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

[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.

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.

It is not wrong to kill a man who is brutalizing your wife.

You think it is.

I don't

 

[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.

It is not wrong to kill a man who is brutalizing your wife.

You think it is.

I don't

Is it wrong to kill an animal to survive? Is it wrong to kill a man during times of war? Was it wrong for us to drop two nukes on Japan? Is it wrong to eat cows or fish or shrimp?

My point here is that all of these rationalizations can be avoided by saying yes.

Let me ask you this, given your strong feelings to not abandon your belief to do good or be fair, why is it that you can't see the universal nature of man's desire to be seen as good and fair? Why is it that you won't acknowledge that man has a universal expectation of fairness? If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have a universal expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow it ought to raise your suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[rylah]

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

Is this the supposed proof that G-d didn't give man an evil inclination,
and the ability to do evil?

'Cause it proves the exact opposite.

 

[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

Is this the supposed proof that G-d didn't give man an evil inclination,
and the ability to do evil?

'Cause it proves the exact opposite.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

 

[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.

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.

It is not wrong to kill a man who is brutalizing your wife.

You think it is.

I don't

Is it wrong to kill an animal to survive? Is it wrong to kill a man during times of war? Was it wrong for us to drop two nukes on Japan? Is it wrong to eat cows or fish or shrimp?

My point here is that all of these rationalizations can be avoided by saying yes.

Let me ask you this, given your strong feelings to not abandon your belief to do good or be fair, why is it that you can't see the universal nature of man's desire to be seen as good and fair? Why is it that you won't acknowledge that man has a universal expectation of fairness? If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have a universal expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow it ought to raise your suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

But we do not have to kill animals to survive. We can survive quite well without eating animals. But if you were actually starving and actually might die then killing an animal is acceptable in that situation.

It's not universal because as I said different people have different morals and make different decisions based on an infivite number of variables from brain chemistry to societal conditioning, to minute by minute changes in every situation of every day.

You want to impose your idea of an ideal absolute standard on others.

The ideal does not exist, it never will. Idealism is childish.

 

[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






"...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






"...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..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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! ..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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, ..."

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







"...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..."

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

 

[rylah]

"...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






"...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






"...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..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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! ..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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, ..."

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







"...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..."

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

Who gave man the ability to do evil?

 

[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.

It is not wrong to kill a man who is brutalizing your wife.

You think it is.

I don't

Is it wrong to kill an animal to survive? Is it wrong to kill a man during times of war? Was it wrong for us to drop two nukes on Japan? Is it wrong to eat cows or fish or shrimp?

My point here is that all of these rationalizations can be avoided by saying yes.

Let me ask you this, given your strong feelings to not abandon your belief to do good or be fair, why is it that you can't see the universal nature of man's desire to be seen as good and fair? Why is it that you won't acknowledge that man has a universal expectation of fairness? If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have a universal expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow it ought to raise your suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

But we do not have to kill animals to survive. We can survive quite well without eating animals. But if you were actually starving and actually might die then killing an animal is acceptable in that situation.

It's not universal because as I said different people have different morals and make different decisions based on an infivite number of variables from brain chemistry to societal conditioning, to minute by minute changes in every situation of every day.

You want to impose your idea of an ideal absolute standard on others.

The ideal does not exist, it never will. Idealism is childish.

So you are still making a moral argument? And that doesn't strike you as proof that you can't abandon the concept of good and evil?

I am not imposing an ideal standard on anyone. I am telling you these standards exist in and of themselves and are based upon logic. They exist for a reason and when we deviate from the standard the logical reason the standard exists will be discovered.

 

[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






"...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






"...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..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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! ..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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, ..."

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







"...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..."

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

Who gave man the ability to do evil?

Man has free will to do good or not do good.

Maimonides responds...

"...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! ..."

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]

"...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






"...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






"...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..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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! ..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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, ..."

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







"...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..."

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

The very first line is a contradiction.

If all of god's works are perfectly good and we all know that man is not perfectly good and man is one of god's works the statement contradicts itself.

Now let's address free will. God gave free will to man if god created everything then he also created the concept of free will and gifted man with it so god is responsible consequences of man exercising his gift of free will.

So let's use a nonreligious example.

If I give a loaded gun to a child and that child kills someone I,not the child, am responsible for the consequences.

 

[Mindful]

10 Reasons Humans Are Naturally Evil - Listverse

Take a cursory glance at the news headlines for any random day, and it’s not hard to develop a pessimistic attitude towards your fellow man. The endless

listverse.com

 

[Mindful]

Up next;

Edmund Burke.

 

[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






"...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






"...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..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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! ..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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, ..."

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







"...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..."

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

The very first line is a contradiction.

If all of god's works are perfectly good and we all know that man is not perfectly good and man is one of god's works the statement contradicts itself.

Now let's address free will. God gave free will to man if god created everything then he also created the concept of free will and gifted man with it so god is responsible consequences of man exercising his gift of free will.

So let's use a nonreligious example.

If I give a loaded gun to a child and that child kills someone I,not the child, am responsible for the consequences.

"...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..."

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




"...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! ..."

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?

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.

It is not wrong to kill a man who is brutalizing your wife.

You think it is.

I don't

Is it wrong to kill an animal to survive? Is it wrong to kill a man during times of war? Was it wrong for us to drop two nukes on Japan? Is it wrong to eat cows or fish or shrimp?

My point here is that all of these rationalizations can be avoided by saying yes.

Let me ask you this, given your strong feelings to not abandon your belief to do good or be fair, why is it that you can't see the universal nature of man's desire to be seen as good and fair? Why is it that you won't acknowledge that man has a universal expectation of fairness? If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have a universal expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow it ought to raise your suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

But we do not have to kill animals to survive. We can survive quite well without eating animals. But if you were actually starving and actually might die then killing an animal is acceptable in that situation.

It's not universal because as I said different people have different morals and make different decisions based on an infivite number of variables from brain chemistry to societal conditioning, to minute by minute changes in every situation of every day.

You want to impose your idea of an ideal absolute standard on others.

The ideal does not exist, it never will. Idealism is childish.

So you are still making a moral argument? And that doesn't strike you as proof that you can't abandon the concept of good and evil?

I am not imposing an ideal standard on anyone. I am telling you these standards exist in and of themselves and are based upon logic. They exist for a reason and when we deviate from the standard the logical reason the standard exists will be discovered.

One standard doesn't exist. There is no absolute.

You can make personal judgements on anything and not believe there is a universal standard.

And the only reason any standard for human behavior exists is that humans made them up as they went along which is why standards change so much

 

[rylah]

"...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






"...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






"...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..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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! ..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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, ..."

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







"...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..."

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

Who gave man the ability to do evil?

Man has free will to do good or not do good.

Maimonides responds...

"...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! ..."

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

You're evading the question.

Did G-d give you the freedom to do evil or not?
Or you just want to hide from responsibility?

 

[Blues Man]

"...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






"...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






"...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..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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! ..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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, ..."

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







"...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..."

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

The very first line is a contradiction.

If all of god's works are perfectly good and we all know that man is not perfectly good and man is one of god's works the statement contradicts itself.

Now let's address free will. God gave free will to man if god created everything then he also created the concept of free will and gifted man with it so god is responsible consequences of man exercising his gift of free will.

So let's use a nonreligious example.

If I give a loaded gun to a child and that child kills someone I,not the child, am responsible for the consequences.

"...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..."

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




"...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! ..."

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

SO man is ignorant. IOW man doesn't know. You really think man doesn't know. Evenmore reason to think god is responsible for the actions of man.

 

[ding]

If I give a loaded gun to a child and that child kills someone I,not the child, am responsible for the consequences.

You aren't God so... the error was in your absence of wisdom to give a child a gun.

 

[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






"...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






"...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..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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! ..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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, ..."

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







"...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..."

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

Who gave man the ability to do evil?

Man has free will to do good or not do good.

Maimonides responds...

"...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! ..."

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

You're evading the question.

Did G-d give you the freedom to do evil or not?
Or you just want to run from responsibility?

I am not evading it. Very clearly I believe God gave us free will. You want to blame God for our misuse of good?

 

[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






"...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






"...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..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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! ..."

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







"...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..."

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







"...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, ..."

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







"...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..."

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

The very first line is a contradiction.

If all of god's works are perfectly good and we all know that man is not perfectly good and man is one of god's works the statement contradicts itself.

Now let's address free will. God gave free will to man if god created everything then he also created the concept of free will and gifted man with it so god is responsible consequences of man exercising his gift of free will.

So let's use a nonreligious example.

If I give a loaded gun to a child and that child kills someone I,not the child, am responsible for the consequences.

"...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..."

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




"...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! ..."

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

SO man is ignorant. IOW man doesn't know. You really think man doesn't know. Evenmore reason to think god is responsible for the actions of man.

Only the ones that lack wisdom. Yes.

God doesn't make you do stupid things.

The statement you just made is a textbook example of an external locus of control which is not a good look if you understand locus of control.

 

[Blues Man]

If I give a loaded gun to a child and that child kills someone I,not the child, am responsible for the consequences.

You aren't God so... the error was in your absence of wisdom to give a child a gun.

And it was god's error to leave man ignorant

We are but children to a god aren't we? So god the parent gave man free will but not the wisdom to use it.

No different from a parent giving a child a loaded gun