To say an "owl is evil" is to say evil is /not/ a deprivation of some perfection due a thing, but rather than evil is a thing. And we could easilly come up with more modern examples of this view that evil is a thing. The whole euthanasia and population control debates come to mine. But is evil a thing? Or a privation?
On Jun 28, 3:47 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > " 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." > > No, Alan, it does not " simply assert there is no such thing as an > intrinsically evil act." It could be that there are intrinsically > evil acts AND those wherein some are evil and some are not. > > On Jun 28, 6:13 am, 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
