As long as the definition of the term evil impinges upon subjectivity there can't be an established premise. Some think owls to be evil others not, therefore the question of "what evil is" remains and that is why you were trying to define evil as "deprivation of perfection due a being" (a supposition) in order to create a valid argument, and that is what is not valid but equally your stated premise that evil is not subjective. But why would one believe that anymore than the other?
On Jun 27, 8:13 pm, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm afraid that conclusion "...therefore your proposition is invalid" > does not follow. You need to connect X, Y and P in a valid argument. > And show that the premises are sound. Take that first premise: who > would grant that "perhaps some X is evil and some X is not evil"? For > this is seems to simply assert there is no such thing as an > intrinsically evil act. And that is is just another way of stating > your central premise that "evil is based on the subjective individual > perception of what evil is". But why would one believe that? > > On Jun 27, 5:01 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Perhaps some X is evil and some X is non evil while all Y is evil and > > all P is non evil in which case your proposition is invalid. Evil is > > not subjective because there is disagreement on the identification of > > an object as being evil or not evil but subjective based on the > > individual perception of what evil is. You say X is evil and I say X > > is not evil but your perception of evil is contrapositive and > > therefore subjective. > > > On Jun 27, 6:33 pm, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Lee, I'd point out that the very fact people disagree is what > > > indicates the question is objective, not subjective. About matters of > > > taste we don't dispute. About matters of truth we should dispute. If > > > you say X is not evil and somebody else says X is evil, I'd say one is > > > mistaken. What would make no sense is to say "we disagree about the > > > matter of X; therefore, X is subjective". > > > > On Jun 25, 1:22 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Hey Alan, > > > > > I can see by this that what ought not to be is highly subjective. > > > > Abortion, stem cell research are just two cases where differance of > > > > opinion do occour. So If I say neither of these are evil and somebody > > > > disagress with me, then what is the truth of the matter? > > > > > On 25 June, 06:42, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Evil is what ought not be. > > > > > > On Jun 24, 1:51 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > A simple question, or is it?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
