Rabba (chap. i.) the
same idea is expressed thus : " No evil comes down from above."

That's also what I tried to explain ding. Sometimes shit happens - what not means god hates someone. The problem is perhaps just simple: If we can go into a good direction there have also to be bad directions - and because no one knows a concrete perfect way we need contact to god for our journey. Perhaps he likes it to cuddle and to snuggle?

I'm sure it does seem that way to you because you believe God created evil. I think that is a ridiculous proposition.

Only to make this clear: As far as I know I never said god created evil. I said I believe god created everything - without any exception. And I don't see any sense in your "absence"-logic. If something is not here, then I just simple do not know what is not here. I'm sure the world could be a more perfect world, if something would be here, what is not here. But it also could be, something will be more worse with something, what is not here.

It seemed to me that you were arguing that God created evil.

G-d did create the evil inclination.
And I've provided the reference.
Which you failed to address.

My argument is that your claim about Maimonides agreeing with your idea about man's inability to do evil has been disproven by your own post.

You can't defend it.

Actually I showed you that the great Jewish Rabbi’s said that everything God created is good. You can’t comprehend that the negation of good is not God creating an evil inclination. The inclination God created is good because everything God created is good. You lose.

Hold your horses amigo,
the same great Jewish Rabbi who wrote in his introduction:

"The same idea is contained in the passage, "And the imagination of the heart of man is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21). The theory of the good and the evil inclinations (yeẓer ha-tob, ve-yeẓer ha-ra’) is frequently referred to in our religion. Our Sages also say, "Serve God with your good and your evil inclinations." (B. T. Ber. 57a.) They also say that the evil inclination we receive at our birth: for "at the door sin croucheth" (Gen. 4:7), as is distinctly said in the Law, "And the imagination of the heart of man is evil from his youth" (ibid. 8:21). The good inclination, however, comes when the mind is developed. In explaining the allegory representing the body of man and his different faculties, our Sages (B. T. Ned. 32b) said:

"The evil inclination is called a great king, whilst the good inclination is a child, poor, though wise" (Eccles. 9:14).

All these sayings of our Sages are contained in their writings, and are well known. According to our Sages the evil inclination, the adversary (satan), and the angel [of death], are undoubtedly identical; and the adversary being called "angel, "because he is among the sons of God, and the good inclination being in reality an angel, it is to the good and the evil inclinations that they refer in their well-known words, "Every person is accompanied by two angels, one being on his right side, one on his left." In the Babylonian Gemara (Shabbath 119b), they say distinctly of the two angels that one is good and one bad. See what extraordinary ideas this passage discloses, and how many false ideas it removes. "

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 3 22:3

Now consider that the phrase, "to present themselves before the Lord," is used in reference to the sons of God, both the first and the second times, but in...

www.sefaria.org.il

This one?

Yeah that's exactly the same Jewish sage who contradicts your denial of the evil inclination,
and man's ability to do evil.

That's why you don't even dare address it.

 

[ding]

... I find it amazing that any Jew could believe that God was responsible or capable of creating evil.

God created everything. Your theory the absence of god (whatever this could be, because nothing is without god) creates evil, is not plausible. Again: When someone kills someone else then there are many factors in this "game". For example a weapon has to be produced, transported, dealed, sold, bought ... - a situation has to be created - a meeting arranged - and so on and so on - and then someone kills someone with a bullet. Nowhere is any absence of anything - except the absence of the respect for life. The whole evil system is wrongdoing - and not absence.

And again. God created the devil. And he knew before he created the devil what will happen. He knew also what Eve and her children will do. And so on.

It's not a theory. Evil is the absence of good.

Soap is the absence of a sword. So what?

If you want to believe that God created evil. Be my guest.

I'm not god, I don't know what he created and how - but I think he created (and creates and will create) everything - what's a little bit more than we know. I'm convinced he made a good job. And as crazy as it sounds - it is possible that Leibniz was indeed right and we live in the best of all possible worlds ... or multiverses ... or whatever this is, where we live in. A "best of all possible worlds" is for example a world, which is not perfect, but able to grow better.

Maybe this will help.


From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter X, Titled "God is not the Creator of Evil" Pages 265-267

The Mutakallemim, as I have already told you, apply the term non-existence only to absolute non-existence, and not to the absence of properties. A property and the absence of that property are considered by them as two opposites, they treat, e.g., blindness and sight, death and life, in the same way as heat and cold. Therefore they say, without any qualification, nonexistence does not require any agent, an agent is required when something is produced. From a certain point of view this is correct. Although they hold that non-existence does not require an agent, they say in accordance with their principle that God causes blindness and deafness, and gives rest to anything that moves, for they consider these negative conditions as positive properties. We must now state our opinion in accordance with the results of philosophical research. You know that he who removes the obstacle of motion is to some extent the cause of the motion, e.g. if one removes the pillar which supports the beam he causes the beam to move, as has been stated by Aristotle in his Physics (VIII., chap. iv.) ; in this sense we say of him who removed a certain property that he produced the absence of that property, although absence of a property is nothing positive. Just as we say of him who puts out the light at night that he has produced darkness, so we say of him who has destroyed the sight of any being that he produced blindness, although darkness and blindness are negative properties, and require no agent.

Seems to me Maimonides confuses psychology and pyhsics.

In accordance with this view we explain the following passage of Isaiah : " I form the light and create (bore) darkness : I make peace, and create (bore) evil" (Isa. xlv. 7), for darkness and evil are non-existing things.

What's totally stupid, Maimonides - oh sorry, you are dead and never speak bad about the dead - because the night is dark, how everyone knows. But that's onyl the physical side of the problem. Psychologically you speak about ignorance in case of "darkness". An in this context ignorance (or darkness) is the normal situation which needs to be enlightened. And the darkness which is psychologically an evil darkness is an intentional ignorance - the will not to know what someone is able to know.

Consider that the prophet does not say, I make ('oseh) darkness, I make ('oseh) evil, because darkness and evil are not things in positive existence to which the verb "to make" would apply ; the verb bara "he created" is used because in Hebrew this verb is applied to non-existing things, e.g. "In the beginning God created" (bara), etc. ; here the creation took place from nothing.

But is the nothing dark or black? It is nothing!

Only in this sense can non-existence be said to be produced by a certain action of an agent. In the same way we must explain the following passage: " Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing," etc. (Exod. iv. I I). The passage can also be explained as follows: Who has made man able to speak ? or can create him without the capacity of speaking, i.e., create a substance that is incapable of acquiring this property? for he who produces a substance that cannot acquire a certain property may be called the producer of that privation. Thus we say, if any one abstains from delivering a fellow-man from death, although he is able to do so, that he killed him. It is now clear that according to all these different views the action of an agent cannot be directly connected with a thing that does not exist;

That's what I tried to tell ding, Marmonides, but he did not like to listen or was not able to understand this.

only indirectly is non-existence described as the result of the action of an agent, whilst in a direct manner an action can only influence a thing really in existence ; accordingly, whoever the agent may be, he can only act upon an existing thing.

After this explanation you must recall to memory that, as has been proved, the [so-called] evils are evil only in relation to a certain thing, and that which is evil in reference to a certain existing thing, either includes the non-existence of that thing or the non-existence of some of its good conditions.

By the way: We have in Germany a similar problem now about 900 years after your death, Marmonides. In our constitution is written the word "race" and some ... let me call them 'liberals' ... like to eliminate this word, because 'race' is not real. But the meaning is in this case: no one may be - or is it "must be" in English? - discriminated because of his race. I this context it is unimportant whether a race really exists or not - because every discrimination because of race must stop.

The proposition has therefore been laid down in the most general terms, " All evils are negations."

Oh oh oh - take care now, Maimonides. Which from of negations? The negation of an apple cake is a complete world - only without this apple cake. And in this negated world exist lots of things we don't know.

Thus for man death is evil ; death is his non-existence.

For all life death is evil. And god is life.

Illness, poverty, and ignorance are evils for man ; all these are privations of properties. If you examine all single cases to which this general proposition applies, you will find that there is not one case in which the proposition is wrong except in the opinion of those who do not make any distinction between negative and positive properties, or between two opposites, or do not know the nature of things,--who, e.g., do not know that health in general denotes a certain equilibrium, and is a relative term. The absence of that relation is illness in general, and death is the absence of life in the case of any animal. The destruction of other things is likewise nothing but the absence of their form.

Some hundred years you will think in another way when you see what a little virus is able to do. It's not the absence of god, which produces dangerous viruses. And what you are not able to know in your century: Sometimes something happens without any special reason. So the world is not fully understandable, if we think only in causes and effects.

After these propositions, it must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil,

And indirectly? Do you think god is a muddel?

or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible.

Hmm ... a hypothetic Muslim coud say now "No - that is possible. God can do whatever he likes to do: He is god." The question is perhaps: Why go things wrong? Some times it is good, if some thing go wrong.

His works are all perfectly good.

I said it to ding in this way: Music is good - to sing is good. But not every music is good and not every song is good.

He only produces existence, and all existence is good ; whilst evils are of a negative character, and cannot be acted upon. Evil can only be attributed to Him in the way we have mentioned. He creates evil only in so far as He produces the corporeal element such as it actually is; it is always connected with negatives, and is on that account the source of all destruction and all evil. Those beings that do not possess this corporeal element are not subject to destruction or evil ; consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence. The book which enlightened the darkness of the world says therefore, " And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good " (Gen. i. 31). Even the existence of this corporeal element, low as it in reality is, because it is the source of death and all evils, is likewise good for the permanence of the Universe and the continuation of the order of things, so that one thing departs and the other succeeds. Rabbi Meir therefore explains the words " and behold it was very good" (tob me'od) ; that even death was good in accordance with what we have observed in this chapter. Remember what I said in this chapter, consider it, and you will understand all that the prophets and our Sages remarked about the perfect goodness of all the direct works of God. In Bereshit Rabba (chap. i.) the
same idea is expressed thus : " No evil comes down from above."

That's also what I tried to explain ding. Sometimes shit happens - what not means god hates someone. The problem is perhaps just simple: If we can go into a good direction there have also to be bad directions - and because no one knows a concrete perfect way we need contact to god for our journey. Perhaps he likes it to cuddle and to snuggle?

I'm sure it does seem that way to you because you believe God created evil. I think that is a ridiculous proposition.

Only to make this clear: As far as I know I never said god created evil. I said I believe god created everything - without any exception. And I don't see any sense in your "absence"-logic. If something is not here, then I just simple do not know what is not here. I'm sure the world could be a more perfect world, if something would be here, what is not here. But it also could be, something will be more worse with something, what is not here.

It seemed to me that you were arguing that God created evil.

G-d did create the evil inclination.
And I've provided the reference.
Which you failed to address.

My argument is that your claim about Maimonides agreeing with your idea about man's inability to do evil has been disproven by your own post.

You can't defend it.

Actually I showed you that the great Jewish Rabbi’s said that everything God created is good. You can’t comprehend that the negation of good is not God creating an evil inclination. The inclination God created is good because everything God created is good. You lose.

Hold your horses amigo,
the same great Jewish Rabbi who wrote in his introduction:

"The same idea is contained in the passage, "And the imagination of the heart of man is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21). The theory of the good and the evil inclinations (yeẓer ha-tob, ve-yeẓer ha-ra’) is frequently referred to in our religion. Our Sages also say, "Serve God with your good and your evil inclinations." (B. T. Ber. 57a.) They also say that the evil inclination we receive at our birth: for "at the door sin croucheth" (Gen. 4:7), as is distinctly said in the Law, "And the imagination of the heart of man is evil from his youth" (ibid. 8:21). The good inclination, however, comes when the mind is developed. In explaining the allegory representing the body of man and his different faculties, our Sages (B. T. Ned. 32b) said:

"The evil inclination is called a great king, whilst the good inclination is a child, poor, though wise" (Eccles. 9:14).

All these sayings of our Sages are contained in their writings, and are well known. According to our Sages the evil inclination, the adversary (satan), and the angel [of death], are undoubtedly identical; and the adversary being called "angel, "because he is among the sons of God, and the good inclination being in reality an angel, it is to the good and the evil inclinations that they refer in their well-known words, "Every person is accompanied by two angels, one being on his right side, one on his left." In the Babylonian Gemara (Shabbath 119b), they say distinctly of the two angels that one is good and one bad. See what extraordinary ideas this passage discloses, and how many false ideas it removes. "

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 3 22:3

Now consider that the phrase, "to present themselves before the Lord," is used in reference to the sons of God, both the first and the second times, but in...

www.sefaria.org.il

This one?

Yeah that's exactly the same Jewish sage who contradicts your denial of the evil inclination,
and man's ability to do evil.

That's why you don't even dare address it.

And unequivocally stated that it wasn't because God made him evil or gave him an inclination towards evil. That the negation of good isn't creating evil.

 

[ding]

"...it must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible His works are all perfectly good. He only produces existence, and all existence is good..."

MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter X, Titled "God is not the Creator of Evil" Pages 265-267

 

[rylah]

... I find it amazing that any Jew could believe that God was responsible or capable of creating evil.

God created everything. Your theory the absence of god (whatever this could be, because nothing is without god) creates evil, is not plausible. Again: When someone kills someone else then there are many factors in this "game". For example a weapon has to be produced, transported, dealed, sold, bought ... - a situation has to be created - a meeting arranged - and so on and so on - and then someone kills someone with a bullet. Nowhere is any absence of anything - except the absence of the respect for life. The whole evil system is wrongdoing - and not absence.

And again. God created the devil. And he knew before he created the devil what will happen. He knew also what Eve and her children will do. And so on.

It's not a theory. Evil is the absence of good.

Soap is the absence of a sword. So what?

If you want to believe that God created evil. Be my guest.

I'm not god, I don't know what he created and how - but I think he created (and creates and will create) everything - what's a little bit more than we know. I'm convinced he made a good job. And as crazy as it sounds - it is possible that Leibniz was indeed right and we live in the best of all possible worlds ... or multiverses ... or whatever this is, where we live in. A "best of all possible worlds" is for example a world, which is not perfect, but able to grow better.

Maybe this will help.


From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter X, Titled "God is not the Creator of Evil" Pages 265-267

The Mutakallemim, as I have already told you, apply the term non-existence only to absolute non-existence, and not to the absence of properties. A property and the absence of that property are considered by them as two opposites, they treat, e.g., blindness and sight, death and life, in the same way as heat and cold. Therefore they say, without any qualification, nonexistence does not require any agent, an agent is required when something is produced. From a certain point of view this is correct. Although they hold that non-existence does not require an agent, they say in accordance with their principle that God causes blindness and deafness, and gives rest to anything that moves, for they consider these negative conditions as positive properties. We must now state our opinion in accordance with the results of philosophical research. You know that he who removes the obstacle of motion is to some extent the cause of the motion, e.g. if one removes the pillar which supports the beam he causes the beam to move, as has been stated by Aristotle in his Physics (VIII., chap. iv.) ; in this sense we say of him who removed a certain property that he produced the absence of that property, although absence of a property is nothing positive. Just as we say of him who puts out the light at night that he has produced darkness, so we say of him who has destroyed the sight of any being that he produced blindness, although darkness and blindness are negative properties, and require no agent.

Seems to me Maimonides confuses psychology and pyhsics.

In accordance with this view we explain the following passage of Isaiah : " I form the light and create (bore) darkness : I make peace, and create (bore) evil" (Isa. xlv. 7), for darkness and evil are non-existing things.

What's totally stupid, Maimonides - oh sorry, you are dead and never speak bad about the dead - because the night is dark, how everyone knows. But that's onyl the physical side of the problem. Psychologically you speak about ignorance in case of "darkness". An in this context ignorance (or darkness) is the normal situation which needs to be enlightened. And the darkness which is psychologically an evil darkness is an intentional ignorance - the will not to know what someone is able to know.

Consider that the prophet does not say, I make ('oseh) darkness, I make ('oseh) evil, because darkness and evil are not things in positive existence to which the verb "to make" would apply ; the verb bara "he created" is used because in Hebrew this verb is applied to non-existing things, e.g. "In the beginning God created" (bara), etc. ; here the creation took place from nothing.

But is the nothing dark or black? It is nothing!

Only in this sense can non-existence be said to be produced by a certain action of an agent. In the same way we must explain the following passage: " Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing," etc. (Exod. iv. I I). The passage can also be explained as follows: Who has made man able to speak ? or can create him without the capacity of speaking, i.e., create a substance that is incapable of acquiring this property? for he who produces a substance that cannot acquire a certain property may be called the producer of that privation. Thus we say, if any one abstains from delivering a fellow-man from death, although he is able to do so, that he killed him. It is now clear that according to all these different views the action of an agent cannot be directly connected with a thing that does not exist;

That's what I tried to tell ding, Marmonides, but he did not like to listen or was not able to understand this.

only indirectly is non-existence described as the result of the action of an agent, whilst in a direct manner an action can only influence a thing really in existence ; accordingly, whoever the agent may be, he can only act upon an existing thing.

After this explanation you must recall to memory that, as has been proved, the [so-called] evils are evil only in relation to a certain thing, and that which is evil in reference to a certain existing thing, either includes the non-existence of that thing or the non-existence of some of its good conditions.

By the way: We have in Germany a similar problem now about 900 years after your death, Marmonides. In our constitution is written the word "race" and some ... let me call them 'liberals' ... like to eliminate this word, because 'race' is not real. But the meaning is in this case: no one may be - or is it "must be" in English? - discriminated because of his race. I this context it is unimportant whether a race really exists or not - because every discrimination because of race must stop.

The proposition has therefore been laid down in the most general terms, " All evils are negations."

Oh oh oh - take care now, Maimonides. Which from of negations? The negation of an apple cake is a complete world - only without this apple cake. And in this negated world exist lots of things we don't know.

Thus for man death is evil ; death is his non-existence.

For all life death is evil. And god is life.

Illness, poverty, and ignorance are evils for man ; all these are privations of properties. If you examine all single cases to which this general proposition applies, you will find that there is not one case in which the proposition is wrong except in the opinion of those who do not make any distinction between negative and positive properties, or between two opposites, or do not know the nature of things,--who, e.g., do not know that health in general denotes a certain equilibrium, and is a relative term. The absence of that relation is illness in general, and death is the absence of life in the case of any animal. The destruction of other things is likewise nothing but the absence of their form.

Some hundred years you will think in another way when you see what a little virus is able to do. It's not the absence of god, which produces dangerous viruses. And what you are not able to know in your century: Sometimes something happens without any special reason. So the world is not fully understandable, if we think only in causes and effects.

After these propositions, it must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil,

And indirectly? Do you think god is a muddel?

or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible.

Hmm ... a hypothetic Muslim coud say now "No - that is possible. God can do whatever he likes to do: He is god." The question is perhaps: Why go things wrong? Some times it is good, if some thing go wrong.

His works are all perfectly good.

I said it to ding in this way: Music is good - to sing is good. But not every music is good and not every song is good.

He only produces existence, and all existence is good ; whilst evils are of a negative character, and cannot be acted upon. Evil can only be attributed to Him in the way we have mentioned. He creates evil only in so far as He produces the corporeal element such as it actually is; it is always connected with negatives, and is on that account the source of all destruction and all evil. Those beings that do not possess this corporeal element are not subject to destruction or evil ; consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence. The book which enlightened the darkness of the world says therefore, " And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good " (Gen. i. 31). Even the existence of this corporeal element, low as it in reality is, because it is the source of death and all evils, is likewise good for the permanence of the Universe and the continuation of the order of things, so that one thing departs and the other succeeds. Rabbi Meir therefore explains the words " and behold it was very good" (tob me'od) ; that even death was good in accordance with what we have observed in this chapter. Remember what I said in this chapter, consider it, and you will understand all that the prophets and our Sages remarked about the perfect goodness of all the direct works of God. In Bereshit Rabba (chap. i.) the
same idea is expressed thus : " No evil comes down from above."

That's also what I tried to explain ding. Sometimes shit happens - what not means god hates someone. The problem is perhaps just simple: If we can go into a good direction there have also to be bad directions - and because no one knows a concrete perfect way we need contact to god for our journey. Perhaps he likes it to cuddle and to snuggle?

I'm sure it does seem that way to you because you believe God created evil. I think that is a ridiculous proposition.

Only to make this clear: As far as I know I never said god created evil. I said I believe god created everything - without any exception. And I don't see any sense in your "absence"-logic. If something is not here, then I just simple do not know what is not here. I'm sure the world could be a more perfect world, if something would be here, what is not here. But it also could be, something will be more worse with something, what is not here.

It seemed to me that you were arguing that God created evil.

G-d did create the evil inclination.
And I've provided the reference.
Which you failed to address.

My argument is that your claim about Maimonides agreeing with your idea about man's inability to do evil has been disproven by your own post.

You can't defend it.

Actually I showed you that the great Jewish Rabbi’s said that everything God created is good. You can’t comprehend that the negation of good is not God creating an evil inclination. The inclination God created is good because everything God created is good. You lose.

Hold your horses amigo,
the same great Jewish Rabbi who wrote in his introduction:

"The same idea is contained in the passage, "And the imagination of the heart of man is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21). The theory of the good and the evil inclinations (yeẓer ha-tob, ve-yeẓer ha-ra’) is frequently referred to in our religion. Our Sages also say, "Serve God with your good and your evil inclinations." (B. T. Ber. 57a.) They also say that the evil inclination we receive at our birth: for "at the door sin croucheth" (Gen. 4:7), as is distinctly said in the Law, "And the imagination of the heart of man is evil from his youth" (ibid. 8:21). The good inclination, however, comes when the mind is developed. In explaining the allegory representing the body of man and his different faculties, our Sages (B. T. Ned. 32b) said:

"The evil inclination is called a great king, whilst the good inclination is a child, poor, though wise" (Eccles. 9:14).

All these sayings of our Sages are contained in their writings, and are well known. According to our Sages the evil inclination, the adversary (satan), and the angel [of death], are undoubtedly identical; and the adversary being called "angel, "because he is among the sons of God, and the good inclination being in reality an angel, it is to the good and the evil inclinations that they refer in their well-known words, "Every person is accompanied by two angels, one being on his right side, one on his left." In the Babylonian Gemara (Shabbath 119b), they say distinctly of the two angels that one is good and one bad. See what extraordinary ideas this passage discloses, and how many false ideas it removes. "

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 3 22:3

Now consider that the phrase, "to present themselves before the Lord," is used in reference to the sons of God, both the first and the second times, but in...

www.sefaria.org.il

This one?

Yeah that's exactly the same Jewish sage who contradicts your denial of the evil inclination,
and man's ability to do evil.

That's why you don't even dare address it.

And unequivocally stated that it wasn't because God made him evil or gave him an inclination towards evil. That the negation of good isn't creating evil.

It is incerdibly ridiculous to claim
that Maimonides said G-d didn't give man an evil inclination,

when he clearly states:

"The same idea is contained in the passage, "And the imagination of the heart of man is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21). The theory of the good and the evil inclinations (yeẓer ha-tob, ve-yeẓer ha-ra’) is frequently referred to in our religion. Our Sages also say, "Serve God with your good and your evil inclinations." (B. T. Ber. 57a.) They also say that the evil inclination we receive at our birth: for "at the door sin croucheth" (Gen. 4:7), as is distinctly said in the Law, "And the imagination of the heart of man is evil from his youth" (ibid. 8:21). The good inclination, however, comes when the mind is developed. In explaining the allegory representing the body of man and his different faculties, our Sages (B. T. Ned. 32b) said:

"The evil inclination is called a great king, whilst the good inclination is a child, poor, though wise" (Eccles. 9:14).

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 3 22:3

Now consider that the phrase, "to present themselves before the Lord," is used in reference to the sons of God, both the first and the second times, but in...

www.sefaria.org.il

Who gives that evil inclination to man,
that Maimonides is talking about?

 

[ding]

"...consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence. The book which enlightened the darkness of the world says therefore, " And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good " (Gen. i. 31)..."

MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter X, Titled "God is not the Creator of Evil" Pages 265-267

 

[rylah]

"...consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence. The book which enlightened the darkness of the world says therefore, " And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good " (Gen. i. 31)..."

MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter X, Titled "God is not the Creator of Evil" Pages 265-267

How does that exempt you from responsibility for your own evil doing?

You're not G-d.

Deal with it.

 

[ding]

ALL the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, are likewise due to non-existence, because they originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom. A blind man, for example, who has no guide, stumbles constantly, because he cannot see, and causes injury and harm to himself and others. In the same manner various classes of men, each man in proportion to his ignorance, bring great evils upon themselves and upon other individual members of the species. If men possessed wisdom, which stands in the same relation to the form of man as the sight to the eye, they would not cause any injury to themselves or to others ; for the knowledge of truth removes hatred and quarrels, and prevents mutual injuries. This state of society is promised to us by the prophet in the words : "And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb," etc. ; " and the cow and the bear shaU feed together," etc. ; and " the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp," etc. (Isa. xi. 6 stq.). The prophet also points out what will be the cause of this change ; for he says that hatred, quarrel, and fighting will come to an end, because men will then have a true knowledge of God. " They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain : for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea " (ibid. vet. 9).

MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XI, Titled "Man is the Cause of his own Misfortunes" Pages 267

So ignorance is the absence of wisdom just as evil is the absence of good.

 

[rylah]

ALL the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, are likewise due to non-existence, because they originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom. A blind man, for example, who has no guide, stumbles constantly, because he cannot see, and causes injury and harm to himself and others. In the same manner various classes of men, each man in proportion to his ignorance, bring great evils upon themselves and upon other individual members of the species. If men possessed wisdom, which stands in the same relation to the form of man as the sight to the eye, they would not cause any injury to themselves or to others ; for the knowledge of truth removes hatred and quarrels, and prevents mutual injuries. This state of society is promised to us by the prophet in the words : "And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb," etc. ; " and the cow and the bear shaU feed together," etc. ; and " the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp," etc. (Isa. xi. 6 stq.). The prophet also points out what will be the cause of this change ; for he says that hatred, quarrel, and fighting will come to an end, because men will then have a true knowledge of God. " They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain : for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea " (ibid. vet. 9).

MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XI, Titled "Man is the Cause of his own Misfortunes" Pages 267

So ignorance is the absence of wisdom just as evil is the absence of good.

False analogy,
ignorance is not stupidity,
and absence of good is not evil action.
Maimonides has a whole chapter on evil doing.

To murder is not to abstain from good, but to do evil.

Denial of this nature is the source of all man's moral corruption.

 

[ding]

MEN frequently think that the evils in the world are more numerous than the good things ; many sayings and songs of the nations dwell on this idea. They say that a good thing is found only exceptionally, whilst evil things are numerous and lasting. Not only common people make this mistake, but even many who believe that they are wise. A1-Razi wrote a well-known book On Metaphysics [or Theology]. Among other mad and foolish things, it contains also the idea, discovered by him, that there exists more evil than good. For if the happiness of man and his pleasure in the times of prosperity be compared with the mishaps that befall him,--such as grief, acute pain, defects, paralysis of the limbs, fears, anxieties, and troubles,--it would seem as if the existence of man is a punishment and a great evil for him. This author commenced to verify his opinion by counting all the evils one by one ; by this means he opposed those who hold the correct view of the benefits bestowed by God and His evident kindness, viz., that God is perfect goodness, and that all that comes from Him is absolutely good. The origin of the error is to be found in the circumstance that this ignorant man, and his party among the common people, judge the whole universe by examining one single person. For an ignorant man believes that the whole universe only exists for him ; as if nothing else required any consideration. If, therefore anything happens to him contrary to his expectation, he at once concludes that the whole universe is evil. If, however, he would take into consideration the whole universe, form an idea of it, and comprehend what a small portion he is of the Universe, he will find the truth. For it is clear that persons who have fallen into this widespread error as regards the multitude of evils in the world, do not find the evils among the angels, the spheres and stars, the elements, and that which is formed of them, viz., minerals and plants, or in the various species of living beings, but only in some individual instances of mankind. They wonder that a person, who became leprous in consequence of bad food, should be afflicted with so great an illness and suffer such a misfortune ; or that he who indulges so much in sensuality as to weaken his sight, should be struck with blindness and the like. What we have, in truth, to consider is this :--The whole mankind at present in existence, and a fortiori, every other species of animals, form an infinitesimal portion of the permanent universe. Comp. "Man is like to vanity" (Ps. cxliv. 4) ; " How much less man, that is a worm ; and the son of man, which is a worm" (Job xxv. 6) ; "How much less in them who dwell in houses of clay " (ibid. iv. I9) ; " Behold, the nations are as a drop of the bucket" (Isa. xl. 15). There are many other passages in the books of the prophets expressing the same idea. It is of great advantage that man should know his station, and not erroneously imagine that the whole universe exists only for him. We hold that the universe exists because the Creator wills it so ; that mankind is low in rank as compared with the uppermost portion of the universe, viz., with the spheres and the stars ; but, as regards the angels, there cannot be any real comparison between man and angels, although man is the highest of all beings on earth ; i.e., of all beings formed of the four elements. Man's existence is nevertheless a great boon to him, and his distinction and perfection is a divine gift. The numerous evils to which individual persons are exposed are due to the defects existing in the persons themselves. We complain and seek relief from our own faults ; we suffer from the evils which we, by our own free will, inflict on ourselves and ascribe them to God, who is far from being connected with them! Comp. "Is destruction his [work] No. Ye [who call yourselves] wrongly his sons, you who are a perverse and crooked generation" (Deut. xxxii. 5). This is explained by Solomon, who says, "The foolishness of man perverteth his way, and his heart fretteth against the Lord" (Prov. xix. 3). I explain this theory in the following manner. The evils that befall man are of three kinds : (I) The first kind of evil is that which is caused to man by the circumstance that he is subject to genesis and destruction, or that he possesses a body. It is on account of the body that some persons happen to have great deformities or paralysis of some of the organs. This evil may be part of the natural constitution of these persons, or may have developed subsequently in consequence of changes in the elements, e.g., through bad air, or thunderstorms, or landslips. We have already shown that, in accordance with the divine wisdom, genesis can only take place through destruction, and without the destruction of the individual members of the species the species themselves would not exist permanently. Thus the true kindness, and beneficence, and goodness of God is clear. He who thinks that he can have flesh and bones without being subject to any external influence, or any of the accidents of matter, unconsciously wishes to reconcile two opposites, viz., to be at the same time subject and not subject to change. If man were never subject to change there could be no generation ; there would be one single being, but no individuals forming a species. Galen, in the third section of his book, The Use of the Limbs, says correctly that it would be in vain to expect to see living beings formed of the blood of menstruous women and the semen virile, who will not die, will never feel pain, or will move perpetually, or will shine like the sun. This dictum of Galen is part of the following more general proposition :--Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter ; in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter. The best and most perfect being that can be formed of the blood and the semen is the species of man, for as far as man's nature is known, he is living, reasonable, and mortal. It is therefore impossible that man should be free from this species of evil. You will, nevertheless, find that the evils of the above kind which befall man are very few and rare ; for you find countries that have not been flooded or burned for thousands of years ; there are thousands of men in perfect health, deformed individuals are a strange and exceptional occurrence, or say few in number if you object to the term exceptional,--they are not one-hundredth, not even one-thousandth part of those that are perfectly normal. (2) The second class of evils comprises such evils as people cause to each other, when, e.g., some of them use their strength against others. These evils are more numerous than those of the first kind ; their causes are numerous and known; they likewise originate in ourselves, though the sufferer himself cannot avert them. This kind of evil is nevertheless not widespread in any country of the whole world. It is of rare occurrence that a man plans to kill his neighbour or to rob him of his property by night. Many persons are, however, afflicted with this kind of evil in great wars ; but these are not frequent, if the whole inhabited part of the earth is taken into consideration. (3) The third class of evil comprises those which every one causes to himself by his own action. This is the largest class, and is far more numerous than the second class. It is especially of these evils that all men complain,-- only few men are found that do not sin against themselves by this kind of evil. Those that are afflicted with it are therefore justly blamed in the words of the prophet, " This hath been by your means " (Mal. i. 9) ; the same is expressed in the following passage, " He that doeth it destroyeth his own soul" (Prov. vi. 32). In reference to this kind of evil, Solomon says, " The foolishness of man perverteth his way" Obid. xix. 3). In the following passage he explains also that this kind of evil is man's own work, " Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright, but they have thought out many inventions" (Eccles. vii. 29) , and these inventions bring the evils upon him. The same subject is referred to in Job (v. 6), " For affliction cometh not forth of the dust, neither doth trouble spring out of the ground." These words are immediately followed by the explanation that man himself is the author of this class of evils, " But man is born unto trouble." This class of evils originates in man's vices, such as excessive desire for eating, drinking, and love; indulgence in these things in undue measure, or in improper manner, or partaking of bad food. This course brings diseases and afflictions upon body and soul alike. The sufferings of the body in consequence of these evils are well known ; those of the soul are twofold :--First, such evils of the soul as are the necessary consequence of changes in the body, in so far as the soul is a force residing in the body ; it has therefore been said that the properties of the soul depend on the condition of the body. Secondly, the soul, when accustomed to superfluous things, acquires a strong habit of desiring things which are neither necessary for the preservation of the individual nor for that of the species. This desire is without a limit, whilst things which are necessary are few in number and restricted within certain limits ; but what is superfluous is without end---e.g., you desire to have your vessels of silver, but golden vessels are still better : others have even vessels of sapphire, or perhaps they can be made of emerald or rubies, or any other substance that could be suggested. Those who are ignorant and perverse in their thought are constantly in trouble and pain, because they cannot get as much of superfluous thing, as a certain other person possesses. They as a rule expose themselves to great dangers, e.g., by sea voyage, or service of kings, and all this for the purpose of obtaining that which is superfluous and not necessary. When they thus meet with the consequences of the course which they adopt, they complain of the decrees and judgments of God ; they begin to blame the time, and wonder at the want of justice in its changes ; that it has not enabled them to acquire great riches, with which they could buy large quantities of wine for the purpose of making themselves drunk, and numerous concubines adorned with various
kind of ornaments of gold, embroidery, and jewels, for the purpose of driving themselves to voluptuousness beyond their capacities, as if the whole Universe existed exclusively for the purpose of giving pleasure to these low people. The error of the ignorant goes so far as to say that God's power is insufficient, because He has given to this Universe the properties which they imagine cause these great evils, and which do not help all evil-disposed persons to obtain the evil which they seek, and to bring their evil souls to the aim of their desires, though these, as we have shown, are really without limit. The virtuous and wise, however, see and comprehend the wisdom of God displayed in the Universe. Thus David says, "All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep His covenant and His testimonies" (Ps. xxv. IO). For those who observe the nature of the Universe and the commandments of the Law, and know their purpose, see clearly God's mercy and truth in everything; they seek, therefore, that which the Creator intended to be the aim of man, viz., comprehension. Forced by the claims of the body, they seek also that which is necessary for the preservation of the body, " bread to eat and garment to clothe," and this is very little ; but they seek nothing superfluous; with very slight exertion man can obtain it, so long as he is contented with that which is indispensable. All the difficulties and troubles we meet in this respect are due to the desire for superfluous things ; when we seek unnecessary things, we have difficulty even in finding that which is indispensable. For the more we desire to have that which is superfluous,the more we meet with difficulties ; our strength and possessions are spent in unnecessary things, and are wanting when required for that which is necessary. Observe how Nature proves the correctness of this assertion. The more necessary a thing is for living beings, the more easily it is found and the cheaper it is ; the less necessary it is, the rarer and dearer it is. E.g.,air, water, and food are indispensable to man : air is most necessary, for if man is without air a short time he dies ; whilst he can be without water a day or two. Air is also undoubtedly found more easily and cheaper [than water]. Water is more necessary than food ; for some people can be four or five days without food, provided they have water; water also exists in every country in larger quantities than food, and is also cheaper. The same proportion can be noticed in the different kinds of food; that which is more necessary in a certain place exists there in larger quantities and is cheaper than that which is less necessary. No intelligent person, I think, considers musk, amber, rubies, and emerald as very necessary for man except as medicines ; and they, as well as other like substances, can be replaced for this purpose by herbs and minerals. This shows the kindness of God to His creatures, even to us weak beings. His righteousness and justice as regards all animals are well known ; for in the transient world there is among the various kinds of animals no individual being distinguished from the rest of the same species by a peculiar property or an additional limb. On the contrary, all physical, psychical, and viral forces and organs that are possessed by one individual are found also in the other individuals. If any one is somehow different it is by accident, in consequence of some exception, and not by a natural property ; it is also a rare occurrence. There is no difference between individuals of a species in the due course of Nature ; the difference originates in the various dispositions of their substances. This is the necessary consequence of the nature of the substance of that species ; the nature of the species is not more favourable to one individual than to the other. It is no wrong or injustice that one has many bags of finest myrrh and garments embroidered with gold, while another has not those things, which are not necessary for our maintenance ; he who has them has not thereby obtained control over anything that could be an essential addition to his nature, but has only obtained something illusory or deceptive. The other, who does not possess that which is not wanted for his maintenance, does not miss anything indispensable : "He that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack : they gathered every man according to his eating" (Exod. xvi. I8). This is the rule at all times and in all places ; no notice should be taken of exceptional cases,as we have explained. In these two ways you will see the mercy of God toward His creatures. how He has provided that which is required, in proper proportions, and treated all individual beings of the same species with perfect equality. In
accordance with this correct reflection the chief of the wise men says, "All his ways are judgment" (Deut. xxxli. 4) ; David likewise says: " All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth" (Ps. xxv. Io) ; he also says expressly, " The Lord is good .to fill; and his tender mercies are over all his works" (ibid. cxlv. 9) ; for it is an act of great and perfect goodness that He gave us existence ; and the creation of the controlling faculty in animals is a proof of His mercy towards them, as has been shown by us.

MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of'Evil : (1) That caused by the Nature "of Man" ; (2) Caused by Man to Man ; (3) Caused by Man to himself" Page 267 - 272

 

[Blues Man]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

Logic and truth are absolute. Logic, like truth is discovered. I never said they were the same thing.

According to you logic or truth are unimportant because they only exist in the mind. Apparently you are a materialist, lol.

Mind you everything we know is manifested in mind. Only an idiot would dismiss things that are manifested in the mind.

I am a empiricist.

And I'm not dismissing anything I am stating the nature of things.

Without man there would be no logic, no morals, no standards of human behavior so they cannot exist in the absence of man.

And I have said all along that good, evil, morals etc are created by the minds of men. I don't know why you say I am dismissing them when I acknowledged their origin.

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

Standards exist for logical reasons so they exist independent of man. They exist because of logic. That makes it absolute.

If there were no men there would be no standards on man's behaviors therefore standards do not exist apart from man

There is no logic if there is no human mind to create it.

Humans can justify absolutely anything they do. So the standards you experience are those that have been agreed upon directly or tacitly over millennia of people living together which is why standards can vary so much between different groups of people.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Standards exist for reasons. These reasons are discovered when the standard isn't followed. It's called normalization of deviance. The standard is independent of men. The standard is based upon what happens when the standard is not followed. If you cheat on your wife you will suffer predictable surprises because you didn't follow the standard. Yes, if you never existed you would have never cheated in your wife. That is brilliant logic on your part. I'm being facetious here in case you missed it.

Yes standards exist for reasons where have I ever said otherwise?

People who live in a cooperative society agree on what the standards of that society will be. Which is why as I have already told you many times different societies have different standards.

Different people have different standards as well.

And People cheat on their spouses every day in the world and they do not all suffer the same consequences.

And I choose to be a person who honors his commitments so I will not cheat on my wife and that is a choice I made. That is a standard I have set for myself. If it was an absolute standard as you think then everyone would honor their commitments and if they didn't they would all suffer the same consequences and we know that is not true

If you believe standards exist for reasons then when men create false standards the reason the true standard exists will make itself known eventually.

So those people in different societies that you are talking about who establish a standard which is inferior to the true standard will eventually realize the consequences of the lesser standard. So just because many times different societies have different standards that doesn't mean they don't suffer the consequences of selecting a lesser standard. The same is true for individuals.

Yes, many times people do get away with following a lower standard. Violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it. But eventually the reason the higher standard exists will be discovered through the inevitable consequences of following a lesser standard. Thus proving that we can't make that higher standard be anything we want it to be. The higher standard exists in and of itself independent of man. The higher standard exists based upon the logic of the standard itself.

No there is no true standard. Different people, different societies have different standards because those are the standards they as societies have agreed upon.

And what you call moral laws I call a code of conduct that a society has adopted because that code of conduct ensures the society as a whole will be productive and therefore as a whole the people will thrive.

Those codes do not exist in the ether they originate in the minds of the people not somewhere outside of the people.

Logic says otherwise. But if you want to ignore logic be my guest. It won't hurt my feelings at all. I will leave it to you to discover normalization of deviance on your own. Some people have to figure things out for themselves. You seem to be one of those people.

Logic doesn't "say" anything.

Logic is the study of the principles of reasoning. Logic is man's attempt to understand his own thought process it is not some ephemeral thing floating around that people have "discovered".

I have already explained this as clearly as I can. If you don't want to accept it, don't That's up to you. I am more than happy for you to experience it for yourself.

You really think you have all the answer don't you?

And you say others are guilty of hubris.

Did I say that? Where did I say that?

You are 100% sure you know the answers to everything and that I will discover the same answer you have as to your belief in absolute morality because since you are the only one who is absolutely correct then we all will eventually agree with you.

If that's not hubris I don't know what is.

Humans are and always have been moral relativists.

The easiest proof of this is war.

If it is absolutely wrong to kill then why do religions absolve soldiers of the killings they commit in war? Why did the god in the bible have people kill for him.

The Commandment says Thou shall not kill but the subtext is unless god tells you to.

Religion is full of these relativistic stances because gods and religion are human constructs.

I am 100% certain that normalization of deviance will eventually lead to predictable surprises. Yes. I know this because logic dictates that error cannot stand.

So if anyone - including you or me - rejects this concepts and lowers their standards of conduct they will eventually suffer the consequences of their behaviors.

I know this because logic and experience tells me so.

I have never mentioned normalization of deviance.

All human behaviors exist on a continuum. So I do not believe in deviance as all behaviors on the continuum are human behaviors therefore all those behaviors are normal to humans. Simply because a larger proportion of people may engage in the same or similar behaviors in no way means the behaviors that few humans exhibit are deviant.

The fact is you can say it's absolutely wrong to kill but you will have exceptions to that rule depending on the situation. Therefore your moral beliefs on killing is not absolute.

I didn't say you did mention normalization of deviance. I did.

What makes you think I disagree with your standard that killing is wrong on an absolute basis? In fact, I can't think of a higher standard. But let me turn that around on you, if someone entered your home with intent to do harm, would it be wrong to kill them?

I never said killing was wrong on an absolute basis.

I would kill a person who threatened or hurt my wife.

And I would be fine with it.

My morals regarding killing change according to the situation. Hence I am a moral relativist just like all people are

What if I told you I believe it is an absolute? Why would you need to rationalize killing as good or right or justified?

So you would let a person assault your wife and not kill him in her defense?

If killing is absolutely wrong then it is wrong in any situation.

That means you could not kill in self defense, or in the defense of your wife or kids if you have them.

It also means you would not kill animals to eat.

Is this your stance? Would you stand there and let someone brutalize your wife because you refuse to kill?

 

[Blues Man]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

Logic and truth are absolute. Logic, like truth is discovered. I never said they were the same thing.

According to you logic or truth are unimportant because they only exist in the mind. Apparently you are a materialist, lol.

Mind you everything we know is manifested in mind. Only an idiot would dismiss things that are manifested in the mind.

I am a empiricist.

And I'm not dismissing anything I am stating the nature of things.

Without man there would be no logic, no morals, no standards of human behavior so they cannot exist in the absence of man.

And I have said all along that good, evil, morals etc are created by the minds of men. I don't know why you say I am dismissing them when I acknowledged their origin.

So you are saying if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it it doesn't make a sound.

I've never been in that camp.

Where did I say that?

We know the physical properties of the tree, the wood in the tree and what happens when a tree falls because we have witnessed enough trees falling to know what happens.

A tree is a physical thing. Morals are not, standards are not so they are whatever we as a people decide they are.

A tree is life and so a tree has rights. And if you replace moral with justice (a formal system of justice has often not a lot to do with justice) then you know or will see that people are not able to live without justice.

So tell me do you not own anything made of wood?

If you own wooden furniture, live in a house made with wood, or burn wood in a stove for heat then you have violated the rights of all those trees .

You are a tree murderer

I was expecting such a reaction. It needs a long time to understand this. All people all over the world lack respect for life.

Do you eat meat?

Yes.

So you don't think those animals have the right to live.

 

[ding]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

Logic and truth are absolute. Logic, like truth is discovered. I never said they were the same thing.

According to you logic or truth are unimportant because they only exist in the mind. Apparently you are a materialist, lol.

Mind you everything we know is manifested in mind. Only an idiot would dismiss things that are manifested in the mind.

I am a empiricist.

And I'm not dismissing anything I am stating the nature of things.

Without man there would be no logic, no morals, no standards of human behavior so they cannot exist in the absence of man.

And I have said all along that good, evil, morals etc are created by the minds of men. I don't know why you say I am dismissing them when I acknowledged their origin.

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

Standards exist for logical reasons so they exist independent of man. They exist because of logic. That makes it absolute.

If there were no men there would be no standards on man's behaviors therefore standards do not exist apart from man

There is no logic if there is no human mind to create it.

Humans can justify absolutely anything they do. So the standards you experience are those that have been agreed upon directly or tacitly over millennia of people living together which is why standards can vary so much between different groups of people.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Standards exist for reasons. These reasons are discovered when the standard isn't followed. It's called normalization of deviance. The standard is independent of men. The standard is based upon what happens when the standard is not followed. If you cheat on your wife you will suffer predictable surprises because you didn't follow the standard. Yes, if you never existed you would have never cheated in your wife. That is brilliant logic on your part. I'm being facetious here in case you missed it.

Yes standards exist for reasons where have I ever said otherwise?

People who live in a cooperative society agree on what the standards of that society will be. Which is why as I have already told you many times different societies have different standards.

Different people have different standards as well.

And People cheat on their spouses every day in the world and they do not all suffer the same consequences.

And I choose to be a person who honors his commitments so I will not cheat on my wife and that is a choice I made. That is a standard I have set for myself. If it was an absolute standard as you think then everyone would honor their commitments and if they didn't they would all suffer the same consequences and we know that is not true

If you believe standards exist for reasons then when men create false standards the reason the true standard exists will make itself known eventually.

So those people in different societies that you are talking about who establish a standard which is inferior to the true standard will eventually realize the consequences of the lesser standard. So just because many times different societies have different standards that doesn't mean they don't suffer the consequences of selecting a lesser standard. The same is true for individuals.

Yes, many times people do get away with following a lower standard. Violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it. But eventually the reason the higher standard exists will be discovered through the inevitable consequences of following a lesser standard. Thus proving that we can't make that higher standard be anything we want it to be. The higher standard exists in and of itself independent of man. The higher standard exists based upon the logic of the standard itself.

No there is no true standard. Different people, different societies have different standards because those are the standards they as societies have agreed upon.

And what you call moral laws I call a code of conduct that a society has adopted because that code of conduct ensures the society as a whole will be productive and therefore as a whole the people will thrive.

Those codes do not exist in the ether they originate in the minds of the people not somewhere outside of the people.

Logic says otherwise. But if you want to ignore logic be my guest. It won't hurt my feelings at all. I will leave it to you to discover normalization of deviance on your own. Some people have to figure things out for themselves. You seem to be one of those people.

Logic doesn't "say" anything.

Logic is the study of the principles of reasoning. Logic is man's attempt to understand his own thought process it is not some ephemeral thing floating around that people have "discovered".

I have already explained this as clearly as I can. If you don't want to accept it, don't That's up to you. I am more than happy for you to experience it for yourself.

You really think you have all the answer don't you?

And you say others are guilty of hubris.

Did I say that? Where did I say that?

You are 100% sure you know the answers to everything and that I will discover the same answer you have as to your belief in absolute morality because since you are the only one who is absolutely correct then we all will eventually agree with you.

If that's not hubris I don't know what is.

Humans are and always have been moral relativists.

The easiest proof of this is war.

If it is absolutely wrong to kill then why do religions absolve soldiers of the killings they commit in war? Why did the god in the bible have people kill for him.

The Commandment says Thou shall not kill but the subtext is unless god tells you to.

Religion is full of these relativistic stances because gods and religion are human constructs.

I am 100% certain that normalization of deviance will eventually lead to predictable surprises. Yes. I know this because logic dictates that error cannot stand.

So if anyone - including you or me - rejects this concepts and lowers their standards of conduct they will eventually suffer the consequences of their behaviors.

I know this because logic and experience tells me so.

I have never mentioned normalization of deviance.

All human behaviors exist on a continuum. So I do not believe in deviance as all behaviors on the continuum are human behaviors therefore all those behaviors are normal to humans. Simply because a larger proportion of people may engage in the same or similar behaviors in no way means the behaviors that few humans exhibit are deviant.

The fact is you can say it's absolutely wrong to kill but you will have exceptions to that rule depending on the situation. Therefore your moral beliefs on killing is not absolute.

I didn't say you did mention normalization of deviance. I did.

What makes you think I disagree with your standard that killing is wrong on an absolute basis? In fact, I can't think of a higher standard. But let me turn that around on you, if someone entered your home with intent to do harm, would it be wrong to kill them?

I never said killing was wrong on an absolute basis.

I would kill a person who threatened or hurt my wife.

And I would be fine with it.

My morals regarding killing change according to the situation. Hence I am a moral relativist just like all people are

What if I told you I believe it is an absolute? Why would you need to rationalize killing as good or right or justified?

So you would let a person assault your wife and not kill him in her defense?

If killing is absolutely wrong then it is wrong in any situation.

That means you could not kill in self defense, or in the defense of your wife or kids if you have them.

It also means you would not kill animals to eat.

Is this your stance? Would you stand there and let someone brutalize your wife because you refuse to kill?

Why would you assume that?

 

[Blues Man]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

Logic and truth are absolute. Logic, like truth is discovered. I never said they were the same thing.

According to you logic or truth are unimportant because they only exist in the mind. Apparently you are a materialist, lol.

Mind you everything we know is manifested in mind. Only an idiot would dismiss things that are manifested in the mind.

I am a empiricist.

And I'm not dismissing anything I am stating the nature of things.

Without man there would be no logic, no morals, no standards of human behavior so they cannot exist in the absence of man.

And I have said all along that good, evil, morals etc are created by the minds of men. I don't know why you say I am dismissing them when I acknowledged their origin.

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

Standards exist for logical reasons so they exist independent of man. They exist because of logic. That makes it absolute.

If there were no men there would be no standards on man's behaviors therefore standards do not exist apart from man

There is no logic if there is no human mind to create it.

Humans can justify absolutely anything they do. So the standards you experience are those that have been agreed upon directly or tacitly over millennia of people living together which is why standards can vary so much between different groups of people.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Standards exist for reasons. These reasons are discovered when the standard isn't followed. It's called normalization of deviance. The standard is independent of men. The standard is based upon what happens when the standard is not followed. If you cheat on your wife you will suffer predictable surprises because you didn't follow the standard. Yes, if you never existed you would have never cheated in your wife. That is brilliant logic on your part. I'm being facetious here in case you missed it.

Yes standards exist for reasons where have I ever said otherwise?

People who live in a cooperative society agree on what the standards of that society will be. Which is why as I have already told you many times different societies have different standards.

Different people have different standards as well.

And People cheat on their spouses every day in the world and they do not all suffer the same consequences.

And I choose to be a person who honors his commitments so I will not cheat on my wife and that is a choice I made. That is a standard I have set for myself. If it was an absolute standard as you think then everyone would honor their commitments and if they didn't they would all suffer the same consequences and we know that is not true

If you believe standards exist for reasons then when men create false standards the reason the true standard exists will make itself known eventually.

So those people in different societies that you are talking about who establish a standard which is inferior to the true standard will eventually realize the consequences of the lesser standard. So just because many times different societies have different standards that doesn't mean they don't suffer the consequences of selecting a lesser standard. The same is true for individuals.

Yes, many times people do get away with following a lower standard. Violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it. But eventually the reason the higher standard exists will be discovered through the inevitable consequences of following a lesser standard. Thus proving that we can't make that higher standard be anything we want it to be. The higher standard exists in and of itself independent of man. The higher standard exists based upon the logic of the standard itself.

No there is no true standard. Different people, different societies have different standards because those are the standards they as societies have agreed upon.

And what you call moral laws I call a code of conduct that a society has adopted because that code of conduct ensures the society as a whole will be productive and therefore as a whole the people will thrive.

Those codes do not exist in the ether they originate in the minds of the people not somewhere outside of the people.

Logic says otherwise. But if you want to ignore logic be my guest. It won't hurt my feelings at all. I will leave it to you to discover normalization of deviance on your own. Some people have to figure things out for themselves. You seem to be one of those people.

Logic doesn't "say" anything.

Logic is the study of the principles of reasoning. Logic is man's attempt to understand his own thought process it is not some ephemeral thing floating around that people have "discovered".

I have already explained this as clearly as I can. If you don't want to accept it, don't That's up to you. I am more than happy for you to experience it for yourself.

You really think you have all the answer don't you?

And you say others are guilty of hubris.

Did I say that? Where did I say that?

You are 100% sure you know the answers to everything and that I will discover the same answer you have as to your belief in absolute morality because since you are the only one who is absolutely correct then we all will eventually agree with you.

If that's not hubris I don't know what is.

Humans are and always have been moral relativists.

The easiest proof of this is war.

If it is absolutely wrong to kill then why do religions absolve soldiers of the killings they commit in war? Why did the god in the bible have people kill for him.

The Commandment says Thou shall not kill but the subtext is unless god tells you to.

Religion is full of these relativistic stances because gods and religion are human constructs.

I am 100% certain that normalization of deviance will eventually lead to predictable surprises. Yes. I know this because logic dictates that error cannot stand.

So if anyone - including you or me - rejects this concepts and lowers their standards of conduct they will eventually suffer the consequences of their behaviors.

I know this because logic and experience tells me so.

I have never mentioned normalization of deviance.

All human behaviors exist on a continuum. So I do not believe in deviance as all behaviors on the continuum are human behaviors therefore all those behaviors are normal to humans. Simply because a larger proportion of people may engage in the same or similar behaviors in no way means the behaviors that few humans exhibit are deviant.

The fact is you can say it's absolutely wrong to kill but you will have exceptions to that rule depending on the situation. Therefore your moral beliefs on killing is not absolute.

I didn't say you did mention normalization of deviance. I did.

What makes you think I disagree with your standard that killing is wrong on an absolute basis? In fact, I can't think of a higher standard. But let me turn that around on you, if someone entered your home with intent to do harm, would it be wrong to kill them?

I never said killing was wrong on an absolute basis.

I would kill a person who threatened or hurt my wife.

And I would be fine with it.

My morals regarding killing change according to the situation. Hence I am a moral relativist just like all people are

What if I told you I believe it is an absolute? Why would you need to rationalize killing as good or right or justified?

So you would let a person assault your wife and not kill him in her defense?

If killing is absolutely wrong then it is wrong in any situation.

That means you could not kill in self defense, or in the defense of your wife or kids if you have them.

It also means you would not kill animals to eat.

Is this your stance? Would you stand there and let someone brutalize your wife because you refuse to kill?

Why would you assume that?

Because you said it is an absolute that killing is wrong.

I say it depends on the situation. you disagree.

So if killing is absolutely wrong there is no instance where killing can ever be justified or acceptable. If you live by your beliefs that killing is always absolutely wrong then you would never kill in any circumstance.

If you would kill in certain circumstances then you are guilty of moral relativism.

 

[ding]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

Logic and truth are absolute. Logic, like truth is discovered. I never said they were the same thing.

According to you logic or truth are unimportant because they only exist in the mind. Apparently you are a materialist, lol.

Mind you everything we know is manifested in mind. Only an idiot would dismiss things that are manifested in the mind.

I am a empiricist.

And I'm not dismissing anything I am stating the nature of things.

Without man there would be no logic, no morals, no standards of human behavior so they cannot exist in the absence of man.

And I have said all along that good, evil, morals etc are created by the minds of men. I don't know why you say I am dismissing them when I acknowledged their origin.

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

Standards exist for logical reasons so they exist independent of man. They exist because of logic. That makes it absolute.

If there were no men there would be no standards on man's behaviors therefore standards do not exist apart from man

There is no logic if there is no human mind to create it.

Humans can justify absolutely anything they do. So the standards you experience are those that have been agreed upon directly or tacitly over millennia of people living together which is why standards can vary so much between different groups of people.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Standards exist for reasons. These reasons are discovered when the standard isn't followed. It's called normalization of deviance. The standard is independent of men. The standard is based upon what happens when the standard is not followed. If you cheat on your wife you will suffer predictable surprises because you didn't follow the standard. Yes, if you never existed you would have never cheated in your wife. That is brilliant logic on your part. I'm being facetious here in case you missed it.

Yes standards exist for reasons where have I ever said otherwise?

People who live in a cooperative society agree on what the standards of that society will be. Which is why as I have already told you many times different societies have different standards.

Different people have different standards as well.

And People cheat on their spouses every day in the world and they do not all suffer the same consequences.

And I choose to be a person who honors his commitments so I will not cheat on my wife and that is a choice I made. That is a standard I have set for myself. If it was an absolute standard as you think then everyone would honor their commitments and if they didn't they would all suffer the same consequences and we know that is not true

If you believe standards exist for reasons then when men create false standards the reason the true standard exists will make itself known eventually.

So those people in different societies that you are talking about who establish a standard which is inferior to the true standard will eventually realize the consequences of the lesser standard. So just because many times different societies have different standards that doesn't mean they don't suffer the consequences of selecting a lesser standard. The same is true for individuals.

Yes, many times people do get away with following a lower standard. Violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it. But eventually the reason the higher standard exists will be discovered through the inevitable consequences of following a lesser standard. Thus proving that we can't make that higher standard be anything we want it to be. The higher standard exists in and of itself independent of man. The higher standard exists based upon the logic of the standard itself.

No there is no true standard. Different people, different societies have different standards because those are the standards they as societies have agreed upon.

And what you call moral laws I call a code of conduct that a society has adopted because that code of conduct ensures the society as a whole will be productive and therefore as a whole the people will thrive.

Those codes do not exist in the ether they originate in the minds of the people not somewhere outside of the people.

Logic says otherwise. But if you want to ignore logic be my guest. It won't hurt my feelings at all. I will leave it to you to discover normalization of deviance on your own. Some people have to figure things out for themselves. You seem to be one of those people.

Logic doesn't "say" anything.

Logic is the study of the principles of reasoning. Logic is man's attempt to understand his own thought process it is not some ephemeral thing floating around that people have "discovered".

I have already explained this as clearly as I can. If you don't want to accept it, don't That's up to you. I am more than happy for you to experience it for yourself.

You really think you have all the answer don't you?

And you say others are guilty of hubris.

Did I say that? Where did I say that?

You are 100% sure you know the answers to everything and that I will discover the same answer you have as to your belief in absolute morality because since you are the only one who is absolutely correct then we all will eventually agree with you.

If that's not hubris I don't know what is.

Humans are and always have been moral relativists.

The easiest proof of this is war.

If it is absolutely wrong to kill then why do religions absolve soldiers of the killings they commit in war? Why did the god in the bible have people kill for him.

The Commandment says Thou shall not kill but the subtext is unless god tells you to.

Religion is full of these relativistic stances because gods and religion are human constructs.

I am 100% certain that normalization of deviance will eventually lead to predictable surprises. Yes. I know this because logic dictates that error cannot stand.

So if anyone - including you or me - rejects this concepts and lowers their standards of conduct they will eventually suffer the consequences of their behaviors.

I know this because logic and experience tells me so.

I have never mentioned normalization of deviance.

All human behaviors exist on a continuum. So I do not believe in deviance as all behaviors on the continuum are human behaviors therefore all those behaviors are normal to humans. Simply because a larger proportion of people may engage in the same or similar behaviors in no way means the behaviors that few humans exhibit are deviant.

The fact is you can say it's absolutely wrong to kill but you will have exceptions to that rule depending on the situation. Therefore your moral beliefs on killing is not absolute.

I didn't say you did mention normalization of deviance. I did.

What makes you think I disagree with your standard that killing is wrong on an absolute basis? In fact, I can't think of a higher standard. But let me turn that around on you, if someone entered your home with intent to do harm, would it be wrong to kill them?

I never said killing was wrong on an absolute basis.

I would kill a person who threatened or hurt my wife.

And I would be fine with it.

My morals regarding killing change according to the situation. Hence I am a moral relativist just like all people are

What if I told you I believe it is an absolute? Why would you need to rationalize killing as good or right or justified?

So you would let a person assault your wife and not kill him in her defense?

If killing is absolutely wrong then it is wrong in any situation.

That means you could not kill in self defense, or in the defense of your wife or kids if you have them.

It also means you would not kill animals to eat.

Is this your stance? Would you stand there and let someone brutalize your wife because you refuse to kill?

Why would you assume that?

Because you said it is an absolute that killing is wrong.

I say it depends on the situation. you disagree.

So if killing is absolutely wrong there is no instance where killing can ever be justified or acceptable. If you live by your beliefs that killing is always absolutely wrong then you would never kill in any circumstance.

If you would kill in certain circumstances then you are guilty of moral relativism.

Yes. I did. But I did not say it was an absolute that I will always do the moral thing.

Moral relativism would be rationalizing I did right when I did wrong.

 

[ding]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

Logic and truth are absolute. Logic, like truth is discovered. I never said they were the same thing.

According to you logic or truth are unimportant because they only exist in the mind. Apparently you are a materialist, lol.

Mind you everything we know is manifested in mind. Only an idiot would dismiss things that are manifested in the mind.

I am a empiricist.

And I'm not dismissing anything I am stating the nature of things.

Without man there would be no logic, no morals, no standards of human behavior so they cannot exist in the absence of man.

And I have said all along that good, evil, morals etc are created by the minds of men. I don't know why you say I am dismissing them when I acknowledged their origin.

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

Standards exist for logical reasons so they exist independent of man. They exist because of logic. That makes it absolute.

If there were no men there would be no standards on man's behaviors therefore standards do not exist apart from man

There is no logic if there is no human mind to create it.

Humans can justify absolutely anything they do. So the standards you experience are those that have been agreed upon directly or tacitly over millennia of people living together which is why standards can vary so much between different groups of people.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Standards exist for reasons. These reasons are discovered when the standard isn't followed. It's called normalization of deviance. The standard is independent of men. The standard is based upon what happens when the standard is not followed. If you cheat on your wife you will suffer predictable surprises because you didn't follow the standard. Yes, if you never existed you would have never cheated in your wife. That is brilliant logic on your part. I'm being facetious here in case you missed it.

Yes standards exist for reasons where have I ever said otherwise?

People who live in a cooperative society agree on what the standards of that society will be. Which is why as I have already told you many times different societies have different standards.

Different people have different standards as well.

And People cheat on their spouses every day in the world and they do not all suffer the same consequences.

And I choose to be a person who honors his commitments so I will not cheat on my wife and that is a choice I made. That is a standard I have set for myself. If it was an absolute standard as you think then everyone would honor their commitments and if they didn't they would all suffer the same consequences and we know that is not true

If you believe standards exist for reasons then when men create false standards the reason the true standard exists will make itself known eventually.

So those people in different societies that you are talking about who establish a standard which is inferior to the true standard will eventually realize the consequences of the lesser standard. So just because many times different societies have different standards that doesn't mean they don't suffer the consequences of selecting a lesser standard. The same is true for individuals.

Yes, many times people do get away with following a lower standard. Violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it. But eventually the reason the higher standard exists will be discovered through the inevitable consequences of following a lesser standard. Thus proving that we can't make that higher standard be anything we want it to be. The higher standard exists in and of itself independent of man. The higher standard exists based upon the logic of the standard itself.

No there is no true standard. Different people, different societies have different standards because those are the standards they as societies have agreed upon.

And what you call moral laws I call a code of conduct that a society has adopted because that code of conduct ensures the society as a whole will be productive and therefore as a whole the people will thrive.

Those codes do not exist in the ether they originate in the minds of the people not somewhere outside of the people.

Logic says otherwise. But if you want to ignore logic be my guest. It won't hurt my feelings at all. I will leave it to you to discover normalization of deviance on your own. Some people have to figure things out for themselves. You seem to be one of those people.

Logic doesn't "say" anything.

Logic is the study of the principles of reasoning. Logic is man's attempt to understand his own thought process it is not some ephemeral thing floating around that people have "discovered".

I have already explained this as clearly as I can. If you don't want to accept it, don't That's up to you. I am more than happy for you to experience it for yourself.

You really think you have all the answer don't you?

And you say others are guilty of hubris.

Did I say that? Where did I say that?

You are 100% sure you know the answers to everything and that I will discover the same answer you have as to your belief in absolute morality because since you are the only one who is absolutely correct then we all will eventually agree with you.

If that's not hubris I don't know what is.

Humans are and always have been moral relativists.

The easiest proof of this is war.

If it is absolutely wrong to kill then why do religions absolve soldiers of the killings they commit in war? Why did the god in the bible have people kill for him.

The Commandment says Thou shall not kill but the subtext is unless god tells you to.

Religion is full of these relativistic stances because gods and religion are human constructs.

I am 100% certain that normalization of deviance will eventually lead to predictable surprises. Yes. I know this because logic dictates that error cannot stand.

So if anyone - including you or me - rejects this concepts and lowers their standards of conduct they will eventually suffer the consequences of their behaviors.

I know this because logic and experience tells me so.

I have never mentioned normalization of deviance.

All human behaviors exist on a continuum. So I do not believe in deviance as all behaviors on the continuum are human behaviors therefore all those behaviors are normal to humans. Simply because a larger proportion of people may engage in the same or similar behaviors in no way means the behaviors that few humans exhibit are deviant.

The fact is you can say it's absolutely wrong to kill but you will have exceptions to that rule depending on the situation. Therefore your moral beliefs on killing is not absolute.

I didn't say you did mention normalization of deviance. I did.

What makes you think I disagree with your standard that killing is wrong on an absolute basis? In fact, I can't think of a higher standard. But let me turn that around on you, if someone entered your home with intent to do harm, would it be wrong to kill them?

I never said killing was wrong on an absolute basis.

I would kill a person who threatened or hurt my wife.

And I would be fine with it.

My morals regarding killing change according to the situation. Hence I am a moral relativist just like all people are

What if I told you I believe it is an absolute? Why would you need to rationalize killing as good or right or justified?

So you would let a person assault your wife and not kill him in her defense?

If killing is absolutely wrong then it is wrong in any situation.

That means you could not kill in self defense, or in the defense of your wife or kids if you have them.

It also means you would not kill animals to eat.

Is this your stance? Would you stand there and let someone brutalize your wife because you refuse to kill?

Why would you assume that?

Because you said it is an absolute that killing is wrong.

I say it depends on the situation. you disagree.

So if killing is absolutely wrong there is no instance where killing can ever be justified or acceptable. If you live by your beliefs that killing is always absolutely wrong then you would never kill in any circumstance.

If you would kill in certain circumstances then you are guilty of moral relativism.

What I am trying to explain to you is there is no need to rationalize everything we do as right or moral. Rationalizing something that is immoral as being moral is the worst thing we can do.

 

[ding]

When Truman dropped not one but two atomic bombs on Japan did he rationalize it as the moral thing to do or the lesser of two evils?

 

[ding]

We don’t move from good to evil in one step. It is a gradual process. Inherent in that process is rationalizing wrong as right. It doesn’t begin with big steps. It begins with little steps. So it is always better to not take that little first step.