It means it's no surprise that you insist The Problem of Evil is (as a matter of fact) a problem as opposed to leaving it more humbly as an argument that there is a problem. — Down The Rabbit Hole
What are you talking about? The argument that there is a problem is the problem of evil. — InPitzotl
What do you mean by "proponents"... proponents of the problem of evil? I don't even know what that means. — InPitzotl
Incidentally, if there's a definition of humility, I'm pretty sure it applies no more to the random internet guy that solved a 2000+ year old problem by not solving it — InPitzotl
The point is consequentialist rights and wrongs are wholly contingent on the results. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Right and wrong here are moral judgments. And consequentialism generally works by judging an action as being good if it results in more benefit than harm; or bad if it results in more harm than benefit. — InPitzotl
If the result is not bad neither is anything in the process. — Down The Rabbit Hole
That does not follow. In fact, the very fact that harm is compared to benefit in consequentialism is a recognition that harm is bad and benefit is good. — InPitzotl
The broken eggs would only be bad if the omelette is bad. — Down The Rabbit Hole
You're advancing severe misunderstandings of consequentialism. — InPitzotl
It doesn't make sense for a consequentialist God to avoid creating harm or intervene to stop harm, if overall it is not bad. — Down The Rabbit Hole
...if we applied this criteria to humans, nobody would ever accept it. A serial killer who kills 30 people, who works as a doctor to save 50 people, we would judge as a person who does bad things. We would be insane to call such a guy omnibenevolent. Nevertheless, overall, this person saved a net 20 lives. Your argument, however, demands I recognize those 30 murders as not being bad given that a net 20 lives were saved. This is an absurd argument. — InPitzotl
Not quite; you still have this mixed up. A theory might have a proponent. The proponent would believe the theory is true; and give arguments for the theory. But an argument is just an argument. Arguments aren't true or false; they're sound or unsound; or valid or invalid.Right, and arguments have proponents, which seemed to confuse you here — Down The Rabbit Hole
Yeah, about that?You know that's not true. I've clearly stated multiple times that The Problem of Evil persists. — Down The Rabbit Hole
...this is one of your times you said the POE persists. But POE, the argument, never mentions hell; it just appeals to the omni's.I think the Problem of Evil persists, bearing in mind the flipside - the eternal suffering in hell (which is never just punishment for finite offences), and also non-human animals that will not experience the eternal good of heaven to make up for their suffering; and many non-human animals have horrendous lives. — Down The Rabbit Hole
The "so" in A doesn't belong. This is not consequentialism; existence is not an action. B does not follow from A.A) So if our existence "results in more benefit than harm" that's good, not bad, and if it results in infinitely more benefit than harm, it is infinitely good. B) In either case there is no bad for an omnibenevolent god to care about. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Consequentialism judges morality of actions. Omelettes are not an action.Negative. The broken eggs (the harm) can only be judged as good or bad by virtue of the omelette (the consequences of existence). — Down The Rabbit Hole
It doesn't matter that it's not the same. Insofar as there are differences, they are irrelevant to your argument that there is no bad if overall there is more benefit than harm. Consequentialists, by the way, would judge each killing of this serial killer is bad; because each of those actions cause more harm than good. It would not magically say bad doesn't exist because a net 20 lives were saved. As far as what you're arguing, consequentialism does indeed say this. Omelettes = lives saved, broken eggs = victims. It's not a perfect analogy, since you actually use those broken eggs to make an omelette. But you're not arguing that dependency; you're simply arguing bad does not exist if overall there's more benefit than harm (in stark contrast to consequentialism, which argues that an action is moral if it results in more benefit than harm).AGAIN, people gaining at the expense of others is not the same as everyone infinitely benefiting. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Negative. The broken eggs (the harm) can only be judged as good or bad by virtue of the omelette (the consequences of existence). — Down The Rabbit Hole
Consequentialism judges morality of actions. Omelettes are not an action. — InPitzotl
What about the opposite? What if you add the eternity of evil in the afterlife to any finit good?You will always end up with infinite good when adding the eternity of good in the afterlife to any finite evil. — Down The Rabbit Hole
My OP is not meant to completely rebut The Problem of Evil, but just provide an answer to what I think is its strength. I always saw (as I think most proponents do) the strength of The Problem of Evil in showing people being left worse off - in the examples of people being tortured and ravaged by disease, alarmingly so. If the premise that the bad will be made up for is accepted, said people would not be worse off, thus The Problem of Evil is more a technical problem, which I think such defences as the Free Will Defence will have a much easier job in dealing with. I realise very few people will agree with me that the horrifying "evils" of life would be made up for, and that's what I wanted to address. — Down The Rabbit Hole
You will always end up with infinite good when adding the eternity of good in the afterlife to any finite evil. — Down The Rabbit Hole
What about the opposite? What if you add the eternity of evil in the afterlife to any finit good?
(BTW, I don't know of any kind of evidence for an eternity of good. Do you?) — Alkis Piskas
Both the broken eggs and the omelette are consequences.No, the omelette is the consequences in the analogy. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Which includes both the omelette and the breaking of eggs.God's actions brought about the consequences.
That's not consequentialism. This is:If good and bad can only be judged by the end result, the suffering is not actually bad. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Your definition doesn't say that good and bad can only be judged by the end result. It says that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences.Consequentialism is defined as "the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences". — Down The Rabbit Hole
Me neither. Only that I don't (need to) put on my head a hat with a label "agnostic". :grin:No, I'm not conviced either way on a god or afterlife and it would take something significant to shift me from agnosticism — Down The Rabbit Hole
This is certain. It is so obvious. And it tells a lot. In fact, it is something I use to say as a "mild" way to avoid offencing of or conflicting with opposing sides.I think if a god does exist it would have to be uncaring — Down The Rabbit Hole
I concede you are right. — Down The Rabbit Hole
For the math to get you there you do first have to accept that "good" can make up for the "bad". I gave the example of a good life making up for the hard work in getting there, and hypothetical examples can demonstrate this even better, such as millions of pounds making up for a pinch on the arm.
Once it is accepted that the "good" can make up for the "bad" it's just about getting enough "good" to make up for the "bad" of life. Infinity will always do the job.
The afterlife is a potential infinite, as it progresses towards infinity rather than the infinity actually existing. — Down The Rabbit Hole
At every stage as we progress towards infinity, the earthly suffering we experienced leaves an (increasingly infinitesimal) dent in our net-happiness, that will never completely go away. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I don't think any finite offences deserve infinite suffering, and non-human animals are not supposed to go to heaven, so all of their sufferings won't be made up for. Wild animal suffering is supposed to be particularly bad with the animals getting ravaged by disease, ripped apart by predators, trapped and dying of thirst, and obviously the roughly 160 million animals per day taken to slaughterhouses are not having a picnic either. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.