pilaar

Why would the ability to discern between 'good' and 'bad' be such an important trait to warrant the creation of the 'bad' option and so create suffering? We can only deal with the world as we find it, it is impossible to say that a person living in a world without 'bad' would be unable to know that theirs is a 'good ' world or that the fact that no 'bad' exists in their world somehow makes that person less virtuous as we don't have any experience with such a reality. Why is the person who lives in good/bad reality and who choses 'good' more virtuous than the hypotetical person who is all virtuous beause of no 'bad' in their world?

Only if the assumption is made that what is classified as 'bad' also exists in that reality.

Not really. We only have a limited 'free will', we are limited by physical ability, options, the area where we live, society, etc. So our 'free will' is already very limited. We could still have 'free will' in a reality where there are only 'good' optons. 'Bad' and suffering are not necessary for 'free will'.

There could be a choice between infinite number of perfect things. The option between optimism and pesimism could also be said to be a very limited option.

I agree. I think virtues are a tool to reduce suffering.

And suffering does not necessarily produce lasting virtue. Example war, many people can display enourmous courage when faced with necessity but then the war is over and that courage does not necessarily spill over into the rest of their life, the person may end up bitter and resentful and have many problems in a peaceful time without being able to use the same courage. So what was the long term 'good' for this particular person? Also, a lot of suffering does not produce a better reality or more virtue, suffering normally produces more suffering unless one uses virtue to break the chain.

I also wonder what is the importance of virtues within christian context as life on earth is very short compared to 'eternity' in heaven, why would it be important to develop virtues like courage, tenacity etc when in heaven there supposedly is no need for virtues like these as everything is all 'good'. Even if people develop many virtues they will be imperfect here and what is ther purpose in heaven supposed to be, what will one supposedly use courage for?

pilaar

Bree

Why does society value virtue, but in nearly all aspects of our pop culture do we cheer on the bad guy? The bad guys in black were once ugly creatures with leering faces - now they're hot, sexy characters that we secretly want to win. Vampires used to cause nightmares, and now we've got scores of seemingly normal people believing that the life of the undead is actually desireable (see Anne Rice for more detail). Jack the Ripper isn't a VD-infected hunchback - he's a sexy young man with a vengence. How did this happen?

long winded fool

kctan, I agree with you. Suffering is not necessary. The ability to suffer is. If God eliminated suffering from the world, he would eliminate the ability to suffer. We need the choice to feel not-ok. We don't have to feel this way, but we need to be able to in order to have free will.

Can you define goodness without something less than good?

It must. Without it we cannot function. You don't have to call it bad. You can even call it "almost equally good," but it must exist. (see below.)

This is subjective. I agree. What I call "bad" and "suffering" are not necessary for me to have free will. But bad and suffering are merely labels for things which are less than perfect. They can and do have countless other labels, but less than perfect must exist. It is "less than perfect" that we have a problem with, not the choice of labels. Suffering exists when a small child drops his ice cream cone. How could a God eliminate "suffering" if everyone has a different definition? Wouldn't he necessarily have to prevent an innocent child from spilling his ice cream as well as from being horribly murdered? If he only prevented child murders, suffering would still exist for many pepole and the PoE would still apply. (God would be "inconsistent." ) If he only prevented all things which cause great misery, then somethings which cause only a little misery would still exist, and that little misery would necessarily become great misery in the absence of what we now know as great misery. In short, the world could easily be free of "suffering" in God's eyes right now and we might just be analogous to big babies who are crying over spilled ice cream when a child is abused without realizing how good we really have it in the grand scheme of things. The only way for the PoE to not apply is for all action to have absolutely equal value, thereby destroying any freedom of choice and precluding any ability to love. (Assuming love requires an ability not to love if desired.)

This is a non-sequitur. Is there a choice between an infinite number of answers to the equation 2+2? Perfect is by definition one thing. There can be nothing else. Everything else must be imperfect. Therefore imperfect must exist, therefore suffering must exist. (Not for you maybe, but for someone. Therefore, God can't eliminate it.)

What other option can you think of besides optimism and pessimism? Isn't every human transaction capable of falling into one of these two categories? Isn't even neutral, calculated logic sort of an equal balance between the two?

If heaven is all 'good,' how can you exist there without being all good? If virtues are good, then this would be the way to learn to be good, right?

kctan

Of course. As long as there's something which can be more than good. Ain't it obvious ? Like I've said it's a matter of perspective, a glass is half full or half empty.



We need the 'not-ok' feeling not to have free will but inorder to survive. Imagine yourself getting burnt & not aware of it. It has nothing to do with free will. You've the choice of getting out of the fire or continue to be BBQed. The choices are still there regardless of you having free will or not & regardless of you suffering or not.

abe smith

This is a nominalist opinion, as alwiz, Jamie: What we *label*
"virtue" is based on our *admiring* it. (This is apposite to the couplet about *treason* >>>> "If.... (because) none dares call it treason".)
Homer et al labelled avidly doing murder of one's 'enemies" *virtue*, because that's what his auditors (who paid him his living) liked to hear. ("Inhibit sharply the rehearsed response....")

long winded fool

Well, alright. But what if we define goodness as "divine" goodness? That is, perfection? If better is more than good, then good is less than better, therefore good can be construed as suffering by an extreme pessimist, right? "Why does he get better when I only get good? I am suffering!" You see, less than the best has to exist.


I agree that the not ok feeling is a survival trait. You are describing it as a value judgement. It hurts when I do that, so I won't do it any more. Without the ability to judge value, we cannot judge at all and we cannot function as freely choosing human beings. If the not-ok feeling had never existed, we could never make a choice since all choices are made based on previous experience of positive and negative consequences. If all consequences are absolutely postive, then all consequences are equal and therefore no choice can exist.

kctan

That's what you think.

How many times do you want me to repeat ? Between a prefect steak & a prefect pork chop don't tell me you got no choices to choose.

Not value judgement, just choices. You either stay in the fire or get out. That's all. Nothing is preventing you from choosing either choice. You can even leave half your body in the fire if you like a third choice.

Not all choices are made from past experiences. I don't think I've to tell you this right ? How many choices have you made not based upon past experiences only ?

First time kissing your love, first time having sex, first time holding a child, first time going to school, first time taking a bath by yourself ... I could go on & on ...

Perspective, my friend, perspective. Forgotten about the 'gift' I've given to you so fast ?

"Zhi Ju Chang Le"

Everything is the 'best'. (All are the same, valueless. You define your own value.)

long winded fool

This is a false analogy. If I want steak and all I have is a pork chop, what do I do? Settle for the pork chop? What does the word 'settle' mean in this context? In order to want anything you must be aware of what it feels like to not have it and judge this feeling as having less value than the feeling you think you'd experience if you had it. If you are not aware of not having it, you cannot want it.

How would you choose whether or not to stay in the fire without a value judgement? You can't weigh the pros and cons if there are no cons. All you can do is rename the cons 'pros,' which is what you have done here, and then all you have are pros on both sides. While this is a very commendable and optimistic outlook on life, the fact remains that there are two very different pros and you must choose one and discard the other in every choice. All I have to do is rename the pro that I didn't choose 'con' and suddenly less-than-best exists. (Actually it existed before I chose it, I just didn't choose to acknowledge it.) You are refusing to acknowledge bad, (which is fine,) but from a philosophical perspective this thing that we usually (perhaps erroneously, as you claim) call "bad" must exist for any choice to be made. As politically incorrect as it is, difference implies some value judgement. You don't have to call it better or worse and you don't have to attatch extreme negative or positive emotions, but different possible outcomes suggests the existence of free will in humans and requires the existence of value perception.

Not only do all those things require past experience, they all require the existence of a less-than-best awareness. Just because I have no experience actually taking a bath doesn't mean I don't know what a bath is. How could I take a bath for the first time by myself if I don't already know what all those words represent? (I don't have to be able to communicate them, but I must be aware of them, therefore I must have some past experience with them.) The same goes for "evil." I must be aware of better and worse to choose. I needn't acknowledge 'worse,' but it must be there in the context that I'm using it.

For what reason do we take baths? None? If there were nothing less than absolutely perfect, this could be the one and only answer. We would do things for no reason and they'd have exactly the same outcome. We'd be compelled to do them by something other than free choice.

It doesn't take long to extend the "perfection with free will" argument to the point where it becomes ridiculous. Every material thing conflicts at some point with some other material thing. It is impossible to eliminate all conflict and still have the universe. All we can do is understand the conflict and eliminate our negative reactions to it. For God to do this for us would eliminate all negative (read anything other than exactly perfect) reactions, thereby making us all exactly the same.

Self contradiction. If everything is valueless I can never define my own value. Once I do, everything has some value relative to my definition. As I said, it doesn't matter how optimistic you are, you cannot be conscious and refrain from value judgement. You can be happy with however things turn out, yes. (In the same way that you can be happy with a less than perfect life.) You can even refuse to acknowledge "less than perfect." You cannot exist as a human without 'less than perfect' existing.

kctan

How can the analogy be false ? Given a choice between a prefect steak & a prefect pork chop, you can choose either one or both or none. You're missing the point. You're just modifying the analogy to make it suit your way of thinking. All you think about is wanting this & wanting that but refuse to take anything when they are presented to you.

When you requested for something, usually you already have an idea as to what you're asking for so the disappointment will only come when the real deal turns out to be different from what you think it should be. When you asked for a steak, you are presented with a steak. How the steak measured to your expectation will result in your good & bad value.

I want afafd right this moment & I don't know what the fish it is, I've a choice from being extremely disappointed by not getting afafd to being extremely happy by not getting adafd. Plus a third choice of not being affected at all by not getting afafd. So why can't I want it ? Are you going to call me mad ? What if I take something you've never seen before & call it afafd, then how would you look ? Foolish ?

What's wrong with doing something just for the sake of doing it ? Does this mean you've no more choice if you do something just for the sake of doing it ? Even when faced with a single option, you still can choose to do it or not to do it.

Wrong. Is my english very bad or do you've problem comprehending ? There are no pros & cons. You just have to make a choice of staying in the fire or get out or stay half in half out. Why is it so difficult for you to choose something ? Why do you need pros & cons just to do something ? Does everything needs to have value before you'll do something ? You're a theist right ? So you actually believes in your religion because there's something for you to gain ? If there's nothing for you to gain, then you'll stop believeing ?


If all is valueless, everything is the same. There will be no more different pros. I just have to choose which ever I felt like doing.

Wrong. Its never there in the first place, you just imagine that there's a value to it.

Wrong. Bad doesn't need to exist for one to make a choice. Remember all you've to do is choose. You perceived a 'bad' so that you won't end up choosing something which may end your days of choosing. Afterall we are living a life of choices. To breath or not to breath... (you can't choose to stop your breathing until you die due to a lack of air, this says alot about free will & determination).

Wrong. Difference implies difference. That's all. No value needed. A steak is a steak & a pork chop is a pork chop. The taste is different, the look is different. A steak comes from a cow while a pork chop comes from a pig. So which is better then the other ? There's just no way to objectively say that one have a better 'value' then the other. In terms of calories, proteins, carbohydrate, taste, feel or look ? Valuable to whom ? You, the pig or the cow ?

So how does the first homo sapiens do them thingies ? When they are still one celled organisms, their 'parents' kissed & relay the experience to them ? When did them one celled organisms know what is 'kiss' ? God teached them ? So how does god know how to kiss ? God's god teached he/she/it ? Ad infinitum.

Not needed since all outcomes are usually unknown until it actually happens. Even if it takes only a second, the outcome can only be predicted but never known. Unless you're doing maths or something which have been proven to yield the same outcome every time. So even if you are not aware of better & worse, it's not going to affect the outcome, it's your choice that's the one which will.

Awareness can only influence an outcome by influencing your choice. Of course this won't prevent you from ending up eating a 'yucky' steak instead of that 'prefect' pork chop. Unless you're like me knowing that be it steak or pork chop, they are yummy regardless of taste.

Why not ? Must there be a reason as to why we do what we did ? Where's your free willy ? If everything needs a reason to be done, then it's not free, it's compulsion.

On the contrary, you'll be doing everything with free choice. There won't be any reason to compel you to do it. Reason means a compulsion. Like hunger makes you needing food. You choose to eat not because you just want to eat, it's your body forcing you to eat.

Conflicts only arise when you make them.

There are no conflicts. We make our own conflicts. If all negative reactions are eliminated, it still won't make us all exactly the same. You'll still like steak & I'll still like pork chop only that you won't mind having pork chop when there's no steak & I won't mind having steak when there is no pork chop.

You're defining your own values very well inspite of there being none. You liked steak more then pork chop so you come up with your own values to tell me why steak is better then pork chop.

Yes I can & I'm doing it right now. I love my family & I don't need any values to tell me that I love them.

I'm existing prefectly & 'chatting' with you so how do you account for my existence ? A flicker of your imagination ? Everything is in themselves 'prefect' (actually valueless is a much better term). We use our subjective mind to endorse them with a value. This value is relative to each & everyone of us. No doubt some values may overlap but the value of the same item is not the same for each & everyone of us (here's your less than prefect). Do you dare to deny this fact ?

Yes, your western idea of god & salvation makes you think suffering is needed & that things need a value. My eastern idea of philosophy makes me think that suffering is an illusion & things don't have a value. I won't dwell on how our differing thoughts makes us differ. It won't look nice & I don't want baseless conflict just because certain 'values' held by you will look whatever...

pilaar

In a 'good' world there is no need to define goodness. You only need to define 'goodnes' in a reality where both 'good' and 'bad' exist. In a reality where there is only 'good' or where there is predominantly 'good' and even in a reality where there is 'good' and 'bad', there are many 'good' options to choose from as well as a number of 'bad' options. Most of the time the option is not between 'good' and 'bad', but between equally 'good' options.

The availability of many 'good' options with equal value actually enhances the freedom of choice, not the other way around. Why do you think people generally consider it 'better' to live in the Western world? Because there are many 'good' options and people are therefore freer. The places where there is a stark option of only one good and bad option are impoverished of choice and impoverished of freedom. Having many good options does in no way preclude the ability to love nor does it diminish the free will.


There is no 'one perfect option', there are many options of equal value. Value is also subjective. Which flower is perfect? There are many different kinds but they are equally 'perfect'. But people can choose to prefer one or the other.

Optimism and pessimism are looking at the life vertically. You have pessimism on the bottom and optimism on the top. Every human transaction is capable of falling into one of these two categories or anything in between, however the transactions can also be horizontal, from one good option to the other, or form one 'bad' option to the other. Free will does not need the existence of 'good' and 'bad' it just needs the existence of at least two options. The options can be equally 'good'.

More suffering and more 'bad' does not increase virtue nor love, virtue and love exist despite the suffering. People who grow up without a lot of 'bad and suffering' in their lives are normally able to express love in a more positive way. Eg. Afghanistan - lots of suffering creates more suffering as people who have had lots of 'negative and suffering' in their lives continue to perpetuate the 'negative & suffering'. A child who grows up in a 'positive' environment is better able to express more love, gentleness, compassion etc. Of course these exist in a place where a lot of suffering exists, however they exist despite the suffering and not because of it.

Eliminating negative does not imply that everybody is the same, there are many positive choices which can be chosen from and many positive choices actually increase the individuality - the difference between people. Having many positive options increases the expression of individuality and individuality is more valued in places where people are 'freer' - that is - where they have many positive options. The presence of a lot of suffering decreases individuality and the absence of many good options decreases freedom and individuality. Compare Communist China to Canada for example. According to this logic, you would have the absolute 'freedom' where the 'bad' is totally absent.

Actually, by saying that there is only 'one perfect' option and everything is 'less than perfect' you decrease the individuality of the people because this implies that there is only one 'perfect' and everything else is 'less than perfect'. Having many 'equally perfect options' increase the individuality as there are an infinite number of equally good options, equally 'perfect but different' people.

I am assuming that you are christian by some of the things you say, and even this tradition does not support your claim that no negative makes people exactly the same, Adam and Eve obviously were not the same even before they supposedly had their eyes open to the 'good' & 'evil'. Also, by saying that
'negative' can not be eliminated for the 'positive' to exist, you undermine the existence of 'heaven' where there is supposedly no 'negative'.

pilaar