evil God?

[Semalsia]

[quote name='JeffCR07'] If evil is tied to suffering, then there can be no evil where there is not suffering. But this isn't true, as with my Bill Gates example. If a thief steals one dollar from Bill Gates, and he never notices it, then no one suffers, but the action is still evil. Therefore, evil cannot be tied to suffering.[/quote]

I think that evil can only be tied to suffering and not to anything else. I find it hard to justify how anything without suffering could be considered evil. But either way, your example with Bill Gates doesn't work. Even with your own definition of suffering ("Suffering implies either the lack of some good or the [b]prevention of some potentiality[/b]") it's clear that Mr Gates suffers from the theft. Very small amount, yes, but I doubt you would be willing to argue that small evil is not an evil.

[quote name='JeffCR07']I think we can do evil to ourselves[/quote]

I disagree. Accidents are not evil so I would say evil is something that is willed. But if we willfully do something to ourselves, then it must be something desired and thus the very opposite of suffering. Therefore, we can't do evil to ourselves.

Edited June 17, 2006 by Semalsia

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]I think that evil can only be tied to suffering and not to anything else. I find it hard to justify how anything without suffering could be considered evil. But either way, your example with Bill Gates doesn't work. Even with your own definition of suffering ("Suffering implies either the lack of some good or the prevention of some potentiality") it's clear that Mr Gates suffers from the theft. Very small amount, yes, but I doubt you would be willing to argue that small evil is not an evil. [/quote]

This argument commits a logical fallacy. Just because, as I say, suffering [i]implies[/i] a lack of good or the prevention of some potentiality does not mean that suffering is [i]merely[/i] a lack of some good or the prevention of some potentiality. I was not providing a definition of suffering, but rather, was discussing what suffering entails. I would maintain that suffering can be defined as "consciousness of a [i]undesired[/i] lack of good or prevention of potentiality."

This definition seems to square much more with our common sense approach to suffering. When someone is under anesthesia and being cut open, there is most certainly a lack of a good (namely, bodily integrity), but there is no suffering. Similarly, if Bill Gates is totally unaware of any evil that is done to him, he does not [i]suffer[/i], but evil has still been done.

[quote]I disagree. Accidents are not evil so I would say evil is something that is willed. But if we willfully do something to ourselves, then it must be something desired and thus the very opposite of suffering. Therefore, we can't do evil to ourselves.[/quote]

This conclusion only follows from your false identification of suffering and evil. You are correct that evil (at least moral evil) is willed, but evil is not tied to suffering and, as such, we can most certainly do evil to ourselves. For example, a man may desire and give in to lustful thoughts, even though he ought not to have them. The satisfaction of this desire may not bring about suffering, but it does bring about evil. Moreover, it brings about evil only with regards to the man who is thinking those thoughts, and not to anyone else. Thus, the man does evil to himself when he thinks lustful thoughts that he ought not to think.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff