dannyk

I was about to mention the fifth possible world, one where all is evil. Then it occured to me that I would as an inhabitant of these possible worlds, have some difficulty in subjectivly differentiating between world two and world five.
Would a world of all good inherently attain a sliding scale of goodness subjectively experienced and interpreted as 'less good' and 'more good'. Would we eventually assign negative and positive morality judgments to actions that were 'less good' and 'more good'.
In the same way would this occur with a world composed of purely evil behaviour. This is troubling me , can we really tell if we are in an evil world or a non-evil world . Have I missed something ?

WJ

Some people view evil as a lack of perfection (including me) or the inability to attain such. Also, there are those who view free-will as a deterministic activity or a planned free-will as it were. God programmed the computer; we are inside the box.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I disagree (very strongly) that 'love' is 'the ultimage ethic'.

Love is an emotion.

Ethics/morality should be based not upon love, but upon justice; the correct rational response to objective reality.

Emotions are responses, and can be correct or incorrect. Love should be the recognition of the 'best' in someone. One should not love indiscriminately--unconditionally.

Love should be earned; justice should be freely given.

Keith.

hinduwoman

Anyway the meaning of good, evil, amoral are all defined by the writer. To Zacharias evil might mean refusing to utter the pledge and good would mean banning atheism.