After some consideration I conclude that conscience is not to be trusted as a tool for judging evil or good in the absolute sense: It operates entirely within a framework defined by the society within which an individual has developed and societies vary widely in their values. Not only that: An individual's conscience can be changed abruptly to fit changing societal needs. Killing fellow humans is a dire evil under normal circumstances, but it becomes virtuous when one's country goes to war. Could it be that those veterans suffering from psychological disorders are the ones whose consciences are not flexible?
Seán

I agree with that, Sean. Let me cite one of my favorite examples.

I can't verify that it's true, but the story goes like this. A missionary visits Africa and converts one tribe to Christianity, making them aware of baptism, grace, Heaven, and that the goal in life is live a decent, sin-free, loving life so you will go to Heaven. The chief of the tribe is one of the converts. The missionary leaves, pleased he has spread the Word of his faith as he is compelled to do.

He returns a few months later and finds the chief in the middle of murdering a newborn infant. He's horrified when the chief explains that every newborn infant is baptized and then killed so that the pure infant will be assured of going to heaven, which after all is the goal of life on this earth.

Now, that chief is a baby murderer. But his conscience is clear--he's murdering babies for their own good, based on his beliefs. He's willing to go to Hell for his sin (which he knows is a sin) but hopes that God will forgive him because his motives are loving and compassionate. His conscience is clear.

Jeff

Jeff,
     That infanticidal convert reminds me of Bernard Shaw's Black Girl, which you probably have read. The heroine, also a literal-minded convert, obeys a biblical injunction to the ultimate destruction of the entire religious mythos. But it has a happy ending.
Seán

quote:

Now, that chief is a baby murderer. But his conscience is clear--he's murdering babies for their own good, based on his beliefs. He's willing to go to Hell for his sin (which he knows is a sin) but hopes that God will forgive him because his motives are loving and compassionate. His conscience is clear.

Woa, freakadelic.

The problem with evil is that people perceive it differently. Like Jeff said, he may not be able to describe it but he can sure recognize it. Nicely put, because that is the whole problem with evil. Some people say God decides what is evil, only now you have the problem of finding out what God thinks; so it doesn't seem to improve the confusion. Two people disagreeing about what God thinks about evil are no different than people who see evil differently.

I think the closest we have gotten to agreement so far is among people of similar culture. People of similar culture can look to see underlying principles in the world, and try to find a systematic way to derive good and evil from those. Plato's reasoning is an example of this. While I may disagree with him about some things, mostly it is because I'm from a different culture.

quote:

[...] and that the goal in life is live a decent, sin-free, loving life so you will go to Heaven. [...] the chief explains that every newborn infant is baptized and then killed so that the pure infant will be assured of going to heaven, which after all is the goal of life on this earth.

Now, that chief is a baby murderer. But his conscience is clear--he's murdering babies for their own good, based on his beliefs. [...]

It's hard to believe he could honestly have a clear conscience in that, from a purely human standpoint irrespective of religion. We aren't really that different from each other. But even if he did, sadly his understanding of Christianity is flawed (as is that of the missionary, imo).
--
Stephen

quote:

It's hard to believe he could honestly have a clear conscience in that, from a purely human standpoint irrespective of religion. We aren't really that different from each other.—Stephen

     True. We are all very much alike. Do not forget that many cultures, ours included, have engaged in murders for religious reasons.
Seán

However evil is defined, there are going to be borderline cases where people adamantly disagree with each other about which side something falls on.

IMO though, the "problem of evil" is a result of presupposing that God has direct control over all (or at least the vast majority of) the details. Without that presupposition, the problem isn't nearly as much an issue as it is with it.

On a side note, somebody on a TV show once said "It's not about good. It's not about evil. It's about power."

Henry

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:

quote:

[...] and that the goal in life is live a decent, sin-free, loving life so you will go to Heaven. [...] the chief explains that every newborn infant is baptized and then killed so that the pure infant will be assured of going to heaven, which after all is the goal of life on this earth.

Now, that chief is a baby murderer. But his conscience is clear--he's murdering babies for their own good, based on his beliefs. [...]

It's hard to believe he could honestly have a clear conscience in that, from a purely human standpoint irrespective of religion. We aren't really that different from each other. But even if he did, sadly his understanding of Christianity is flawed (as is that of the missionary, imo).
--
Stephen

I don't agree with that. If someone is brought up from the time of birth to believe that killing babies is a good thing (assuming that they themselves are good babies that shouldn't be killed), why should they think differently? The course of events that led to human progress is really an amazing thing, if you think about it.


Holy Bhagworm

quote:

don't agree with that. If someone is brought up from the time of birth to believe that killing babies is a good thing (assuming that they themselves are good babies that shouldn't be killed), why should they think differently? The course of events that led to human progress is really an amazing thing, if you think about it.


Holy Bhagworm

Precisely.

For so long there were good people who believed and were taught to believe from birth, that slavery was good for blacks because they were in fact, sub-human and incapable of conducting their own lives independent of a master. You may think it was a rationalization but in many instances it was earnestly felt in those indoctrinated so young.

Of course there were Jim Crows who just needed someone to look down upon...still are. Racism has many different facets but I believe the primary one was an evil born of ignorance. Placing myself in the shoes of a black that the former, more benevolent type of racism would be more damaging to the psyche than the latter, Jim Crow type which only inspires anger.

But in terms of measuring evil...They are the same.

Today of course, there is no excuse for such ignorance, "the course of events having led to progress."

Peachy

Peachy,
     We learned quite slowly and (usually) through duress that slavery is wrong. See the timeline. Disguised, it still persists
Seán

quote:

Originally posted by Avenging Peach:

quote:

don't agree with that. If someone is brought up from the time of birth to believe that killing babies is a good thing (assuming that they themselves are good babies that shouldn't be killed), why should they think differently? The course of events that led to human progress is really an amazing thing, if you think about it.


Holy Bhagworm

Precisely.

For so long there were good people who believed and were taught to believe from birth, that slavery was good for blacks because they were in fact, sub-human and incapable of conducting their own lives independent of a master. You may think it was a rationalization but in many instances it was earnestly felt in those indoctrinated so young.

Of course there were Jim Crows who just needed someone to look down upon...still are. Racism has many different facets but I believe the primary one was an evil born of ignorance. Placing myself in the shoes of a black that the former, more benevolent type of racism would be more damaging to the psyche than the latter, Jim Crow type which only inspires anger.

But in terms of measuring evil...They are the same.

Today of course, there is no excuse for such ignorance, "the course of events having led to progress."

Peachy

Why thank you, Miss Peachy. I agree with you almost 100% of the time.

Holy Bhagworm